9/11 - WTC/Pentagon/Shanksville m.m - Tråd Nr 2

Aluminum + iron oxide compounds being found in the wreckage due to plane impact is no surprise. Furthermore, what the fuck does everyone think they welded the building's structure together when it was built, given the stress factors it needed to withstand? Bubble gum?

Hell, the article itself makes mention of that superthermite being used for welding applications, so there would logically be a fuckload of it among the debris.

This is on the same order of the Truther claims that the steel structural beams were vaporized due to a Swiss cheese kind of holing found in some beams that had lain under the wreckage and that had been subjected to a corrosive substance in splashes according to their own fucking "research".

It's bullshit through and through, mark my words. Before it's published in something more rigorous than some open access whatever that looks like it was cobbled together ten years ago and run on advertising revenue, I'm not accepting a word of this shit as legitimate conclusions. It's cherrypicked evidence for their favorite conclusion, nothing more.

Here's the link for the Open Chemical Physics Journal, Volume 2:

http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/openaccess2.htm

This journal's first publication was in 2008. They've published a grand total of twelve articles in their entire history, and they tout the rapidity and low cost of their peer review process. How do we know what quality of peer review these articles have undergone?

What kind of peer review would overlook the rather obvious fact that nobody uses thermite in building demolitions? None of the peer reviewers thought to ask why someone trying to demolish a building would use some kind of "exotic super-thermite" rather than, say, C-4. I love the part where they say that under certain conditions, thermite burns "very rapidly, even explosively", as if that justifies this absurd hypothesis. We have a word for incendiaries that burn "very rapidly, even explosively"; they're called low explosives, like gunpowder. And you can't use them as if they're high explosives. And what the fuck kind of scientific paper uses so many subjective qualitative terms anyway?

They go into great scientific detail about how they establish that these chips contain iron and aluminum dust rather than paint chips; fine, mission accomplished. It's not particularly surprising, given the fact that the building's structure contained thousands of tons of iron, and the plane is made mostly of aluminum. They also go into great detail to show that this iron and aluminum can react in thermitic fashion. Well no kidding, that's what thermite is: iron mixed with aluminum. But the hypothesis is completely absurd, and contains no real engineering input. They treat it as a pure chemistry exercise, and they figure that they've won once they establish that the 9/11 dust contained iron and aluminum and that this iron and aluminum can react "thermitically".

At no point do they even attempt to explain why this thermite would be scattered so far and wide in such great quantity if it was in fact used as low explosive demolition charges, and none of the "peer review" group seemed to think to ask.

These conclusions are about as thorough as the actual paper, except for the part where they identify the chemical constituents of the particles where they get into great detail in an attempt to create an impression of credibility and distract you from the fact that all of the really important conclusions are really just supported by wordplay.

Conclusion #5 is downright hilarious: "Iron oxide was found in the pre-ignition material whereas elemental iron was not". Ooooh, what a shocking discovery! This proves it must have been thermite, because there's certainly no natural process which would turn fine particles of iron into iron oxide, is there?

Conclusion #8 is hilarious too: they conclude that the iron shows evidence of having been exposed to high temperatures. Gee, I wonder how that could have happened :roll:

And then there's conclusion #9, where they point out that if you take this aluminum and iron oxide and ignite it, it acts just like thermite. Well no kidding, because that's all thermite is! What kind of an idiot is taken in by a "study" like this? Even the way it's worded is clearly meant for laypeople to read. The constant references to "super-thermite" and "nanotechnology" make me laugh. Remember, kids: if you make a powdered product with smaller particle sizes, it's not just higher quality: oh no, it gains super powers! From NANOTECHNOLOGY!