Support 911Blogger


NC State Physics Professors, All of Them, Refuse to Answer Basic Questions About the Collapse of the WTC Buildings

Over two months ago I sent an email to every full physics professors at North Carolina State University, 37 of them, requesting help in evaluating the information and evidence about the collapse of the WTC on 9/11. I mentioned that I am not an expert in physics, but I have seen many contradictions between the official story of 9/11 and what many have shown to be valid evidence. I gave them some of the sources for the evidence, such as free fall speed of collapse, Jones/Ryan's paper on nanothermite, the molten iron, etc. I explained how very important it is to understand what actually brought down the buildings and clear the air about these contradictions.

It has been over two months, and I have not received any explanations or help in understanding the disconnect between the evidence and the official story. It is odd, though, that within about a half a day, I received two emails, both from professors who told me that they did not have sufficient expertise to help me evaluate the problems I was having understanding the contradictions. One simply told me he knew several people at NIST and knew them to be very good people. The other expressed concern, but could not help because it was not his field of study.
I had to read those letters over again to make sure I was understanding that they really felt they couldn't help because these PHYSICS professors, who have spent their life learning and teaching physics, could not help me with some simple questions about free fall speed, the melting temperature of iron, explosives, and the temperatures that can be reached via open hydrocarbon fires. What a copout.

But, again, it is odd that so soon after I sent my emails, one to each of the physics professors, I got two emails back quickly, and then not one more in almost three months. Did they have a meeting, or pass the word, that all were prohibited from responding? Is this too hot a topic? Do they all feel that they have no responsibility to help the American people know the truth about 9/11? Do they not realize that if they do know the truth, that the official story is a lie, and do not present that information to the American people, then they are complicit in the deaths and maimings of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Can that be called treason?

Below is the email I sent to each physics professor, individually:

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

July 1, 2009

Dear Dr. (Name of one professor.........I sent individual letters to 37 full professors),

I need your help.

I am a sixty year old dentist and father, and I am very troubled with what I have learned recently about the attacks of 9/11, specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center. I have come across information and evidence that seems to prove that the buildings did not collapse because of fire and plane crashes, but instead collapsed because of controlled demolition. I am a skeptical person, but I have a fundamental knowledge of physics, and the explanations blaming the collapse on controlled demolition, seem to make sense.

But I am not an expert in physics. I may be wrong. I hope so. If the official story is wrong, it is of huge importance and very unsettling. I need people with expertise to tell me that what I have learned is wrong, or right. Please take a few minutes to let me know what you think.

One of the most troubling bits of information is that several scientists have found nanothermite, an explosive, in the dust samples taken from the WTC collapse area. Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan and seven other scientists have presented this information in a paper, "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe [The Open Chemical Physics Journal] . " Nanothermite, I have learned, is not produced commercially, and could only come from research centers with some connection with the government and military. I cannot think of any way this material could have been found throughout the area unless it had been placed before the attacks. It seems to show complicity by at least some people linked to an official agency.

Also, it has been shown that the Towers, and Building 7, collapsed at nearly free fall speed. Apparently, only a building brought down via controlled demolition could collapse at that speed and acceleration. NIST, which presented the public with the pancake theory of collapse, has not shown how this free fall could be possible with their explanation of the collapse. A building collapsing onto itself would be far slower, as each floor crashing onto the next would decrease in acceleration as it hit against the next floor down, much of the energy of falling being absorbed in each impact. Why no good explanation of this by the government? Why do we hear nothing from our universities and academic think tanks?

And there are other problems with the official story. There are many eyewitness reports of molten metal in the rubble after collapse, some of it found days and weeks after collapse. Hydrocarbon fires cannot melt steel. The "meteorites" that were found after cooling were iron, and had traces of nanothermite in them. And there were many reports of explosions, some of them sequential. There was a massive amount of "pyroclastic dust" throughout the city. In fact, the collapses seem to exhibit all of the fourteen characteristics of controlled demolition, as presented on the website, www.ae911.org. This website is supported by the signatures of over 700 architects and engineers, all of whom feel the official story is inadequate. They are calling for a new, independent investigation.

The United States is extraordinarily blessed with experts in physics and other related sciences, in our educational institutions and in industry. When I feel certain that these contradictions to the official story are real and disturbing, I wonder why we are not hearing from these scientists. I begin to think I must be wrong about all of it. But the conflicts between science and the official story seem real. And that is why I am so troubled. If the official story is wrong, if there was government complicity, and coverup, the implications are huge. I feel it is important for the scientific community to express their ideas in this important issue.

I am a good American, and not a troublemaker. I spent 36 years in the Navy and National Guard. But I worry about the future if we have been told a lie about 9/11. I only want the truth, because I think the truth will bring a better future for my kids and grandkids. I would deeply appreciate your time in responding to this letter.

Thank you.

(Below I gave my name, degree, address, phone number, and email address. They could not possibly have been unable to get back in touch with me)
PXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXX Rd

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXx

I think you meant ae911truth.org

I don't know if you made the same mistake in your actual letters to the physics professors, but here you are showing www.ae911.org and that is just an Internet news site.

I think you meant the Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth website which is www.ae911truth.org.

you are right.

.

This might present another opportunity

It would only be right and show you to be conscientious if you were to write a short note to each professor explaining that you had a typo on the website you wanted them to look at and give the correct site.

This little error actually allows a natural in for follow-up, so now you have the opportunity to ask them if they have looked into the matter.

By the way, I think your letter was very well written. However, I also think that one does need to realize that physics professors might only see themselves as being able to deal with conservation of mass and energy. They wouldn't necessarily be familiar enough with structural engineering or chemistry to feel confident to speak out publicly.

I am wondering if you could mention something about the Missing Jolt in the north tower. I have the velocity curves for it and also by comparison the velocity curves for a couple of French verinage technique demolitions (where no explosives are used) and they have a very definitive and measureable jolt. All of the curves were measured by a fellow physicist and high school physics teacher David Chandler (who forced the NIST to admit to freefall in WTC 7). Chandler is a graduate of Harvey-Mudd college, which is a prestigious school.

Impulse-momentum and the need for a large kinetic energy transfer, deceleration, and velocity loss, by the impacting object (the upper block) in a natural collapse, would surely be in the purview of these physics professors. With this information included you just might get some responses.

If you want a copy of the velocity curves please e-mail me at tonyszamboti@comcast.net

Ouch. There's your answer.

Ouch. There's your answer. If you can't bother to verify one source of information, why on earth would they trust you with the rest that you have presented. You shattered your own credibility in your letter.

There, now, you sure have figured it all out, Cornelius

You missed the whole point, the overwhelming message that none of the 37 had the least inclination to honestly look into the information or try to help me with the overwhelming contradictions.
With convoluted minds like yours, no wonder the 9/11 movement is in a mess.

Thanks a lot Cornelius...........................what have YOU done for the movement lately?

Hey, I'm just saying that

Hey, I'm just saying that these skeptical brainwashed-highly-educated-liberal-minded people look for any excuse to dismiss something out of hand. That's one fat tamale hanging out there.

liberal minded?

What's that about? They don't seem so liberal minded to me. But I would have to say there isn't enough info to actually comment. The letter seems fine, it's just a letter of inquiry from a concerned citizen looking for help.
What's wrong with being liberal minded anyway?

I don't buy that

His credibility wasn't the issue here. It was his question.

They're supposed to be there to help people. Unless you're looking to sabotage communication, you don't nitpick and hide behind inconsequential mistakes when someone asks you a question.

Common sense, not to mention common courtesy, dictate you forgive the one mistake and get the jist of what the individual's trying to say. They're clearly unwilling to answer him honestly. He gave enough details in the rest of his email that they should have been able to get what he was saying and responded to his inquiry like adults. In the (highly) unlikely event they were confused about the link, they should have asked him.

Maybe not a news site

I think it's a placeholder, and possibly for sale.

There's an "Inquire about this domain" link at the bottom right.

http://www.ae911.org
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/ae911.org
http://whois.domaintools.com/ae911.org

Something Similar Happened to Me

It's like there's been some edict from on high to the relevant disciplines against commenting on this to anyone.

About 2 years ago I picked 12 structural/civil engineers at major universities and sent them a link to Dr. Jones' Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse? I kept it simple, asking only whether they agreed with Dr. Jones' hypothesis or not. I got no replies from any except one who asked me to give him a little info on myself. I gave him a brief bio and never heard from him again.

The answer's simple isn't it? If they come out against the government's 9/11 conspiracy theory they risk their jobs, their tenure, their livelihoods.

That is it, DCRocker. It pervades almost everything in America.

The media, education and academia, the professions of all kinds, small town political leaders, clergy.............all of them have something to lose if they support 9/11 truth, so why bother.
As long as the media keeps the 9/11 real story as a fringe movement, no one feels any need to sacrifice their jobs or reputation in standing up for the truth
It all comes down to the media.
And since we know the msm will not budge, it comes down to Amy (DemocracyNow), Joshua Holland (Alternet), Alexander Cockburn (Counterpunch) and others who have decided to trade honesty and responsibility for safety.

Response is Silence

The lack of a response from all these professors shows a conspiracy to silence any one of them from answering and had to have been ordered. The fact that none answered is an answer - they refuse to counter your excellent arguments with non-truths which they surely would have to cough up without any conviction. So in a sense their silence shows they agree with you..............

That is just how I see it.

If I were a physicist, I can't imagine not having some opinion, and informed opinion, about this subject.
To not be interested enough to respond or help a friendly request shows some real censorship and enforced disengagement.

A big problem is that

getting involved in 911 Truth would end their physics careers. This is how the corruption of 'academic freedom' works:

Universities just love faculty with big contracts - they take a fat percentage ('overhead', maybe 35%) right off the top. Most of these contracts are with the government (NSF, armed forces, etc.) and once they hear a faculty member is involved in 911 issues, no more gov't contracts! Without them, untenured profs would be fired outright, and even tenured profs would be payed badly and overloaded with mundane work, until they want to leave. I've seen it - I used to be one of them.

Just look at the academics who have become involved in 911 - they are usually retired or emeritus.

It is a great tragedy that the academics that should be leaders have instead made themselves slaves.

Thanks for your effort, and I keep trying too. But physics profs often look scared when I speak to them!

Thanks for that. So sad that people..............

.................so intelligent, so talented, are lacking in personal confidence.
They should feel shame.

Hi pfgetty. I think it has

Hi pfgetty. I think it has more to do with a lack of integrity than confidence.

Integrity has always been a rare commodity.

But I don't think your efforts are wasted and the non-responses are more damning than not. I would say there has to be a professor, somewhere, that would give you the time of day.

Keep at it and keep documenting. And make sure you have an off-site external backup of your hard drive.

Hi Centavo.

And thanks.
Hope you are well!
I'd like to do more. In my dreams it would be nice for every single science professor in the land to be put on the spot and forced to either give their explanation, officially, or publicly refuse to answer.

What did you mean by making sure I have an off-site external backup for my hard drive. Why?

Sorry, I didn't mean to

Sorry, I didn't mean to spook you. It's just a practical suggestion with a dash of paranoia thrown in. I have my computer backed-up on an a couple of external drives but also now with a backup service. Crash Plan. These people seem to be the best of the lot that I checked out. I have too many years of work on my computer to lose through some unforeseeable event and if I did I can only imagine the case of shingles I'd end up with.

You know Kevin O does have a point. Approaching these folks with a soft touch and some empathy might go a long way. We should try to put ourselves in their shoes.

That's...

A shame.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

next step?

Have you considered contacting the school's media (newspaper, website, radio) with this? Using their disregard/fear may be a way to introduce the topic on campus and enlighten others who may not have wax in their ears. While there could have been a news story in their response, there is also an equally dark story in their collective non-response.

Maybe start with researching

Maybe start with researching what Kevin O is saying. Follow the money- I'm sure students would want to know about political influence in their funding and education.

That is an excellent idea. But...................

I'm afraid that a school newspaper is probably just as sheepish as the physics department, or as our progressive news outlets in the US.
Still, you don't know what could happen if you don't try.
If it worked, it would be a great way to get the truth out among the students.

That reminds me. I recently was at a sports restaurant at UNC Chapel Hill during a basketball game...................a wild scene as you can imagine.
I met a few seniors who were majoring in "Peace and War", which they informed me is the study of the geopolitical aspects of both. They studied a lot about the war on terror. I asked them how the classes handled 9/11 truth, and I only got blank stares. They honestly didn't have a clue that there was some controversy about the 9/11 official story. I was flabbergasted. I was also disheartened, as I really felt that 9/11 truth would have to have seeped into academia. But I was wrong. They thought the idea of 9/11 truth was just sort of an oddity and seemed humored by it all.
So sad.
So far from the days in college during Vietnam!

Most enduring slogan from

Most enduring slogan from the 60s- if you're not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem.
Your NC actions (and the response you got) illustrate this precisely.
Good luck in your efforts!

BTW

BTW, you may want to re-send the info. Not just because you made an error on the ae911truth link (bummer), but also since it was probably summer vacation for many profs when you originally sent it. Furthermore, if you want to make a story out of their collective non-response, showing that you provided the info twice would only back-up your claims for wanton disregard.

Good letter

Why don't you send a followup, but be more specific about the questions in a way that would employ their talents. If it were me, I would ask them if it were possible to model the collapses in a way where they could be analyzed using some of the advanced formulations of classical mechanics. It might be interesting to say that there are two theories, and that you would like to be able to decide which is correct based on the results of the model. Your letter was excellently writen in my opinion.

A good letter indeed

However, we should always check that the links we add to our emails actually work before sending the messages. This has happened to me in the past.

Correcting the incorrect link gives you good grounds for resending the email with some added information etc.

I think this is an excellent article to link to:

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15201

Physics and Engineering

The corralling of this issue as an "Engineering" problem is used all the time by defenders of the Official lie.

I think it's important to stress that before any Engineering analysis of the demolitions er ... sorry 'collapses' is done, then you have to do the Physics, the Empirical Science comes first.

NIST for example only used 2 data points when they declared that WTC7 fell with a 'constant' velocity, and that a constant velocity was consistent with their modelling. They changed this when it was pointed out to them that any one could measure the actual velocity of the fall, and now they say that free-fall is consistent with their modelling.

Bazant does the same when measuring the Potential Energy for WTC Towers, he takes PE for the intact structure and the PE for the rubble pile after the collapse and concludes that there was more than enough energy to collapse the tower, but this is a "progressive" collapse and so he should have measured the Kinetic and PE throughout the collapse.

I've done this for him here.

http://zkt.blackfish.org.uk/119/Simple_CD_Models_WTC1.pdf.

Structural Engineering has its foundation in Newtonian Mechanics, and so it follows that no Engineering study can be made without doing the Physics first.

I posted the link to your paper at the911forum.freeforums.org

Here.

It'll probably get responses, so please consider joining in order to reply.

http://www.DemocracyABC.org
http://www.therealnews.com
http://www.pdamerica.org

Thanks Metamars

Thanks

You're welcome

You're welcome. Today I also posted a link to a Metamars vs. Ryan Mackey dispute at JREF, which shows why, even if the results are disappointing so far, it's better to focus on getting credentialed scientists who have academic reputations to be concerned about, commenting on science matters, rather than "debunkers" - even debunkers with a scientific background, such as Ryan Mackey. Apparently, the debunker-scientists don't care about their reputations amongst scientists as much as they do about their reputation amongst debunkers, who they can fool much more easily. (Not that that's terribly hard, as debunkerism is akin to irrational religious beliefs. IOW, the more irrational ones don't need to be fooled - their minds will simply filter out contrary arguments and facts, no matter how persuasive or factual.)

In the JREF thread, I showed that the mass advantage of elemental Al, where the Al occurs in planar form vs. the normal spherical form, is 2:1. (A little less in a more realistic scenario, as taking the infinite case allows me to completely ignore corrections for the edges. Also, for the general calculation of the thread I link to, I completely ignored the question of the width of a Si substrate.). IOW, take spheres of Al radius r0, and outer shell of width r1, and fill out X% of 3d space with them. Compare this to filling out X% of 3d space with infinite rectangles (think of infinite ice cream sandwiches) where the distance from the center to the Al - Al-Oxide boundary is r0, and the thickness of the Al Oxide shell is r1. Then you will get about 2x times the amount of elemental Al in the planar case as you will in the spherical case. Assuming available oxygen, in the same form, then you will obviously get 2x the amount of energy released. (The JREF'ers claim that the energy output measured in the Harrit DSC tests exclude nanothermite.)

My argument was basically an exercize in high school geometry, yet NASA scientist Ryan Mackey couldn't get it, even after shown the math. Or pretended not to get it.

As I've said before, more than once - 1) it's better to personally show up at a professor's office, during office hours, and talk to them about the paper, while giving them a physical copy and 2) I really think we should force the issue, by way of school newspapers. We can't force professors to do anything they don't want to do, but we can make it obvious that they are ducking. That could be important to establish if an international investigation is ever done - if it's demonstrated that American professors have a history of hiding from the subject, then including them in any investigation becomes a dubious proposition.

http://www.DemocracyABC.org
http://www.therealnews.com
http://www.pdamerica.org

ETA: changed "persuasive or truthful" to "persuasive or factual"

Metamars,

From reading the forum discussion, I gather the following about nano-thermite:

(1) Due to decreased particle size and therefore increased surface area, there is more aluminum oxide to be 'overcome' during a thermitic reaction than with normal thermite.
(2) Due to decreased particle size, and therefore increased surface area, the reaction will occur faster and more violent. The ignition temperature will be lower.

I believe I was already aware of these two points. Then:

(3) The shape of the aluminum platelets serves to maximize the packing density, therefore allowing more aluminum to be available for reaction
(4) The density fluctuations Dr. Greening talks about are almost irrelevant because they occur after the ignition temperature and near the end of the exothermic peak

In other words, the nano-thermite chips Jones/Harrit et al. found are designed so that they overcome the aluminum oxide 'obstacle' in the best way possible. However, so far this discussion is theoretical, and not confirmed by any published experiments.

Is this correct?

Furthermore, I don't understand this repeated reference to an 'inert gas' environment. If Tillotson didn't conduct his experiment this way (he doesn't say so anywhere in his paper), and if the chips are designed to ignite in air, possibly using gas expansion from the igniting carbon molecules inside the chips for some purpose, then why is this 'inert gas' argument still used?

So far, Mackey's assertions seem to be not only incorrect, but in the broader picture they are also completely irrelevant. Who freaking cares if the energy yield of explosive A is less then incendiary B? The military investigates A because it thinks it's the future of high explosives and/or igniters. A shouldn't be in the WTC dust in the first place should it? By actually discussing this he has acknowledged the existence of nano-thermite, its design, but yet thinks this somehow 'debunks' anything. What a douche.

Nevertheless, thanks for furthering (I hope ;-) my understanding of nano-thermite, metamars.

"(1) Due to decreased

"(1) Due to decreased particle size and therefore increased surface area, there is more aluminum oxide to be 'overcome' during a thermitic reaction than with normal thermite."

Well, I think the main point in terms of a DSC test, where you are concerned about energy density (energy / mass), is that the mass contribution of the Al-Oxide does not contribute, in any way, to the energy released by the thermite reaction. In terms of "overcoming" the energy barrier involved in cracking the Al-Oxide shell, while that is critical (at least, according to melt-dispersion theory) in determining overall reaction rate, I don't think it effects the overall heat energy measured during a DSC, at all.

"(2) Due to decreased particle size, and therefore increased surface area, the reaction will occur faster and more violent. The ignition temperature will be lower"

The r0, r1 values I use imply exactly the same particle width (through the narrowest dimension) as the spherical nanoparticles. It is the other 2 dimensions that get extended, in the planar case. I have argued that the more easily cracked planar morphology of Al-Oxide will lead to a lower ignitioin temperature, but a lower reaction rate. This is the guess of a mildl educated layman, so don't put too much stock in it. But it follows, I believe, straightforwardly from the discussion of the melt-dispersion mechanism (discussed in Andrew Francis' thesis MODELING THE MELT DISPERSION MECHANISM FOR NANOPARTICLE COMBUSTION

"(3) The shape of the aluminum platelets serves to maximize the packing density, therefore allowing more aluminum to be available for reaction"

They absolutely maximize packing density by volume of constituents. Note that I have done my calculations by assuming that the total Al + Al-Ox volume is the same in both planar and spherical case is the same. This is the significant density in terms of a DSC test, because the density of Al and Al-Oxide are roughly equal, so this basically amounts to getting twice as much elemental Al in your powder, for a given weight of that powder.

Density by net volume of your powder, that is not so clear, and probably impossible to calculate, exactly. That is because in a real-life powder, your platelets do not extend infinitely in two dimension, nor do they line up parallel to each other. So, think of a box of 'flat' cheese nips compared to filling that box with smallish peas, where the diameter of the peas is the same as the width of the cheese nips, through their smallest dimension (and assume that your peas and cheese nips are the same densities in their outer shells, and their inner cores.) I assume that there is more 'air' in the box of cheese nips than the smallish peas. I.e., I expect that the pea will fill the boxes volume moreso than the cheese nips. Whether there is enough to outweigth the fact that the volume 'Al interior' of a cheese nip is close to twice as large, proportionately, as the 'Al interior' of a small pea, I'm not sure.

What this means is that the energy density by weight (which is what a DSC measures) of a platelet nanopowder would be more than a spherical nanopowder, but the packing density could be less. Just eyeballing the pictures in the Harrit paper, my guess is that the aluminothermic constituents are not packed particularly closely, so that if you did swap out platelets in favor of spheres, you would lose packing density of Al. If we postulate that the chips really are some sort of aluminothermics nanopowders, for military use, then if we further assume that the material is intended for a limited receptacle (like a bullet nose), then the actual packing density become important. So, it's reasonable to question a military origin of the chips is they are not essentially composites, and don't pack Al as efficiently (by volume) as normal spherical Al nanopowders.

"(4) The density fluctuations Dr. Greening talks about are almost irrelevant because they occur after the ignition temperature and near the end of the exothermic peak"

"Fluctuations" was an unfortunate use of terms,by me. Bascially, the main point that I was getting at was that 1) AFAIK, nobody measure DSC's in terms of weights or densities that pertain after the DSC run begins and 2) the density alteration that Dr. Greening speaks about happens near the ignition temperature, and the exotherm is basically narrow (well, to this layman, it is.) From memory, it only pertains to a fraction of the time that the DSC is run, anyway.

In light of 1) , 2) is probably irrelevant.....

I note that I haven't read Dr. Greening's references, but I hope that if there is any significant correction to be made to my argument from geometry, that he post more details so as to suitably tempt me. Nobody is paying me to spend great gobs of my time on this stuff, it has involved a real sacrifice on my part, so I don't feel guilty about not pursuing every reference, when insufficient motivation is provided.

"In other words, the nano-thermite chips Jones/Harrit et al. found are designed so that they overcome the aluminum oxide 'obstacle' in the best way possible. However, so far this discussion is theoretical, and not confirmed by any published experiments."

Yes, my arguments are theoretical. I am a layman, and so even my "theoretical" arguments should be taken with a grain of salt. However, I like to believe that I wasn't born yesterday, so when somebody makes a statement that strikes me as BS, and I can clearly articulate reasons consistent with the physics and math that I do know as to why they are BS, and all they can do is repeat their debunked 'arguments' and talk down to me - well, let's just say that I'm not impressed.

"Furthermore, I don't understand this repeated reference to an 'inert gas' environment. If Tillotson didn't conduct his experiment this way (he doesn't say so anywhere in his paper), and if the chips are designed to ignite in air, possibly using gas expansion from the igniting carbon molecules inside the chips for some purpose, then why is this 'inert gas' argument still used?"

Here, the debunkers certainly have a point. The burden of proof that the thermitic material is just that is on the Harrit team. Since aluminothermics worthy of the name don't need air to react, then why, indeed, would the Harrit team not have done DSC's in a vacuum? Tillotson's material is clearly not identical to the the Harrit material, so comparisons will be problematic, anyway.

It's possible, I suppose (again, I'm a layman) that the organic binder (which, IIRC, is assumed to be combustible) is actually a key constituent - either as a heat source, or as a source of gas, or both - but that it also designed to be combusted in air, and when you do DSC's in a vacuum, the organic binder hinders the alumino-thermic constituent. In a sense, I'm suggesting that the chips are composites that are too 'fuel-rich' such that their aluminothermic constituents can behave as pure aluminothermic, in a vacuum. This is very speculative on my part - just the sort of question that you would ask an expert.

So, the debunkers have put their finger on a good question, but in their usual, arrogant and dismissive way, allowed their abortive thought process to prevent them from honestly seeking alternatives, and asking the sorts of questions that might help elucidate the matter (either for or against any form of nanothermite, I might add). The simple alternative I suggest - not PURE nanothermite, but a 'fuel rich' composite which cannot produce a DSC consistent with pure nano-thermite, is not the sort of question that they will trouble their minds with. Why should they, since they have convinced themselves that the Harrit chips are paint, even if they still haven't produced any burnable chips that yield microspheres in a DSC?

"So far, Mackey's assertions seem to be not only incorrect, but in the broader picture they are also completely irrelevant."

You have to be a little careful, here. Mackey has asserted some valid facts and observations. It's the conclusions that he draws from his observations and, in particular, the framing he is giving them that give him away not as a dispassionate scientist who has a genuine interest in figuring out what the Harrit chips are, but rather an extremely biassed individual who is unwilling to part even with patently bad arguments. That is not the same as saying that everything he says is wrong. Also, we still don't know whether or not some of the debunker arguments are irrelevant, or not.

"Who freaking cares if the energy yield of explosive A is less then incendiary B? The military investigates A because it thinks it's the future of high explosives and/or igniters. A shouldn't be in the WTC dust in the first place should it?"

Beats me. I'm not committed to any view. It strikes me as completely possible that the materical is "thermitic", but not by design, only incidentally. Couldn't the chips be fragments of some electronic material? A coating, say?

http://www.DemocracyABC.org
http://www.therealnews.com
http://www.pdamerica.org

Thanks

for the elaborate reply, metamars.. I should have replied earlier, but your explanations left little to be desired. I read it, and I was satisfied with all the explanations. Thanks for the useful link (Andrew Francis) , too.

One point though:

Here, the debunkers certainly have a point. The burden of proof that the thermitic material is just that is on the Harrit team. Since aluminothermics worthy of the name don't need air to react, then why, indeed, would the Harrit team not have done DSC's in a vacuum? Tillotson's material is clearly not identical to the the Harrit material, so comparisons will be problematic, anyway.

Well, I would think a thermitic reaction is proof that a material is thermitic, not the precondition of the environment it is ignited in..?...but you allude to that in your next paragraph anyway. I share your thoughts on that (purity), but it hasn't been discussed much, which is why I brought it up. Who knows what Jones & Harrit have discovered in the mean time. What if it really was an igniter for PBX without taggant? Maybe detonation required both heat and pressure, and perhaps this pressure was provided by the organic component? If it was an igniter though, then what caused all those melted and evaporated particles beyond the reach of jet-fuel and office fires if its purpose was to ignite an explosive, not to heat up crucial building supports? A question that lingers.

About Mackey, you said the same things on the 9/11 Free Forums: his rationale may be correct within the confinement of his argument, but it is this confinement itself which is incorrect. I think it's fair to call this a mistake. Furthermore, since I believe that ultimately the only argument from the debunkers could be that the "Jones/Harrit team is lying about iron-rich microspheres not being present in the sample beforehand", their argument is an argument of trust, which is just a total cop out. They are denying the material is thermitic in the first place.

Therefore, on the basis of the unjustified confinement and the weak trust argument, I conclude that Mackey and the others are both wrong and that their assertions are irrelevant, especially if it hinges upon the J/H team lying or not. (This would also include Mark Basile, btw, so this amounts to a conspiracy theory, funny isn't it)

Certainly not everything Mackey says is wrong, but it is exactly this that worries me. He is now, in some cases, perhaps unwittingly, proving the J/H point by semi-seriously engaging in discussion, taking down straw men and closing debunking avenues as he goes along. In some cases, I think he is actually helping 9/11 truth. He's doing our work for us. What was the end result of your discussion with Mackey? Surely it wasn't a "debunking" but instead, a furthering of the understanding of nano-thermite..and a possible explanation for the shape of the platelets!

Lastly: you say:

Couldn't the chips be fragments of some electronic material? A coating, say?

As an IT expert, I must say I've never come across electronic coatings with thermitic properties, and it would be an extreme fire hazard if they actually existed. Interesting question though. I'll ask around. However, Harrit has previously uttered suspicions that the coatings may have been contaminated with primer paint before MEK cleaning. Futhermore, RJ Lee reports lead oxide condensing on to mineral wool. They state this was achieved with extremely high temperatures "during the collapse" instead of "fire-induced". (The iron-rich microspheres they find are low in oxygen, which suggests no oxyacetyline torch was involved, but byproducts of thermite or nano-thermite)These sorts of findings places these "extremely high temperatures" awfully close to steel columns and fireproofing (floors?) if you ask me. Lastly, in general, if nano-aluminum was used in mass production in the computer industry, then why was it so difficult to obtain (in 2001)? Indian Head, Technanogy, limited mass production (but sufficient for 9/11), remember?

BTW, if you are a layman, I am Mickey Mouse. ;-) The term applies to me, not you. I suspect you may be motivated by a healthy combination of curiosity and moral indignation. Being married to a viewpoint because of various forms of bias and ideological baggage doesn't help, so this "dispassionate approach" you speak about, I think it helps to see things more clearly. If ever it turns out the nano-thermite research was all wrong...we must admit it.

I signed up.

Thanks

911forum

Metamars

Just to say I registered for this site 2 weeks ago my account has not been activated.

Can you delete the the post on the forum as I can't defend the paper and no one else will.

Here's what the venerable 'Scientist' David Benson said about the paper.

"newton --- Don't want to waste my time reading garbage.

To solve the simplified problem of a resistive force of (1/3)mg, it is convenient to first "nondimensionalize", actually just change to non-SI units so that the descending mass m is 1, the height h is 1 and the force of gravity g = 1. Then due to the change in height by h=1, the available PE is 1, the KE is (4/9), the energy consumed by the resistive force is (3/9), leaving (2/9) to be consumed in other ways, such as setting cars on fire.

I will repeat again. There is nothing in the computer program which makes any assumption about how (or why) the collapse started. It simply fits the crush-down equation to the available data. In doing so it gives highly satisfactory answers for those who are not physics challenged."

Well reading the second paragraph of this comment it's clear Benson must number himself among the 'physics challenged' Why?

mass m is 1, the height h is 1 and the force of gravity g = 1.

PE available =0 and not PE available = 1 due to the change in height by h=1 as Benson 'calculates' after the drop. Some physicist he is!

Sorry to bring this up here,

metamars please either delete that post or contact the site admin to ask why my membership has not been activated.