Harrit et al. Publish in Peer-reviewed Journal: Active Thermitic Material in WTC Dust
http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/openaccess2.htm
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
pp.7-31 (25) Authors: Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen
doi: 10.2174/1874412500902010007
Abstract:
We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.
[c455 says: This is big. This is the kind of thing NIST investigators or any arson investigators should have looked for and (allegedly) did not. Also, the fact that ignition temperatures for this substance were below those for conventional thermite is the kind of fact that might eventually lead to a lab somewhere (and likely not in one of those huge Tora Bora Al-Qaeda-Land cave complexes.)]
from the new paper... thermobarics...
We gather that the technology to make materials remarkably fitting the characterization of the red chips was available by April 2000. In the same report, the scientists noted that “polymers†can be added to the nanocomposite:
Indeed, the red chips can be ignited using a torch and they have properties of a pyrotechnic nanocomposite. All the required ingredients are present – aluminum, iron, oxygen, silicon, and carbon – and they are incorporated in such a way that the chip forms (and sometimes ejects) very hot material when ignited. The Gash report describes FTIR spectra which characterize this energetic material. We have performed these same tests and will report the results elsewhere. We note that polymers in the matrix may be responsible for absorption of MEK and the subsequent swelling which we observed [29].
A report on an April 2001 conference discloses who was known to be working on such explosives at that time:
The feature of “impulse management†may be significant. It is possible that formulations may be chosen to have just sufficient percussive effect to achieve the desired fragmentation while minimizing the noise level.
and from WTCD...
Uh huh... :)
 Terminology The term thermobaric is derived from the Greek words for “ heat †... + suffix -ikos (-ικός), suffix -ic . A thermobaric weapon (or solid fuel-air explosive) uses the gaseous products ( ... wave is primarily generated by heat of combustion ("thermobaric") instead of expanding explosion gases. This makes thermobaric ...
Blog entry - gretavo - 2008-11-06 12:21 - 6 comments
uh oh... also in the wikipedia article quoted in that post is...
this:
Thermobaric and fuel-air explosives have been used by terrorists since the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing in Lebanon which used a gas-enhanced explosive mechanism, probably propane, butane or acetylene.[7] The explosive used by the bombers in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing was based on the FAE principle, using three tanks of bottled hydrogen gas to enhance the blast.[8]In 2002, Jemaah Islamiyah bombers used a shocked dispersed solid fuel charge[9], based on the thermobaric principle[10], to attack the Sari nightclub in the 2002 Bali bombings.[11]
Sure...
but both bows and arrows and machine guns involve hurling projectiles... doesn't mean that if you have one you have any idea how to make the other.
but we weren't the first... :)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=thermobaric+site%3A911blogger.com&a...
exciting news, but
i just read a post on facebook claiming that this particular "peer-reviewed" journal is a "vanity journal." I, therefore, scanned the publishing rules, and there does seem to be a membership fee and author publishing fee. so not a nonprofit, obviously. what are your thoughts on this?
I think the more important issues are...
if they really do conduct peer-review and if they therefore ever reject submissions on that basis. Besides, neither peer-review nor being free of monetray exchange means that any established non-profit journals have seen fit to reject articles supporting the OCT that are based on erroneous conclusions, etc...
right
thanks for the help in getting my head around this
The "vanity press" canard
Steven Jones says, at 911blahgger.com:
Note that page charges for scientific journals are very common these days -- the new-jerk comments I'm hearing that this is some kind of "vanity press" are totally wrong. Page charges for scientific papers are typically paid by the university of the first or second author, and this is the case for this paper.
The major difference apparent to me is that ANYONE can access this material free of charge online. This is in marked contrast to the model of academic journal publishing in which institutions pay a whopping subscription fee either to receive a hard-copy version of a journal and/or so their members can have online access to the material. If you aren't part of subscribing institution, sometimes you can buy a particular article for a good chunk of change.
The open access model generates revenue from the writers instead of the readers. So the real question has to be about the peer review process. You can poke around the Bentham Open site for information about this.
Errr, perhaps not a canard...
http://poynder.blogspot.com/2008/04/open-access-interviews-matthew-honan...
http://www.library.yale.edu/~llicense/ListArchives/0804/msg00027.html
I enjoyed hearing about your efforts to contact Bentham Publishers. I, too, have been curious about them. I looked at www.journalprices.com to check on whether Bentham has ISI-listed journals and how they are priced. Journalprices.com lists 14 Bentham journals, 12 are classified as "bad values" in terms of price per article and price per citation, and 2 as "medium values". It appears to me that they are an established publisher that has fallen into "bad hands".
Not only does Bentham spam for authors. They are also spamming for editors.
Evidently Bentham has a bad reputation in some parts. The Open Access model is not so much the problem as the company itself.
that's the jist
i'm getting from this FB poster.. the company, according to the poster, has a poor peer-review performance rating and has pushed for quantity instead of quality in the past. they mentioned a "911 research scientist" who left the Bentham recently.. i'm trying to find out more..
I want so much to be supportive of Jones, et. al., and wish the very best for them, sincerely.Â
Ask a silly question...
Aside...
From the obvious bias of JREF people... how is someone like me supposed to argue against something like this?
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?
...and get an answer.
Well first off, Jon, you are not supposed to do anything that is beyond your abilities, so strictly speaking the answer to your question is: leave it to people who are smarter than you.
Rebutting the douche at JREF couldn't be simpler. He posts this link to show a spectrograph of a CERTAIN KIND OF THERMITE, one that uses Titanium: http://www.amazingrust.com/Experiments/how_to/Images/Thermite/TiO2/3/EDA...
If you just go up a directory you will find: http://www.amazingrust.com/Experiments/how_to/Thermite_pics-videos.html
Which lists the various types of thermite including those fitting the one that the authors Jones et al argue matches the spectra of the red chips...
gratitude for ya...
Gold has deleted his comment from the blogger thread. Now, my question is has anyone helped out poor Galileo over on the JREF forum where this stupid issue was raised?
Excellent comment from Prof. Jones on peer review
Comment over at 911blahhger:
What you need to know about peer-review...
Since the days of Sir Isaac Newton, Science has proceeded through the publication of peer-reviewed papers. Peer-review means a thorough reading and commentary by "peers", that is, other PhD's and professors. This paper was thoroughly peer-reviewed with several pages of tough comments that required of our team MONTHS of additional experiments and studies. It was the toughest peer-review I've ever had, including THREE papers for which I was first author in NATURE. (Please note that Prof. Harrit is first author on this paper.) We sought an established journal that would allow us a LONG paper (this paper is 25 pages long) with MANY COLOR IMAGES AND GRAPHS. Such a scientific journal is not easy to find. Page charges are common for scientific journals these days, and are typically paid by the University of the first or second author (as is the case with this paper) or by an external grant.
A peer-reviewed journal is also called a "refereed" journal. Peer-reviewers are almost always anonymous for scientific publications like this -- that is standard in the scientific world. While authors commonly recommend potential peer-reviewers, editors usually pick at least one or two reviewers that the authors did NOT mention -- and that is the case with this paper.
Debunkers may raise all sorts of objections on forums, such as "Oh, it's just paint" or "the aluminum is bound up in kaolin." We have answered those questions in the paper, and shown them to be nonsense, but you have to read to find the answers. I may also provide answers here and in emails, often quoting from the paper to show that the answers are already in it.
Here's what you need to know (especially if you are not a scientist): UNLESS AN OBJECTOR ACTUALLY PUBLISHES HIS OR HER OBJECTION IN A PEER-REVIEWED ESTABLISHED JOURNAL (yes that would include Bentham Scientific journals), THEN THE OBJECTION IS NOT CONSIDERED SERIOUS IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD NOT WORRY ABOUT NON-PUBLISHED OBJECTIONS EITHER.
So how do you, as a non-scientist, discern whether the arguments are valid or not? You should first ask, "is the objection PUBLISHED in an ESTABLISHED PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL?" If not, you can and should say -- "I will wait to see this formally published in a refereed scientific journal. Until then, the published peer-reviewed work by Harrit et al. stands. "
BTW, there also has been no PUBLISHED REFEREED paper yet that counters either the "Fourteen Points" paper or the "Environmental Anomalies" papers we published last year.
IF it is so easy to publish in Bentham Scientific journals, or if these are "vanity publications" (note: there is no factual basis for these charges) -- then why don't the objectors write up their objections and get them peer-reviewed and published?? The fact is, it is not easy, as serious objectors will find out.
Our results have passed the gauntlet of peer-review (including in this case, review at BYU consistent with the fact that there are two authors from BYU).
We say that this paper has the "imprimatur of peer-review". That is a significant breakthrough. You cannot say that of big-foot or Elvis sightings... We are now in a different world from such things, the world of the published scientific community. CAN YOU APPRECIATE THE DIFFERENCE? I hope so. And this is what has our opponents so worried IMO...
Submitted by ProfJones on Tue, 04/07/2009 - 10:19am.
But why the hating on Big Foot?
n/t
it is the policy at WTCD...
WTCD accepts that "Bigfoot" is a mythical creature and that Elvis Presley is indeed dead. Authoring or recommending posts that imply or state outright that "Bigfoot" is a factual being or that Elvis Presley is alive and periodically appears in public will cause the offending user to be banned from WTCD.
Please take the tinfoil hattery elsewhere, C455.
:-P
p.s. what a great statement by Dr. Jones!
This I strongly disagree with...
I understand why people would, at first glance think this is a rather well formulated comment by prof Jones, but I have to say, it's a little disturbing to me.
I wrote something about it on my site, and I would like you all to consider my argument.
Now that Jones has seen fit to take his "comment" left on the thread about his work and post it to the front page of 911 Blather, that just reinforces what I was saying before he did that.
He is in a sense telling Truth advocates what they should think and say, in no uncertain terms. He is actually saying (not implying or inferring, but saying) that the Truth movement is NOW our of the realm of "Bigfoot and Elvis sightings" stories. All because of HIS work?
what does that say about other works that aren't "peer reviewed"? Well, according to Jones, they aren't "serious".
Isn't this the same thing the debunkers were trying to say about his work that we all supported in the past? Isn't this the same thing they try to say about almost everything we do?
We shouldn't NEED someone telling us what to focus on or what to SAY about his article. He should have posted it and then left it for us to consider on it's own merits. But if you go to that article on Blather, he is the most frequent commenter, carefully scripting and guiding the discussion about it. Yet I don't see him spending time at ATS or JREF going after the scientific evaluations of his work. instead he is spending his time with us? Telling us what to say and what to think about his work?
He also has repeated many times that we should avoid discussing HOW this material could have been used and focus on WHO MADE IT?
Why is that? Does an investigator stop looking at how the suspect set the fires to focus on who made the matches?
Something isn't right here people. and Hoffman's "Hypothetical Demolition Theory" was down-right laughable. I have already got him to change at least 2 things about his theory, but it is rather stunning in it's unbelievability.
Factor in the fact that Hoffman attacks any reasonable discussion about what happened at the Pentagon with "evidence" from the FBI prosecution of the 20th hijacker, and you start to see a rather interesting picture develop.
Please check out what I wrote about the Jones decree...
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2009/04/07/the-good-prof-jones-now-tells...
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
I see what you're saying...
and it merits thought, definitely. In the meantime, consider that Reptile may have turned his comment into a blog post -- I would expect a note from him saying so, but maybe not.
That is possible, but
It is posted under Jones' name as the one who put it up. So I don't know. Could have been reptile....
notice on that thread how often they are "Reprimanding" commenters for posting other info. As if now, the only "real" theory and evidence we should be discussing is Jone's work. (but even then, only in so much as "who made it" and not how it was used...)
I find that a little disturbing as well. Smacks of the stuff they were doing before, like avoiding CD talk and Mossad connections... and of course anything that didn't support Hoffman's FBI Pentagon Theory...
I have been around long enough to remember when they discouraged talk about Building 7, because, like they say about a lot of stuff, they thought they were being "set up" again by the conspirators. Lotta restrictions in this "Truth" movement of ours.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
Jones has now posted his "this is what to think" declaration...
on 911Truth.org as well. Making sure ALL us Truth advocates "correct-think" about his peer review status and the "we are no longer Bigfoot watchers" story.
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20090408155422238
Still think Rep did it?
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
And since I mentioned it...
In one of Jones' comments at Blather, he said that Hoffman's "Hypothetical Demolition Theory" was "reasonable" and he thanked him for putting it together, "so I wouldn't have to".
Reasonable?
Hoffman's (now modified) theory is that 30 illegal immigrants, who are untrained in explosives and can't speak English, were used to run around at amazing speeds to plant 1.8 million ceiling tile bombs, in 56 hours. And they were not aware that they were bombs, by the way...
His theory is that even though Jones himself says that they can't even be sure if the material he found was a high explosive or a low explosive (meaning it would either create a shock wave or not)he is postulating that this stuff would not create enough of a shock wave to pulverize one floor above it, but also the one below, meaning that they only had to put it every other floor. That's a mighty powerful high explosive.
He is also suggesting that they disguised the kicker charges (again, more high explosive) as "fire extinguishers" an left them on the walls of an occupied office building.... (imagine the gig would have been up had there been a small fire in someones waste paper basket or in the break room) so that if there was a fire, someone would have pulled an active bomb off the wall and run towards the fire?
Oh yeah, I forgot... there was no demolition of the core columns under the area the plane hit, so I guess he is suggesting that the massive core just fell apart as the building came down?
And this is "reasonable" to Jones?
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2009/04/04/serious-problems-with-jim-hof...
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
will take all of this under consideration...
...when I have a little more time, but kudos to you for hesitating to jump on a bandwagon--we've seen them before, some which you mention, and I'll throw in the Steve Alten Shell Game bullshit.
My concern would gravitate also towards the "focus on who made it" angle. Kind of like with the Anthrax, anything the US government can make can also either be outright stolen by any number of our "trusted allies", or have the tech know how "borrowed" and produced clandestinely by those same trusted allies, especially those who are seemingly immune to prosecution or even exposure in the U.S.
We should be ever vigilant!
And one last thing, if I could....
Jones and I have a little history. Not much really, but there.
Nearly a year ago I wrote an open letter to him about the possibility of them using det cord (PETN) in the demolition process as that we know the security company had been working on a "rewiring" project before 911. They installed "fiber optics" for the new security system. This is a known fact.
Det cord is used in the demolition process to break up large areas of concrete and it looks just like fiber optic lines.
The fact is, I wrote a rather convincing argument for the testing of PETN back then and Jones was even interested for a brief while, till greg Roberts got involved and basically said they didn't want to test for it because if it wasn't there, it could discredit the movement.
NIST< FEMA< THE USGA STUDY all openly admit that they didn't test for residual explosives in the remains of WTC.
And now, so does Jones in his new paper?
Several emails between the two of use has produced rather stunning replies from Prof Jones. Ultimately he is pretending (?) that the only emails someone seems to be blocking from me to him are the ones that have links to places he could purchase forensic test kits and businesses that would test the material for him? Oh yeah, he also didn't seem to get the email I sent him explaining the Griess reagent test; how to run it, how to prep the solutions... and a link to a forensic study text book that explain the entire process.
In short, they will not test for commonly used explosives in that material sample they have. For any reason apparently.
And that is deeply disturbing to me.
I would guys to read my article on it. This last encounter with Jones bothered the heck out of me. My site is littered with his work and videos. He was in my opinion, one of the best things we had going for us. I was very disappointed to say the least...
let me know what you guys think, if you would. Thanks
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2009/04/07/some-straight-forward-questio...
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
Check out the latest comment
Check out the latest comment on the Deseret article... The first of the "terrorists could have planted explosives" comments... I expect there will be more!
Couldn't find it.
There's one by "Mark" on pg 1 asking if the terrists coulda had explosives on the planes -- is there another one?
one of them
The real k9 | 10:26 a.m. April 8, 2009
What is wrong with you people? Do you think a buildings just fall down when you crash a plane into them? What about the tons of bombs that were dropped in Germany in world war II on buildings that did not have steel reinforcement? Did they all colapse? No they didn't. But, I don't think it was a government cover up either. What about the possibility that there was a backup plan if the planes didn't work? Could terrorists have been bringing in explosives for months before 9/11? In the form of cars or a multiple of other ways. I thought it was very odd for a building to to fall to the ground from being hit so high up. It doesn't make sense. Is it so hard to believe that something else was going on? Could these terrorists have planned a foolproof way to bring these buildings down? I think it would be very easy to sneak explosives in vans, trucks, Etc. into these buildings. It was open to the public and there could be a thousand ways to bring in explosives many times.
and another
Harvey | 10:43 a.m. April 8, 2009
I appreciate the article and the work done by the scientist. Independent research needs to continue and all sides of the story should be reported in the media. For me there are still too many unanswered questions to believe the government conspiracy theory. I am still of the opinion that this was perpetuated by terrorists that may have had more inside help than we know…..this inside help could of came just as easy from the mafia than our government. Also, the source of the material that was tested by Jones could have just as easily been planted by those who would like to bring down the government.
Very interesting story...
"We don't want to test for det cord residue because if we don't find it the debunkers will hold it against us." WTF? Testing for it, not finding it, and being transparent about the fact that is was NOT found could only increase our scientific credibility. There's some kind of agenda there which is obviously running counter to Jones' own proclaimed adherence to (and trust in) the scientific process.
Anyway, that's another blog of willyloman's that everyone should check out. I haven't read Hoffman's scenario descriptions yet but the ceiling tile concept does not sound promising.
according to Hoffman...
Each tile, 1.8 million of them, is it's own separate bomb, complete with 2 channel receiver and "igniter"...
All these bombs are put in place by "undocumented workers" at a pace of 6 per minute...
Meaning they have to move the ladder into place, climb up it, take out the old tile, replace the new "bomb-tile" and climb down the ladder... in 10 seconds... and that is an "average" which means they have to continue that pace, 8 hours a day...all 30 of them... 56 hours of work, per tower...
(he did have them doing 10 tiles a minute (6 seconds each) till I sent him a copy of my article.)
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
Minor PC venting: maintain safe distance
I'll read it for myself later, but I have a little PC venting I need to do: why does he think the workers would have need to be non-English speaking? So they couldn't read the labels on the boxes? Non-English speaking does not equal utterly clueless. And also, there are plenty of legal immigrants in the US who don't speak English as well as illegal (or undocumented) ones who DO speak English. Anyway, this is a tad ironic given the way the "how dare you point the finger at African-American blue collar taxi driver Lloyd England" card has been played by his contingent.
What he actually said was...
"They would be NATURALLY disinclined to ask questions about the nature of the work." (emphasis added)
"naturally"? Does he mean because they are undocumented or by way of their "natural" disposition? It's an odd statement, that could easily be misconstrued as racist in nature. Could certainly turn a large group of people away from the Truth movement as well.
Even after I pointed this awkward phrasing to him in the email I sent him, he left it in. After both of his revisions.
(Just a thought - Remember the "White Vans"? What kind of explosives were found in them? Were they work vans loaded with left over materials from this job? Did they have det cord in them? Was the explosives they found in the vans? Weren't the dancing Israelis connected to the vans in some way? Were they left behind to "document" the event... possibly after months of prep work? What company did they work for again? How many employees?)
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
the jury's been in on Hoffman for some time now...
He is quite probably a disinformation specialist. I'd LIKE to think that Jones is not "right there with him" but it does seem odd that some people who have no problem with Jones or Hoffman have a huge problem with David Griffin. DRG is in my opinion the most trustworthy of all of the "big name truthers" and we should take every opportunity we're given by the promotion of the Jones paper to plug DRG as much as possible. People aren't dumb, they will connect the dots.
I agree
Griffin (and possibly Gage) is without a doubt, the best, most reasoned voice for Truth we have now. Anyone know where Arabesque is on this new study? If he's all for it, I know it's crap. (just a little joke there)
Maybe you guys can help me figure something out. I remember seeing a guy on a video who was talking about conventional explosives being used in the tower demolition. For some reason I want to say he was European... but I don't know.
It seems that this guy is silenced now or at least marginalized. Does anyone know who I am talking about? The video I saw was of him lecturing about this. It was a tall and skinny guy (I don't think it was early - pre-pod Hoffman... but I don't know who it was.).
I would love to see that video of his again. Ideas?
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
fascinating...
Thanks for stepping up with this, WL, and rest assured that this is one forum at least where this information can be discussed without worry of "offending movement heroes", in fact we make quite a sport of doing that! :)
I am intrigued by Hoffman's hypothetical scenario... did he really suggest illegal immigrants carrie dout the work? I mean, the dancing Israelis were illegal immigrants to be sure, but when most people hear that they think of people who are, well, hispanic...
Which brings us to the well known problem Alex Jones and other fake truthers have with immigrants, an issue which dovetails perfectly with the "mainstream" tools like Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs' rhetoric. And again, showing that the Deseret News comments section is a veritable incubator for fake truth memes check out this comment:
come on | 10:48 a.m. April 8, 2009
to those of you that don't think that on the other side these guys have a consience...they don't in fact they are promised heaven..etc..etc..and they along with many like minded help in what ever capacity they can ...they even do that in the countries our soldiers are in...and with our open border policy ..the question is ...who and what has got in ..if a third world population in huge amounts of people along with the enormous amounts of dope can come into the country undetected then what else is going to happen...look at the present policy Yapias and his group is always touting..."don't harass us ..we here illegally but most of us are law abiding"...well learn from 911 that it only takes 5-10 non law abiding people to do catastrophe...CLOSE THE BORDERS NOW..I'LL MY OWN BURGER AND FIX MY OWN BED IF THAT IS WHAT IS NEEDED!!