9/11, NIST, and Bush Science

[procopia]

(This essay is too long to post many relevant points and documentation. Please follow link)

"In 2005, NIST released the results of their three year investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings on 9/11. I will show that the report uses deceptive and unscientific reasoning to reach untenable conclusions. To prove this, I will use NIST’s own statements and evidence to show their deceptive practices, and that their conclusions are unscientific and contradicted by all or most of the relevant facts.

"I propose the following definition:

"Bush science: an argument that employs the political method with almost no evidence to support it—a predetermined conclusion containing fabricated and practically non-existent evidence—or even contradictory evidence. It can be used to invent a new “scientific reality” where known laws of physics are inconvenient and therefore ignored. An outrageous theory—a theory contradicted by all or most of the relevant facts.

"Bush science possesses next to zero credibility. Indeed, it defies common sense. Bush science is so deceptive that it can only be considered a deliberate and intentional lie. It can consist of most or all of the following:

Predetermined Conclusion

Fabricated Evidence

Relevant Evidence Ignored

Contradictory Evidence Ignored

Laws of Physics Contradicted

Deceptive Experiments

Conclusions Contradicted by All or Most of the Evidence


"The NIST report consists of all of the above; therefore, it is Bush science. Consequently, it is not credible and should be rejected as a false explanation for why the WTC towers were completely destroyed. I will examine NIST’s own statements and “scientific” evidence to demonstrate this."

http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/search?q=NIST+scientists#_edn3

[Bolo Boffin]

1. Is there any reason you wouldn't just call this "junk science"?

There is nothing inherently political in any part of your definition. Only your own political bias makes you say "Bush science."

If it's bad science, which you're trying to imply, then all you have to do is show that it's bad or junk science. The reason driving the junk science (the politics) is irrelevant.

[KDLarsen]

2. Incidently..

The list shown accurately describes about 99% of the truther arguments :eyes:

[procopia]

3. You're broad brushing

There are many factions of the truth movement, and a wide variety of theories. Many truthers are in disagreement with each other and most agree only that the OCT is unlikely or impossible.

[SDuderstadt]

4. This has to be the most unintentionally ironic post of some time...

"broadbrushing"

[lovepg]

59. Again thats your CLAIM prove that it indeed is the most....

Unitentionally ironic post of all time. I mean Bush alone has to have at least ten in my opinion that would chrush this statement.

[SDuderstadt]

60. Dude...that's an opinion, not a claim...

if I say ''red is the best color'', is that a claim? Hint: no, because it is not intended as a statement of fact. It is also not falsifiable.

Half of these silly exchanges are generated by your lack of knowledge of topics you attempt to discuss. Again, you would benefit a great deal from classes in critical thinking. Your local community college will have them.

[SDuderstadt]

98. You might have been thrown off by the word...

"post". Unless W somehow posted here, I don't think he would be in the running.

See, this is yet another example where you simply don't understand what you're trying to read, then post some totally disjointed response.

[procopia]

5. Yes, a good reason...

Junk science is just bad science. Bush science distorts scientific results for politcal ends, and the Bush administration has been widely criticized for it.

[Bolo Boffin]

8. So any science distorted for political reasons is "Bush science"?

Are the Bushs the only people capable of twisting science for political ends? No.

The term "junk science" is perfectly adequate for dealing with science being distorted for any reason whatsoever. Isolating "Bush science" is simply a tactic you are using to smear your discussion opponents.

[procopia]

13. Just the twisted science during Bush's term by his administration

Of course, anyone is capable of distorting science for political ends, but Bush took this practice to new heights. So much so, that concerns were published in scientific journals:

"However, leading scientific journals have questioned whether scientific integrity at federal agencies has been sacrificed to further a political and ideological agenda. As the editor of Science wrote in early 2003, there is growing evidence that the Bush Administration “invades areas once immune to this kind of manipulation.”

In August 2003, at the request of Rep. Henry A. Waxman, the Democratic staff of the Government Reform Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives assessed the treatment of science and scientists by the Bush Administration. The resulting report -- Politics and Science in the Bush Administration -- found numerous instances where the Administration has manipulated the scientific process and distorted or suppressed scientific findings. These actions go far beyond the typical shifts in policy that occur with a change in the political party occupying the White House."

From another source:

"UCS (Union of Concerned Scientists) issued a previous complaint in February with 62 signatures but has amassed over 4,000 signatures for its latest report released this month. The signers include 48 Nobel laureates, 62 National Medal of Science recipients and 127 members of the National Academy of Sciences.
"The actions by the Bush administration threaten to undermine the morale and compromise the integrity of scientists working for and advising America’s world-class governmental research institutions and agencies," UCS said. "Not only does the public expect and deserve government to provide it with accurate information, the government has a responsibility to ensure that policy decisions are not based on intentionally or knowingly flawed science. To do so carries serious implications for the health, safety, and environment of all Americans."

[Bolo Boffin]

14. As I said, this is a distinction you are only making to smear your discussion opponents. n/t

[LARED]

6. It amazing how CT'er can never seem to understand

the purpose of the NIST reports.

[Kalun D]

7. Purpose

""the purpose of the NIST reports.""

N-ot
I-ntended to
S-how the
T-ruth

[hack89]

9. So why have the global engineering and science communities been so silent on the issue?

The NIST studies have tremendous policy and financial implications for the entire world. It will cost global insurance companies and developers billions. This is a big deal - if the science behind the NIST reports was so obviously flawed, why don't we hear anything from the rest of the world?

[LARED]

10. This ties in with my earlier post

CT'ers have no clue what the NIST report represents or why it was done. I can only assume that because it's called an investigation, they think it's an investigation like you see on the TV.

Your point also highlights the lack of depth in the CT'er community regarding technical expertise. Real engineers and scientists understand the goals and limits of the reports and only see an extensive, well done (allthrough imperfect) technical report that is far more influential than CT'er could ever imagine. To them it's just a whitewash to cover Bush

Reading the OP's link, it is plain the guy is articulate but clueless regarding a genuine understanding of the NIST reports.

[procopia]

11. We do hear from the rest of the world.

It just isn't publicized in the MSM.

[SDuderstadt]

12. Do you have any proof of that?

Well, do you?

[vincent_vega_lives]

19. So contact one of these so called

"rest of the world" and get their objections first hand.

[spooked911]

95. peer pressure and professional concerns

questioning the official story is not going to help anyone get ahead in their career-- likely it will do the opposite

this is obvious

there are of course many who do speak out, and of course you ignore them

as far as the NIST recommendations, I think you're looking at it the wrong way. Plus, there are people who are resisting some of the recommendations.

[Bolo Boffin]

96. Bullshit.

Finding scientifically valid ways to question the official story has led to every scientific breakthrough and made careers.

The trick there, spooked, is "scientifically valid". That your nuke hypothesis doesn't have.

[spooked911]

108. this is a different situation and you know it

what could be a deeper, blacker secret than that the towers were nuked by our govt?

[AZCat]

102. ...says the outsider.

There is practically no peer pressure regarding "alternative" conspiracy theories about September 11th in the professional engineering community. It is, if anything, a sidebar discussion.

[spooked911]

109. If they are discussing it

there must be some controversy worthy for their discussion. But "sidebar" is the key. The question is-- who is going to get PAID to get into the conspiracy aspects?

[AZCat]

121. By "sidebar"...

I meant the issues concerning building and fire safety that have been raised by various parties (including Quintierre and Astaneh-Asl) but generally are ignored by the majority of the "truth movement".

It seems that with your rhetorical question you're moving the goalposts. You claimed in post #95 that the global engineering and scientific communities have been silent about September 11th conspiracy theories because of "peer pressure and professional concerns". This is untrue. You now claim it is because we aren't paid to talk about them. I guess the only reason that it can't be is because we consider most of them ridiculous. :eyes:

[SDuderstadt]

123. "Truther Logic"

Me: "Why aren't structural engineers and architects coming forward in droves and exposing what you claim are fatal flaws in the NIST Report?".

"Truther": "They aren't coming forward because of peer pressure and they are being intimidated to remain silent.".

Me: "Can you prove your allegation of peer pressure and your accusation they are being intimidated into silence?".

"Truther": "Yeah, they're not coming forward.".

Me: "Nevermind.".

[spooked911]

132. this is what you wrote--

"There is practically no peer pressure regarding "alternative" conspiracy theories about September 11th in the professional engineering community. It is, if anything, a sidebar discussion."

Now you say "By "sidebar"... I meant the issues concerning building and fire safety that have been raised by various parties (including Quintierre and Astaneh-Asl) but generally are ignored by the majority of the "truth movement".

But you are the one who has clearly moved the goalpost.


And the fact is that *I* am a member of the "global engineering and scientific" community. And I can attest that there is absolutely no benefit to doing conspiracy research. No one gets paid to do this kind of research. It's not going to help you get grants, and if you teach it to students, you have a good chance of getting into trouble.

It's somewhat akin to pushing for the public health care option. It may be best for everyone, but it's going up against very powerful forces and there is little monetary benefit to spending a great deal of time working for it.

And professional scientists have careers and families to worry about.

[SDuderstadt]

133. Umm, Spooked...

No one believes you are part of the "global engineering and scientific" community. If you were, you wouldn't push the utter nonsense that you do.

[Bolo Boffin]

15. What if this had been "Bush science"?

George Bush orders a study on the WTC dust. He does so by stating upfront he's looking for samples that could confirm there was no evidence of demolition at the WTC, effectively avoiding double-blind methods. He receives four individual samples, at least two of which come from confirmed "911 debunkers." One was alleged to be collected minutes after the collapse, two a day later, and one over a week later.

Seven of the most vocal Scientists that happen also to be "911 Debunkers" are rounded up by George Bush, bypassing a blind study entirely, with the study concluding there was exotic material found, but no evidence of incendiaries. To make it worse, we find out there are 20 years of undocumented chain of custody in regards to these samples, the testimony is conflicting and the date of one of the samples was said to be received in 2008, when there's video footage of George Bush's scientist talking about how it is already being examined in 2007.

Goodness... of course the Journal this was published in is under serious scrutiny by the Scientific community for its peer-review methods, publishing a hoax article that was submitted to test the system, and it's a you-pay-them, they-publish-you revenue model. Further, the editor of this Journal resigned right after, stating that it was snuck into the publication without her knowledge.

And of course, if that wasn't enough... an old college buddy of George Bush was on the editorial advisory board when the article was published, making him qualified to be the one to anonymously referee the paper. He also resigned shortly after stating it had "nothing to do with the paper"... and that's not even starting on the scientific criticisms of the conclusion.

If this had been an example of Bush Science, you guys would be howling about this atrocity of a paper being passed off as science. But it's not George Bush doing this at all -- it's a description of how Neil Herrit and Steven Jones got their paint chip paper published.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=148563

"Junk science" is an apt enough expression to describe bad science like the Herrit nanothermite paper.

[LARED]

16. Well done. nt

[procopia]

18. Patting each other's backs

One of Dr. Frank Greening's complaints about JREFers.

[Bolo Boffin]

21. Yes, the patting of backs shall henceforth be banned.

There shall be no simple acknowledgment of what someone believes to be a good job. Yes, Frank Greening is right about this evil scourge afflicting the land. :eyes:

[LARED]

24. You have to admit the post was well worth an acknowledgment.

By the way I am not a member of JREF.

[procopia]

17. Four paragraphs of JREF BS

followed by the only relevant statement made by deRoy, "and that's not even starting on the scientific criticisms of the conclusion."

Weren't we talking about the quality of the science?

[Bolo Boffin]

20. Ah, I see the pattern now.

"Bush science" and now "JREF BS".

[procopia]

22. That particular post

was BS. Was that the best you could find to cut and paste? You deserved a "well done" for cutting and pasting?

[Bolo Boffin]

23. How exactly is it bullshit?

It's a step-by-step turnaround of the actual process used by Herrit and Jones to get that crap paper published. Would you care to demonstrate which of the elements is wrong?

[procopia]

25. Which of the elements? It's ALL wrong

My demonstrative comments are in parentheses:

George Bush orders a study on the WTC dust. (As opposed to NIST which has steadfastly refused to test for explosives.) He does so by stating upfront he's looking for samples that could confirm there was no evidence of demolition at the WTC, effectively avoiding double-blind methods. (Jones said upfront he needed samples to determine the whole of the truth. That’s somehow nefarious?) He receives four individual samples, at least two of which come from confirmed "911 debunkers." One was alleged to be collected minutes after the collapse, two a day later, and one over a week later. (Is the implication that “911 debunkers”—not an accurate description, btw--are not to be trusted? Is the implication that the four samples, all from different locations and individuals, were all contaminated in the exact same way?)

Seven of the most vocal Scientists that happen also to be "911 Debunkers" are rounded up by George Bush, (Who did you expect would collaborate with Jones on this study, Bazant?) bypassing a blind study entirely, with the study concluding there was exotic material found, but no evidence of incendiaries (Is this a reference to a private study commissioned by an insurance company? If so, did the researcher find red/gray chips? Could red/gray chips be exotic material? Were they even tested for incendiary properties?) To make it worse, we find out there are 20 years of undocumented chain of custody in regards to these samples, (except that Jones’ samples were documented for chain of custody, including affidavits) the testimony is conflicting and the date of one of the samples was said to be received in 2008, when there's video footage of George Bush's scientist talking about how it is already being examined in 2007. (“The provenance of the dust is not in doubt and can if necessary be compared with dust samples collected by official agencies that refused to analyze their contents.” http://www.911blogger.com/node/19999 )

Goodness... of course the Journal this was published in is under serious scrutiny by the Scientific community for its peer-review methods, (Goodness, if only NIST was actually required to publish its results in a journal where it could actually be peer-reviewed, with full disclosure of methods and calculations, and followed up by rebuttal papers. Bentham is under scrutiny by those attempting to discredit the thermitic materials paper, not the entire scientific community) publishing a hoax article (it was published? Check your facts) that was submitted to test the system, and it's a you-pay-them, they-publish-you revenue model. (Open access journals are common in the publishing field, they are not considered vanity journals.)

Further, the editor of this Journal resigned right after, stating that it was snuck into the publication without her knowledge. (She didn’t state the paper was “snuck into” the publication. She lied about her qualifications to review the paper—why?)

And of course, if that wasn't enough... an old college buddy of George Bush was on the editorial advisory board when the article was published, making him qualified to be the one to anonymously referee the paper. He also resigned shortly after stating it had "nothing to do with the paper"...(And?)

and that's not even starting on the scientific criticisms of the conclusion. (When can we get to those, in the form of an actual journal published rebuttal paper?)

[AZCat]

26. It's amusing to me...

to see how far you will stretch to defend a paper that is complete garbage.

[procopia]

27. So you've written your rebuttal paper?

:shrug:

[AZCat]

29. To what - the Jones/Harrit paper?

The only thing that piece of shit merits is gales of laughter.

[procopia]

30. Unless you thought I was defending the NIST report

Specifically, what are your scientific criticisms of the Harrit paper?

[Bolo Boffin]

31. You know good and well what the scientific criticisms of the Harrit paper are.

Particularly since you participated in a thread that discussed them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=240060

Stop your silly pretense that you've never heard any scientific criticisms of the paper. It's things like your pretense that shows 9/11 Truth to be a farce.

[AZCat]

32. Thank you, Bolo Boffin.

It's responses like procopia's that make Groundhog Day comparisons to the "truth movement" so apt.

[procopia]

33. I meant real scientific criticisms backed by real research

Not, "the chips look like paint."

[AZCat]

34. Why should we go to that trouble...

when it's obvious Jones and Harrit didn't bother? Oh wait - your religion doesn't provide for flaws in St. Jones's and St. Harrit's work.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AZCat]

36. Having difficulty with comprehension, are we?

Maybe you should try working around your obvious, crippling bias.

[procopia]

37. Speak for yourself

Get back to me when you have something besides lies, character assassination and ad homs. None of those qualify as scientific criticisms.

[AZCat]

38. Considering that I already did that...

and you had no substantive response, why would I do it again? Face it - Jones and Harrit wrote a paper that is quite worthless (for reasons that have been pointed out time and time again by me and by many others, here and elsewhere), and your continued zealotry on their behalf is increasingly ludicrous, if not pitiful. Why don't you go back to "baking cookies for truth" or whatever it is you non-sciency people do when you're not posting gibberish on internet forums?

[procopia]

39. You already did that? I guess I missed it...

What was your research-based criticism again?

[AZCat]

40. I don't think you did...

considering you were a participant in the discussion. Too bad your memory sucks as badly as your understanding of science.

[procopia]

41. Just show me your research-backed criticisms

because I certainly have never seen them. Maybe we disagree on what constitutes "research-backed criticisms."

[AZCat]

42. You hit the Trifecta!

Poor reading comprehension, poor memory, and poor grasp of scientific principles. Way to go, procopia! I bet your parents are really proud.

[procopia]

43. Thanks for verifying

that you can't produce valid research-based criticisms. Insults and lies are all you have. But then, we knew that all along.

[AZCat]

44. Poor procopia.

Your willful ignorance would be pitiful if you weren't so arrogant. Perhaps one of these days you will manage to remove the blinders.

[procopia]

45. See post #43

:eyes:

[AZCat]

46. See all my previous posts which you seem to have missed...

the first time around (even though you responded to them).

[eomer]

49. Which "scientific criticisms" in that paper are you standing by?

There was a good bit of back and forth discussion. Do you have a refined list of criticisms that you feel still stand up? Or do you continue to posit all the criticisms contained in that thread?

For example, do you stand by your response in this exchange as being one of the "scientific criticisms" that we should all be aware of?

CrawlingChaos
395. speaking of serious flaws...

In case you missed it, someone has asked Steven Jones about this image you keep posting all over the place and his response was posted in another forum. He says your NIST photo only provides further evidence this is NOT the same substance since according to the label, it has been exposed to greater than 650 C, and Jones' red-grey chips ignite below 450 C. They're not the same.

Bolo Boffin
396. Wow. He might have a point.

Except --

Have any tests been done on the peeling paint to see if they NOW ignite at 450 C? Fire changes things chemically. You are looking at something in the NIST picture that has been changed from what it used to be.

And since the mechanism of transformation was heat energy, that would make the paint MORE susceptible to lower temperatures. Professor Jones knows this if he's a competent scientist. He's pulling your leg.

Take a piece of paper. Gently tug on the top two corners, not enough to tear it. You can feel how much stress you're putting on the paper, though.

Now touch the top two corners and fold the paper sharply. Fold the paper back and forth along this fold line, pressing the fold down firmly each time.

Now take the same corners and pull again. You'll find that you can't use the same amount of force. If you start to, you'll rip the paper in half.

The same principle applies here. The paint was put onto the steel to protect it. It was able to withstand those high temperatures, but there is no reason to expect that you could take a scrap of that same paint now and have it withstand the same high levels of temperatures. Steven Jones knows this. He is deceiving you.

Do not be deceived by Steven Jones.

The science you've applied in that response is roughly at the same level as the "if she weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood" scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

Another "scientific criticism" in that thread is the comparison of the spectra of elements between the red/grey chips and thermite. You conclude that there are differences between the two spectra and therefore the chips aren't thermite. But this analysis is grossly flawed, scientifically. It is based on an implicit assumption that all thermite has the same chemical composition, an assumption that is patently false. There are many different ways to put together a compound that is thermite. Not only can there be many different superfluous ingredients -- contaminants that do not add to the thermitic nature of the compound but also do not interfere with it -- but there are also different basic ingredients that can be combined to make thermite:

Thermite is a pyrotechnic composition of a metal powder and a metal oxide, which produces an aluminothermic reaction known as a thermite reaction. It is not explosive, but can create short bursts of extremely high temperatures focused on a very small area for a short period of time.

Thermites can be a diverse class of compositions. The fuels are often aluminium, magnesium, calcium, titanium, zinc, silicon, and boron. The oxidizers can be boron(III) oxide, silicon(IV) oxide, chromium(III) oxide, manganese(IV) oxide, iron(III) oxide, iron(II,III) oxide, copper(II) oxide, and lead(II,II,IV) oxide.<1>

The most common thermite is aluminium-iron(III) oxide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite

Another of your "scientific criticisms", repeated a couple of times in that thread is the following:

So Steven Jones and crew are 100% saying explosives? Well, they have a problem. Since seismographs do not record explosives of a size necessary to cut the columns (and they would have), any explosive device (using super-thermite or not) could not have been used. The seismographs are POSITIVE EVIDENCE that no explosive devices whatsoever were used. Nada. Zilch. El Ziperino, if you're not into that whole brevity thing.

I don't see the science supporting this conclusion about seismic readings, but maybe I'm missing it. Where is the scientific analysis of various types of explosives and explosions, how and to what extent they would (or would fail to) transmit through the building structure into the ground and, in the end, whether they would actually be detectable by seismographs? I note that Ghost in the Machine provided a counter argument (see post #209) that wasn't really responded to. The basis for your assertion seems to come from a paper by Brent Blanchard:

This evidence makes a compelling argument against explosive demolition. The laws of physics dictate that any detonation powerful enough to defeat steel columns would have transferred excess energy through those same columns into the ground, and would certainly be detected by at least one of the monitors that were sensitive enough to record the structural collapses.

Blanchard doesn't bother to actually do the science (or if he does he does not give us any information about what he did). He just seems to believe that if he did it it would come out the way he says it would. This is not how science is done. His "on a napkin" level of analysis is clearly flawed. He assumes that if the energy of a 100 story skyscraper falling would create a detectable seismic event then the energy required to defeat one column would create a detectable seismic event. But clearly the amount of energy in the former would be many orders of magnitude greater than that of the latter, so it's totally unclear why he thinks his conclusion follows.

It is not possible to "know good and well" which scientific criticisms in that thread you refer to and would be willing to defend, unless you meant to include all of them.

[Bolo Boffin]

50. You handwave and build straw men so well! n/t

[eomer]

51. Let's take one of my points and see if it is either hand waving or a straw man.

My point:

Another "scientific criticism" in that thread is the comparison of the spectra of elements between the red/grey chips and thermite. You conclude that there are differences between the two spectra and therefore the chips aren't thermite. But this analysis is grossly flawed, scientifically. It is based on an implicit assumption that all thermite has the same chemical composition, an assumption that is patently false. There are many different ways to put together a compound that is thermite. Not only can there be many different superfluous ingredients -- contaminants that do not add to the thermitic nature of the compound but also do not interfere with it -- but there are also different basic ingredients that can be combined to make thermite.

Is it hand waving? Hand waving means using a bunch of words that sound good but fail to put forth a substantive argument or to actually address the question.

But the substantive argument is clearly there in my point. It is that you have only demonstrated that the chip sample does not match just one particular sample of thermite but have not, as you claim, ruled out thermite in general. Your broader claim is obviously false since there are many different ways to make thermite and many different chemical signatures of compounds that are thermite. Therefore, showing that the chip sample does not match just one instance of thermite shows only that it does not match that one instance of thermite. It does not show that it would not match any one of a large number of other ways that thermite can be made. Not only did I provide a substantive argument, it is an argument that shows your point is plainly and obviously false.

Is my point a straw man? It is a straw man only if I made up the point that I attributed to you and then refuted. But here is the direct quote of your point and it is clear that you did make the point that I attributed to you:

The red spectra is from Jones' paint chips. The orange spectra (reproduced twice) is of thermite. These spectras show which elements are in a sample and how much of each element is there (as opposed to a powder diffusion test that will show the presence of actual compounds and their quantities).

The arrows are comparing the heights of various element spikes. As you can see, various elements are present in both spectra, but they are hardly a match. This means that Jones' chips are not thermite.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=240060&mesg_id=240860">Post #342

[Bolo Boffin]

55. The chips are substantially different from thermite and quite similar to paint. n/t

[eomer]

62. You are on a roll with your "weighs the same as a duck" principle.

You cannot prove that a substance is thermite or is not thermite by weighing it, nor can you prove it is or isn't by a gross comparison of elements.

There are some cases, obviously, where you can rule out a compound being thermite by learning that it has none of the elements that would be needed to constitute thermite. A compound must at least contain one metal that is oxidized and another metal that is not oxidized for it to be thermite. Therefore, a compound must have at least oxygen plus two different metals in its spectra in order to be thermite. The condition I just described is necessary but not sufficient for a compound to be thermite.

Once you've got the three basic elements required to make thermite, I don't see how it is obvious without experimenting to say which other substances could be added in without interfering with the thermitic reaction.

Harrit et al looked at the spectra of elements in the chips to determine whether they contained the necessary elements to constitute thermite. They found that the chips did contain oxygen, iron, and aluminum and concluded that the chips therefore might be thermite.

Finding those elements (or other ones that would fit the condition) was required but not sufficient so they didn't stop at that point. Rather, they looked for experiments they could run that would determine whether a thermitic reaction could be induced. They found, tentatively, that a thermitic reaction could be induced. They heated the material and noted an energetic reaction similar to that of thermite.

Another thing that Harrit et al looked at in trying to determine whether the compound was thermite was the distribution of the elements within the compound. For it to be thermite, the oxygen would need to be bound with the iron (iron oxide) and the aluminum would need to be not bound with oxygen (not oxidized). They ran tests to try to determine this and found that there were different types of particles within the compound that had different compositions. There were small particles that were high in iron and oxygen and most likely contained iron oxide. There were other particles that were plate-like and were high in aluminum and silicon. The plate-like particles also contained oxygen to a lesser degree. Whether the oxygen in the plate-like particles was bound to the aluminum or to the silicon or to both might affect whether or not the compound was thermite. They were not able to answer this particular question, so far.

As I've said, you can't determine whether a compound is thermite by the gross science that you propose. You have to drill further into it to learn more about the elements, how they are distributed within the compound, and how they will interact with each other. Your science is, in this case just like in the case of heating substances, at about the same level as the "weighs the same as a duck" science of Sir Bedevere the Wise.

By the way, the categories of paint and thermite are not mutually exclusive as your post implies they are. Thermite can be in a form that can be painted on. So a particular compound can be both thermite and paint.

[Bolo Boffin]

65. Jones could have spent $40 to determine actual compounds in his paint chips.

However, he relied on a "gross comparison of elements", something you say wouldn't prove it one way or the other.

Jones fails. You fail by supporting Jones.

[eomer]

68. What is the test he could have gotten for $40?

Jones and Harrit didn't rely just on that one test.

But, anyway, what is the test they could have gotten for $40 and what would it have told them that they didn't find out from one of the tests that they did run?

[Bolo Boffin]

70. XRD - it would have told them compound composition

Not the elemental shell game Jones and Harrit like to play.

[eomer]

73. "XRD and TEM analyses are underway."

Excerpt from an exchange between Prof. Ola Nilson and Prof. Steven Jones (Nilson comments in blue, Jones response in black):

UPDATE 05/31/09:

-snip-

More work on the gray layer would have been valuable. As stated earlier, this seems to be the most likely candidate behind the attraction of the chips toward the magnet. The XEDS spectra in Fig. 6 show iron, oxygen an a little carbon. As mentioned earlier, the most likely phases making them attractive to a magnet are magnetite (Fe3O4) or metallic iron. There has been no attempt to quantify the iron to oxygen ratio, but if they are compared with Fig. 21, where iron to oxygen is reported to be two to one, it seems that the oxygen content is much lower in the grey layer. It therefore seems likely that the grey layer is a low-alloyed steel. This could have been confirmed by XRD analyses.

XRD and TEM analyses are underway. I agree that these are important further tests.

I feel that knowledge of the nature of the gray layer can be vital in an understanding of the nature and origin of the red/grey chips.

The work on the red layer seems adequate. As the authors point out, analysis of very small particles give signals from the matrix. Analysis of samples with topography will also give rise to stray radiation besides that the quantification algorithms for flat surface will not be correct. The qualitative information seems to be rather well extracted.

The struggle to prove the nature of the aluminum-rich platelets could possibly be solved by powder XRD or most likely by transmission electron microscopy (TEM).

Thank you – and again, XRD and TEM analyses are underway and I agree that these are important further tests.

-snip-

http://zelikow.wordpress.com/2009/05/22/norwegian-state-radio-initiates-public-debate-on-911-truth/

[Bolo Boffin]

74. 5/31/2009 - 7/26/2009 -- XRD analyses aren't that hard. n/t

[eomer]

79. There would naturally be some time taken to publish the results.

They are not going to just dump out the raw test results. They are doing analyses and writing a report.

Spectroscopic techniques are often used in examination of the organic components in paint. That would have been a natural extension of this work, but is not presented in the experimental in the article. However, on page 26 1st columns they tell us that Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) has been applied. No information on the findings is given, and it seems a little sad to leave out that part given the struggle that has been put into examination of the red material.

You are right that considerable “struggle that has been put into examination of the red material” — motivated in part by a very diligent peer-reviewer. As we stated:

“The Gash report describes FTIR spectra which characterize this energetic material. We have performed these same tests and will report the results elsewhere.”

This paper is nearing completion and will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. I am more involved in the TEM and XRD studies which are also being vigorously pursued. Note that this research is essentially pro-bono; we do not have a grant for these studies.

http://zelikow.wordpress.com/2009/05/22/norwegian-state-radio-initiates-public-debate-on-911-truth/

[Bolo Boffin]

81. NATURALLY.

The shell game continues.

[eomer]

85. Shell game? I guess the facts don't like you so you'll pound the podium some more.

Harrit, Jones, et al were the very first ones to say that their studies were not yet complete. They have corresponded with other scientists who had criticisms of their work to openly discuss the areas that were lacking in their earlier studies, what further tests they are working on, and what further analyses might be called for.

The period of time since their last paper is not unreasonable, especially given the critical hoards who are waiting to jump on their every word and the publishing process that they use. You can't have it both ways -- you can either demand due diligence and adherence to thorough process or you can demand rapid-fire results. It makes no sense to demand both.

[Bolo Boffin]

87. Opening the envelope and reading the results would have confirmed or denied their results like that.

No excuses for this delay.

[eomer]

90. So now you advocate that they should not get peer review?

You demand that they spew out raw results everytime they have some? That is obviously a ridiculous expectation on your part.

Presumably they do know some results. Of course, there would normally be an iterative process wherein the results of one test are suggestive of further tests, and so on. It would be normal for them to go through some period of testing and analysis driving toward conclusions. Sometime during or following this cycle of analysis they would need time to write it up. It would not be normal for them to spew out intermediate results every time they have some.

This is a ridiculous argument.

[Bolo Boffin]

93. They haven't gotten peer review YET. n/t

[LARED]

106. Saying oops, we made up a bunch of nonsense

does not take much of an "iterative process."

[eomer]

52. Let's take another one.

Your point, followed by my original response:

Bolo Boffin
396. Wow. He might have a point.

Except --

Have any tests been done on the peeling paint to see if they NOW ignite at 450 C? Fire changes things chemically. You are looking at something in the NIST picture that has been changed from what it used to be.

And since the mechanism of transformation was heat energy, that would make the paint MORE susceptible to lower temperatures. Professor Jones knows this if he's a competent scientist. He's pulling your leg.

Take a piece of paper. Gently tug on the top two corners, not enough to tear it. You can feel how much stress you're putting on the paper, though.

Now touch the top two corners and fold the paper sharply. Fold the paper back and forth along this fold line, pressing the fold down firmly each time.

Now take the same corners and pull again. You'll find that you can't use the same amount of force. If you start to, you'll rip the paper in half.

The same principle applies here. The paint was put onto the steel to protect it. It was able to withstand those high temperatures, but there is no reason to expect that you could take a scrap of that same paint now and have it withstand the same high levels of temperatures. Steven Jones knows this. He is deceiving you.

Do not be deceived by Steven Jones.

The science you've applied in that response is roughly at the same level as the "if she weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood" scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

So does my original post (excerpted just above) constitute hand waving and a straw man?

It can't be a straw man since I quoted you directly.

Is it hand waving? I would say that arguably it is hand waving on your part. Particularly this piece of it:

And since the mechanism of transformation was heat energy, that would make the paint MORE susceptible to lower temperatures. Professor Jones knows this if he's a competent scientist. He's pulling your leg.

Really? So heating a substance will necessarily make it "MORE susceptible to lower temperatures"? Clearly that would not always be the case. For example, heating could potentially (depending on the paint and the way that heat is applied) drive out (cause to evaporate) certain volatile elements of paint and could possibly leave a paint chip less susceptible to lower temperatures rather than more susceptible. The effect that heat would have on dried paint would depend on the particular paint and the particular way that heat was applied to it. Your claim that it would definitely make it more susceptible to lower temperatures is clearly not supported by any science that is close enough on point -- so it is hand waving.

[Bolo Boffin]

56. The straw man is the "looks like a duck" summation. My argument is nothing of the sort. n/t

[eomer]

61. That is not what "straw man" means.

A straw man is putting words into your opponents mouth -- falsely attributing an argument to your opponent.

Clearly in my "weighs the same as a duck" comment I was saying what I think about your argument. I was not falsely attributing any argument to you.

And I reiterate that your argument is about as sound as the "weighs the same as a duck" argument in the Holy Grail. Using the principle that you developed from your paper experiment I can conclude that repeatedly chilling water will make it more susceptible to freezing, a result that is obviously false.

So your paper experiment clearly cannot be used to demonstrate that heating any and every substance will always make it more susceptible to combustion.

In fact, I'm pretty sure that there are substances in the overall universe that will fall into all three of the following categories:

1. Heating some substances will make them more susceptible to combustion
   
2. Heating some substances will make them less susceptible to combustion
   
3. Heating some substances will not affect their susceptibility to combustion

I claim that there will likely be substances that fall into each one of those three categories.

You claim that all substances will always fall into category (1).

You cannot resolve this controversy by conducting an experiment involving folding a piece of paper and finding that it becomes more susceptible to tearing. In saying that you can, the level of your science is in fact no better than the "if it weighs the same as a duck" science of Sir Bedevere the Wise (an ironic title).

The experiments you would need in order to resolve that controversy would clearly be experiments where you heat different substances and test their combustibility both before and after heating.

To attempt to bring such a ridiculously invalid type of "science" to bear on the question must surely be disingenuous on your part. Surely you can't think that your paper experiment can answer the question about combustibility. Because you brought such a disingenuous argument that you hoped no one would notice was completely bogus, you are clearly guilty of hand waving.

[Bolo Boffin]

66. Jones is not allowing for catagory #1, which is my point. n/t

[eomer]

67. Category #1 is a theoretical possibility, but how realistic is it?

Harrit et al have a limited amount of material to perform tests on and would probably want to run tests that they have some reason to think will shed some light.

Just because you've imagined this as being theoretically possible does not make it likely enough to warrant testing.

1. The material was heated at the factory.
   
2. The material was heated during the combustion test.

You've imagined that one more application of heat in between the other two would have some transformative effect:

1. The material was heated at the factory.
   
2. The material was heated during the 9/11 event.
   
3. The material was heated during the combustion test.

My guess is that this wouldn't be a test anyone would run unless they had a reason to think it might occur. Just the theoretical possibility (as in anything is possible if you have no idea what you're talking about) would probably not be enough to consume some of the precious sample material.

[Bolo Boffin]

69. $40 and one chip would have produced the actual compounds instead of the elemental shell game Jones

and Harrit is playing.

[eomer]

75. "XRD and TEM analyses are underway."

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=256953&mesg_id=258526">post #73.

[Bolo Boffin]

78. They'd be done by now. n/t

[eomer]

80. Analyzing and writing up the results into a paper. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

82. Tick, tock. n/t

[eomer]

53. Looking at a third one.

Here, I quoted you directly so it cannot be a straw man:

So Steven Jones and crew are 100% saying explosives? Well, they have a problem. Since seismographs do not record explosives of a size necessary to cut the columns (and they would have), any explosive device (using super-thermite or not) could not have been used. The seismographs are POSITIVE EVIDENCE that no explosive devices whatsoever were used. Nada. Zilch. El Ziperino, if you're not into that whole brevity thing.

The important part of your post is "(and they would have)". What I did, essentially, was to ask you to provide your basis for that conclusion that explosives would have shown up on the seismographs. I don't see how my asking for your basis could be called hand waving.

Ghost in the Machine already asked you in that previous thread to bring forward your scientific basis for saying that. Since you didn't provide the scientific basis after you've been asked for it on two separate occasions, yet you continue to posit your unsubstantiated claim, I say that that is hand waving on your part. It is the definition of hand waving -- positing claims and trying to use bluster, confidence, and good-sounding words to convince your audience of them in place of providing sound scientific reasoning.

[Bolo Boffin]

57. You quoted the Blanchard article - he and others examined the seismographs and found no explosions.

And they would have been there had explosives been used.

That is my scientific basis for saying that - experts in the subject examining the actual evidence and giving us their findings. End of story.

[eomer]

63. That is not the part that is disputed (are you actually reading what GitM and I are saying?)

No one has disputed the statement that there were no events found in the seismographs that could be attributed to explosions.

What we are saying is that explosions would not necessarily show up on the seismographs.

So, to put it as plainly as I can to try to get you to address the actual issue rather than continue to deflect it, the theory we are proposing is that there were explosions that were large enough, forceful enough, and of such a design that they took out one or more columns but those explosions were not large enough, forceful enough, or of such a design that they created a detectable event on the seismographs.

In other words, whatever seismic effect the explosions produced was too small to be detectable -- it blended in with the background seismic activity.

Previously you recognized this question and merely stated that the explosions would have produced a large enough effect to be detected. You did not give any scientific basis for this claim; you merely claimed it without any basis.

Now you are pretending that the question is a different one. Please get back on point and either provide your basis for saying that explosions would necessarily produce detectable events or else admit that you don't know whether they would or would not produce detectable events, if they occurred.

Edit to add: sorry, I missed the fact that you restated your unsupported claim: "And they would have been there had explosives been used." I would have worded the above a bit differently but the point is still the same. The claim I just quoted has no basis, it is just a claim. What you've been asked for several times is to provide your basis for it.

[Bolo Boffin]

64. It's Brent Blanchard's claim. He should know. You would not. n/t

[eomer]

71. Blanchard is proved wrong by the fact the Pentagon crash and explosion produced no detectable event.

Blanchard makes the claim but he does not provide any basis for it. As far as we can tell, he merely assumes it:

This evidence makes a compelling argument against explosive demolition. The laws of physics dictate that any detonation powerful enough to defeat steel columns would have transferred excess energy through those same columns into the ground, and would certainly be detected by at least one of the monitors that were sensitive enough to record the structural collapses.

And his assumption is disproved by the Pentagon crash.

If it were that simple a matter that an explosion large enough to defeat a single column would without a doubt create a detectable seismic event then it would also be the case that the crash and explosion at the Pentagon would necessarily create a detectable seismic event. But there was no detectable seismic event from the Pentagon crash and explosion. So Blanchard is clearly and absolutely proved wrong in his assumption. It is clearly possible to have an explosion powerful enough to take out a bunch of columns and yet have no detectable seismic event. It happened at the Pentagon.

[Bolo Boffin]

72. Blanchard documents actual CDs. Examining seismographs for explosive signatures is part of his job.

You are wrong and always have been wrong.

The Pentagon? Really? You're getting desperate.

[eomer]

76. An example of hand waving: "You are wrong and always have been wrong."

Another example of hand waving: "The Pentagon? Really? You're getting desperate."

Why not address the substance?

How can Blanchard be right that explosions would necessarily produce seismic events if they did not do so at the Pentagon?

Does he purport to have extensive experience with explosions that occur some eighty floors up in a skyscraper? If not then how would he know?

And how, anyway, would explosions high up in a skyscraper be more likely to transmit energy into a seismic event than explosions that occurred right down on the ground floor of the Pentagon?

The proposition that the explosions high up in the WTC would produce seismic events when the explosions down on the ground level of the Pentagon did not seems to defy reasonable expectations. Does Blanchard have any plausible explanation for why this difference would occur?

And, also, what about the fact that we know that explosions did occur at the WTC? We can hear them on some of the audio and there are numerous eyewitnesses. There are instances of an eye witness being knocked to the ground by the force of an explosion. Doesn't that falsify Blanchard's claim?

[Bolo Boffin]

77. Pentagon BS is a distraction from the actual issues here.

You are telling me that Brent Blanchard doesn't know his job, something he's been doing for a couple of decades now. You have no reason to be saying this except you don't like what he says.

You are wrong.

"We can hear them on some of the audio" - Produce the tape. There are no original audios of the actual collapses that have identifiable detonating explosives at all.

[eomer]

83. You are the one who has a double standard.

Your standard for Harrit, Jones, et al is to demand to know all the specifics of the science behind their conclusions.

Your standard for Blanchard is that we should just believe him because he says it.

My standard is the same for both. I want to see all the specific science behind any and all conclusions, regardless of whom they come from or which side they support.

[Bolo Boffin]

84. [e-mail]

Knock yourself out. You want to know the science behind what Blanchard says? There's an email address to reach him.

[eomer]

86. It's your claim. You do the homework if you want it to be given credence.

Knock your own self out if you want to prove your claim.

I believe the protocol is usually that the person making a claim is the one who should produce the support for it.

It is revealing, by the way, that you already believe this conclusion without seeing its basis. For someone who is so quick to accuse others of confirmation bias, don't you see that you yourself have an extremely biased standard for evidence that you like versus evidence you don't?

[Bolo Boffin]

88. Blanchard is an expert speaking within his field on a matter he deals with all the time.

No problem trusting him here.

[Bolo Boffin]

89. Re: Double Standard

I have scientific reasons for disputing Harrit et al. You don't have scientific reasons for disputing Blanchard.

[eomer]

91. I don't have scientific reasons because Blanchard has disclosed none of his science.

My bet is that he hasn't actually done any. This smells like a seat-of-the-pants guess to me.

But, obviously, until he discloses the methods by which he reached that conclusion, no one could possibly criticize his methods in any way other than the one I already have, which is to point out that he hasn't disclosed them; that his claim is utterly without basis, totally unsupported. If and when he discloses his methods and his basis for the claim, then and only then can anyone give a substantive criticism of his methods.

[Bolo Boffin]

92. [e-mail] - Knock yourself out. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

94. You have yet to produce the audio.

While you're at it, produce the eyewitness who got knocked to the ground. It better not be Barry Jennings.

[procopia]

97. "It better not be Barry Jennings."

Obviously, OCT defenders don't want to talk about Barry Jennings.

[Bolo Boffin]

99. It is, isn't it?

Barry Jennings wasn't blown off his feet by an explosive device.

I love the smell of false bravado in the evening...

[procopia]

100. False bravado?

You seem to be implying that other posters are afraid of you. :shrug:

[Bolo Boffin]

101. Didn't you just imply that I was afraid to discuss Barry Jennings with you?

And yet when you had the chance to discuss Barry Jennings, you balked and starting making up bullshit about what I'm implying?

:rofl:

Tell us another one!

[procopia]

103. I did?

I think I just implied that OCT defenders don't want to discuss Barry Jennings--with anyone. Barry Jennings and Michael Hess, both credible witnesses, confirmed explosions in WTC 7.

[SDuderstadt]

104. Gee, explosions in a building engulfed in flames...

with plenty of things that would explode under those conditions. Hmm.

[procopia]

110. WTC 7 was never "engulfed in flames"

Your post is factually incorrect.

[SDuderstadt]

111. Call up FDNY and tell them they are...

liars, then.

[procopia]

112. Check your dictionary

Cambridge Dictionary of American English:

engulf:

to surround and cover completely

[Bolo Boffin]

113. So when one firefighter said that around seven floors were fully involved...

...what do you think he meant?

[procopia]

115. Seven floors "involved" doesn't mean the building was engulfed.

So do you have a photo to prove "flames surrounded and covered WTC 7 completely"?

[Bolo Boffin]

116. It sure isn't "small fires" either. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

117. Well, unless you can somehow explain the smoke pouring out of every floor of WTC 7

in this pic, I'm inclined to go with FDNY.

[procopia]

118. You don't actually know where the smoke is coming from

It's more likely that much of it is coming from nearby buildings 5 & 6 which actually were engulfed in flames:

[SDuderstadt]

119. Oh, jesus....

watch a video of it and it's plain that it's coming from WTC 7. This just gets more ridiculous by the moment.

[Bolo Boffin]

120. Nope, it was coming from 7.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVDZH1WCnk0

[procopia]

122. Some of it was, not all

The video doesn't show the lower floors of WTC 7, nor does it show any flames, whatsoever. It is unrealistic to assume that the raging infernos of buildings 5 & 6 across the street did not contribute to the smoke plume.

[SDuderstadt]

124. "Nor does it show any flames whatsoever"

WTF? Watch the video again. I'll take the word of the FDNY over yours any day.

[procopia]

127. Sure you would,

But you have no statements from the "FDNY," do you? Any firefighter who said WTC 7 was "engulfed in flames" was demonstrably wrong.

[Bolo Boffin]

125. Watch that goalpost moving.

Watch WTC 7 pump out smoke. Watch the flames.

Keep saying that building was barely on fire.

[procopia]

126. That's factually incorrect

My goalpost--WTC 7 was never engulfed in flames--has not moved one iota.

[Bolo Boffin]

128. It moved to what was contributing to the smoke plume.

Please curb your goalposts.

[procopia]

129. from: "much of it is coming from nearby buildings 5 & 6"

How is that different, exactly???

Meanwhile, I'm trying to figure out if the OCT defenders' goalpost is "engulfed in flames," or "smoke coming from south face." Which is it?

[Bolo Boffin]

130. Having trouble building your straw man? How sad. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

105. Yes, you did.

Barry Jennings and Michael Hess experienced the collapse of WTC 1 while in 7. I'm sure they thought it was an explosion. It wasn't.

[procopia]

107. Funny

how you know what they experienced better than they did. The damage they described is not consistent with damage described by the collapse of the north tower.

[Bolo Boffin]

114. Yes, it is. n/t

[eomer]

54. Summing up: all three of your points are hand waving; none of mine are.

You claim that you've proved the chips are not thermite when you have done no such thing. All you've proved is that they are not one particular instance of thermite. The broader claim is nothing more than hand waving.

You claim that because the WTC paint was exposed to heat that would make it more susceptible to lower temperatures. But the "science" that you use does not demonstrate any such thing. You use hand waving to make it seem as if it does.

You claim that explosives would have shown up on seismographs. Even after being asked on two separate occasions to provide your basis for this claim you have not done so and yet continue to claim it. This is again just hand waving.

[Bolo Boffin]

58. You post factual inaccuracies. n/t

[gwashington2650]

28. Interesting information you got there

I don't know if much of it is true, though.

[trumanh59639]

47. I hate Bush as much as everyone else

But the CTists don't really have a compelling argument against the official story.

[procopia]

48. What do you find compelling

about the Official Conspiracy Theory?

[procopia]

131. Nothing?

I agree.