9/11 Poll

[Trippy]

Ah ok. Didn't this all start with psikey though? From what I remember, he wants to know the mass, not the volume.

Mass = Volume x Density.

While the density of ordinary portland cement might be well known, I believe I read somewhere that WTC 1&2 used a low density cement.

Low density concretes, as I understand it, typically have a density roughly 70% that of Portland cement, so it's at least possible to make an educated guess (in fact I believe I have performed this very calculation earlier in the thread), pending more accurate information about the density of the cement used in WTC 1&2.

Besides which, Psikey commented on the volume, not the mass (at least in the specific post I initially replied to).

 

[Trippy]

Not to mention:

IT LOOKS EXACTLY LIKE THE PAINT!

It's no wonder the truth movement died...

There is that as well, and I believe i've commented on precisely this point, the bilayered structure, and the actual colour of the chips are consistent with the steel that was found to have paint flaking off it (the paint has pieces of oxidized steel stuck to one side of it).

 

[psikeyhackr]

These comments about believers are rapidly wearing thin. And on the basis of the post you're replying to you can't really comment on my belief of anything.

The clear implication of my post is that I wasn't sure if the data extraction had been completed or not, I can point to at least one site that seems to indicate that it's an ongoing process.

As far as the the distribution of the concrete goes? My understanding was that the information that's been published is that the floors were poured to an average depth of something like 8 inches with concrete, and the difference between the mechanical floors and the office floors was in the bracing under the floor, not the thickness of concrete.

.
You complain about the disparaging comment then demonstrate that you don't know what you are talking about regarding the construction of the towers.

The pans that most of the floors were poured on were corrugated and the thickness of the standard floors varied between 4 and 5 inches. Judging from the edge on pictures of the pans I have seen I would say the average thickness was about 4 1/3rd inches.

This information is EASY to find.

The gray clouds are representative not of smoke, but of the concrete dust that was produced, representing what must have been a significant amount of the total mass of that building, since each steel floor pan carried concrete slabs of 4” thickness, and each floor area within the core structure supported 5”-thick slabs.

http://www.studyof911.com/articles/BsB092306/

psik

 

[Hoz_Turner]

In this instance, if you will forgive a crude turn of phrase, Hoz doesn't know his arsehole from his Elbow.

This is a XEDS spectrum of submicron plates of alumina:

This is Harrits XEDS spectrum for the aluminium rich regions:

(note that Magnesium is in fact present in this spectrum).

For the record, here we have another Figure from Harrit's 'paper':

It shows the presence of Zinc and Chromium - also note that although Harrit hasn't labled it as such, the peak for Magnesium is also evident on this spectrum..

So Zinc and Chromium are present in or on the chip before treatment with MEK, and Magnesium is still present in or on the chip after treatment with MEK...

Nice try at deception, yet again Trippy.

The presence of Zinc is at very small levels compared to the aluminium and silica. This is in direct contrast to the amount in the WTC paint where Zinc was very clearly dominant over these elements. No amount of spin or deception can make you deny this fact. You would have to conjure up some lie about Zinc NOT being dominant over aluminates and silicates.

Cross-sectional X-EDS excerpt from the paper: -

The presence of magnesium is also minute, given that it is was another major component of the WTC paint (where its composition was 12-17% compared to 3.3-5.5% of aluminates). The small presence detected by Harrit et al was indeed a result of surface contamination on the red\gray chips.

Where is that X-EDS of submicron alumina taken from? What is that peak at the far left that is just barely in the picture?

 

[phlogistician]

You are just being a horse's ass and picking on semantics because you have nothing else if you want to try and diminish the fact that nanothermite exists.

Jump in a lake pal. I don't have time for this sort of nonsense.

You haven't proven it exists outside the lab. You certainly haven't proven it can be manufactured in large enough quantities to be used as described.

You are just using a pseudo scientific term because you think it sounds convincing.

I'm just picking you up where you say things that demonstrate your ignorance, as is everybody else.

 

[leopold]

You haven't proven it exists outside the lab.

and they haven't proved it was used at WTC.
the only thing we know for sure is that it was supposedly found in the fallout.
so, there is not only a question of what this stuff is, there is the question of where it came from.

i'm just wondering if some strange chemistry took place in the collapse that might have produced this substance.
trippy might know if this is the case or not.

we do know nothing like this has been found on the pile itself.
this would seem to suggest that this substance came from another source.

 

[leopold]

what is really needed here is a discussion on how first responders can gather and protect their evidence.
investigators, cops, and firemen, already know how to do this.
it's surprising that no one from those three groups can confirm this substance was on the pile.
it's also surprising that no whistleblower has come forward stating any type of shady operations at the pile.

 

[Trippy]

Nice try at deception, yet again Trippy.

The presence of Zinc is at very small levels compared to the aluminium and silica. This is in direct contrast to the amount in the WTC paint where Zinc was very clearly dominant over these elements. No amount of spin or deception can make you deny this fact. You would have to conjure up some lie about Zinc NOT being dominant over aluminates and silicates.

Cross-sectional X-EDS excerpt from the paper: -

The presence of magnesium is also minute, given that it is was another major component of the WTC paint (where its composition was 12-17% compared to 3.3-5.5% of aluminates). The small presence detected by Harrit et al was indeed a result of surface contamination on the red\gray chips.

It would be deception if I were trying to misrepresent something moron.

But i'm not, I made it explicitly clear that I had not commented on the relative abundances represented represented by the XEDS, I simply pointed out that they are there.

WHich they are, and no amount of protestation or whinging on your part is ever going to change that. Harrit even aknowledges there presence, but without justification later dismisses them as surface contamination.

The only liar here is actually you, your post, in its totallity represents a strawman argument, it attacks the one point that I explicitly stated I wasn't addressing at that time.

Your post demonstrates, yet again, that you have no clue about how to read XEDS spectra, and even less understanding of chemistry.

Oh, and bonus points for your pathetic attempt at dishonesty by the way, cutting out the relevant XEDS spectrum.

Where is that X-EDS of submicron alumina taken from? What is that peak at the far left that is just barely in the picture?

Yet more proof that you know nothing of XEDS spectra. That peak is present in all raw XEDS data.

It came from this paper:
Xi Jin Xu A facile approach to the formation of the alumina nanostructures from
anodic alumina membranes

This is a 15kev spectrum, however it serves to demonstrate how deceptive relative peak heights can be (this is from another paper).

Note that on a mass basis, Zinc and Oxygen are present in approximately equal amounts, however, compare the relative peak heights, and learn something.

 

[shaman_]

Asking me to back up my claims isn't the problem;

your insults are. Speaking of insults...

Rarely have I insulted you Scott and even then my language was not offensive. The worst thing I have called you is a religious fanatic. But this is more dodging. You are claiming that you don't answer refutations because people insult you when people only started using stronger language after your constant evasion.

 

[Trippy]

.
You complain about the disparaging comment then demonstrate that you don't know what you are talking about regarding the construction of the towers.

The pans that most of the floors were poured on were corrugated and the thickness of the standard floors varied between 4 and 5 inches. Judging from the edge on pictures of the pans I have seen I would say the average thickness was about 4 1/3rd inches.

This information is EASY to find.


http://www.studyof911.com/articles/BsB092306/

psik

So then what you're really saying is that you were bitching about not being able to find easy to find information that you in fact already had? :/

 

[Hoz_Turner]

It would be deception if I were trying to misrepresent something moron.

But i'm not, I made it explicitly clear that I had not commented on the relative abundances represented represented by the XEDS, I simply pointed out that they are there.

WHich they are, and no amount of protestation or whinging on your part is ever going to change that. Harrit even aknowledges there presence, but without justification later dismisses them as surface contamination.

The only liar here is actually you, your post, in its totallity represents a strawman argument, it attacks the one point that I explicitly stated I wasn't addressing at that time.

Your post demonstrates, yet again, that you have no clue about how to read XEDS spectra, and even less understanding of chemistry.

Oh, and bonus points for your pathetic attempt at dishonesty by the way, cutting out the relevant XEDS spectrum.

Yet more proof that you know nothing of XEDS spectra. That peak is present in all raw XEDS data.

It came from this paper:
Xi Jin Xu A facile approach to the formation of the alumina nanostructures from
anodic alumina membranes

This is a 15kev spectrum, however it serves to demonstrate how deceptive relative peak heights can be (this is from another paper).

Note that on a mass basis, Zinc and Oxygen are present in approximately equal amounts, however, compare the relative peak heights, and learn something.

BSE images from Harrit's paper show NO dominant presence of Zinc at all (or even a notable presence). Aluminium and silica along with carbon and iron oxide are far far more dominant in the red-chips. Magnesium would also show up here as a constitutent dominant over aluminium and silica, but it is not there. This is NOT paint from the WTC! That is a total impossibility from these analyses.

To answer your point about X-EDS however: -

The SEM X-EDS profile you have shown from the paper you cited; is from a cross-sectional area of the nano alumina tubes.

The following images are from an SEM X-EDS of the cross-sectional area of the red-gray chips: -

And another cross-sectional X-EDS of red-chip A: -

http://zelikow.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/figure-5b.png?w=600&h=462&h=462

Notice strong signals for aluminium, silica, oxygen and iron at equal returns (the main constituents of the red-chips). Yet very weak returns for Zinc and Magnesium. An important point, you need to realise.

Now you can tell that the cross-sectional SEM X-EDS are not suitable for a quantitative comparative analysis of the proportion of aluminium relative to oxygen in terms of relative spatial presence. The fourth sample in Fig. 7 shows aluminium and silicates reflecting x-ray spikes at the same levels, or slightly exceeding oxygen in terms of returns. The second sample shows a lower peak for oxygen and close to the aluminium too. You need to realise that Harrit's paper addresses this, and hence the focus of the electron beam on specific areas that show certain high concentrations. This was done and I quote: -

"The next XEDS spectrum (Fig. 17) was acquired from a
region that showed a high concentration of aluminum. Using
a conventional quantification routine, it was found that the
aluminum significantly exceeded the oxygen present (approximately
a 3:1 ratio)."

So, they have confirmed the clear presence of elemental aluminium, and the X-EDS for these respective areas are in my previous posts.

They have also clearly detected iron-oxide next to the elemental aluminium: -

"Oxygen is very consistently found in high concentration
with the iron in the red material even after soaking in MEK
solvent (Fig. 15), and in Fig. (18) an abundance of oxygen is
found relative to iron. Based on quantification of the XEDS
spectra, and after accounting for oxygen fractions to trace elements,
it is found that the Fe ratio for the spectrum in Fig.
(18) is approximately 2:3. This indicates that the iron is oxidized
and apparently in oxidation state III, indicating that Fe2O3, or
perhaps an iron (III) oxo-bridged polymer, is present.
To check the quantification method, tests were performed
with the known chemical, iron (III) oxide, and the elementalquantification
was found to yield consistent and repeatable
results for iron and oxygen. In particular we made eight 50-
second measurements on Fe2O3 samples and found consistency
for iron (± 6.2%, 1 sigma) and for oxygen (± 3.4%, 1
sigma) with the O/Fe ratio consistently near 1.5 as expected"

 

[scott3x]

That speech looked pretty impressive there Hoz ;-). Guess we'll see what Trippy says...

 

[scott3x]

Personally I think it could be your loss too, if you were to miss out on some interesting information. However, I fully understand your dislike of comments like the one Hoz made there. Hopefully Hoz won't use such language in the future. shaman and Kenny have been making a fair amount of insulting comments at me

I am merely asking you, repeatedly, to back up some of your claims.

Asking me to back up my claims isn't the problem; your insults are. Speaking of insults...

You can’t. When pressed you just make pathetic excuses.

there you go again .

Rarely have I insulted you Scott and even then my language was not offensive.

Negative on both counts. Look, perhaps you like it when people say that you are pathetic or that you make pathetic excuses. Whatever floats your boat. But most people -don't- like it, and -do- consider it to be insulting. Something you may wish to keep in mind if you actually want me to respond to your points instead of your insults.

The worst thing I have called you is a religious fanatic.

Look shaman_, I'm not going to start digging up all the insulting things you've said to me. Calling me a 'religious fanatic' is rather silly, given that I don't belong to any organized religion, but again, if that's what you want to spend your time doing, I really don't think I can stop you. Just don't expect me to respond all that much anymore. It just got old you know? There are actually some people here who are generally less insulting (Trippy and leopold come to mind) and I'd just rather spend my time responding to people who are more respectful.

But this is more dodging.

I suppose you could say that I'm "dodging" having to deal with your insults. I'm fine with that.

You are claiming that you don't answer refutations because people insult you when people only started using stronger language after your constant evasion.

Kenny made a comment along the same lines. I suggest you take a look at what I told him:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2297373&postcount=2115

 

[psikeyhackr]

So then what you're really saying is that you were bitching about not being able to find easy to find information that you in fact already had? :/

.
No, your ability to pretend that you know what you are talking about.

Who said the concrete in the floor slabs was all there was? If there was 425,000 cubic yards then where was all of it, level by level?

psik

 

[shaman_]

Negative on both counts. Look, perhaps you like it when people say that you are pathetic or that you make pathetic excuses. Whatever floats your boat. But most people -don't- like it, and -do- consider it to be insulting. Something you may wish to keep in mind if you actually want me to respond to your points instead of your insults.

No one is buying that Scott. You can’t answer and after repeatedly being pushed you get called ‘pathetic’. So you then say you’re not answering because of the bad words. It's a desperate strategy that I would expect from a child.

Look shaman_, I'm not going to start digging up all the insulting things you've said to me. Calling me a 'religious fanatic' is rather silly, given that I don't belong to any organized religion, but again, if that's what you want to spend your time doing, I really don't think I can stop you. Just don't expect me to respond all that much anymore. It just got old you know? There are actually some people here who are generally less insulting (Trippy and leopold come to mind) and I'd just rather spend my time responding to people who are more respectful.

They may lose patience with you eventually. I have spent many more hours responding to your posts only to have you ignore them and make the original claims over and over.

I suppose you could say that I'm "dodging" having to deal with your insults. I'm fine with that.

This is a pointless discussion as you will keep pretending you avoid refutations because of bad words when everyone knows this is not the whole truth. It's going nowhere. People can see you for what you are. I suggest going forward you be very careful when making arrogant and confident claims Scott because people will challenge them and you will run out of excuses.

 

[Trippy]

That speech looked pretty impressive there Hoz ;-). Guess we'll see what Trippy says...

Not much, aside from what a load of Carp.

BSE images from Harrit's paper show NO dominant presence of Zinc at all (or even a notable presence). Aluminium and silica along with carbon and iron oxide are far far more dominant in the red-chips. Magnesium would also show up here as a constitutent dominant over aluminium and silica, but it is not there. This is NOT paint from the WTC! That is a total impossibility from these analyses.

According to my calculations (I need to re-check some figures when I get home), the Pigment was >25% Fe, >25% O, <10% Zn, <10% Si, <5% Cr, <2% Mg, (by weight) so your assertions about Zinc being dominant uber alles is both wrong and absurd (at best).

No amount of protestation will change the fact that Harrit produced at least one spectrum that contained measurable amounts of Zinc.

To answer your point about X-EDS however: -

The SEM X-EDS profile you have shown from the paper you cited; is from a cross-sectional area of the nano alumina tubes.

Irrelevant.

Now you can tell that the cross-sectional SEM X-EDS are not suitable for a quantitative comparative analysis of the proportion of aluminium relative to oxygen in terms of relative spatial presence.

To me, this sentence almost seems randomly generated, perhaps you should clarify what you mean.

If you're saying what I think you're syaing, it would seem to be nullified by this XEDS for Corundum which also illustrates my point:

The fourth sample in Fig. 7 shows aluminium and silicates reflecting x-ray spikes at the same levels, or slightly exceeding oxygen in terms of returns. The second sample shows a lower peak for oxygen and close to the aluminium too. You need to realise that Harrit's paper addresses this, and hence the focus of the electron beam on specific areas that show certain high concentrations. This was done and I quote: -

"The next XEDS spectrum (Fig. 17) was acquired from a
region that showed a high concentration of aluminum. Using
a conventional quantification routine, it was found that the
aluminum significantly exceeded the oxygen present (approximately
a 3:1 ratio)."

Right, an unknown quantification routine, which he fails to name in his paper, and has refused to name in subsequent correspondence that I have seen elsewhere (part of the obfuscation and handwaving I keep referring to).

So, they have confirmed the clear presence of elemental aluminium, and the X-EDS for these respective areas are in my previous posts.

No they haven't, doing so would require EELS or something similar. Clearly Harrit's spectrum is identical to reference spectra for Aluminium Oxide. I have now provided you with two seperate reference spectra that say that Harrit's interpretation is wrong, and you have yet to provide one singal reference spectrum that says your right.

They have also clearly detected iron-oxide next to the elemental aluminium: -

"Oxygen is very consistently found in high concentration
with the iron in the red material even after soaking in MEK
solvent (Fig. 15), and in Fig. (18) an abundance of oxygen is
found relative to iron. Based on quantification of the XEDS
spectra, and after accounting for oxygen fractions to trace elements,
it is found that the Fe ratio for the spectrum in Fig.
(18) is approximately 2:3. This indicates that the iron is oxidized
and apparently in oxidation state III, indicating that Fe2O3, or
perhaps an iron (III) oxo-bridged polymer, is present.
To check the quantification method, tests were performed
with the known chemical, iron (III) oxide, and the elementalquantification
was found to yield consistent and repeatable
results for iron and oxygen. In particular we made eight 50-
second measurements on Fe2O3 samples and found consistency
for iron (± 6.2%, 1 sigma) and for oxygen (± 3.4%, 1
sigma) with the O/Fe ratio consistently near 1.5 as expected"

And?
Have I ever questioned this?
Here's a hint, the answer is no.

I'll go into more detail when I get home, and have the time to sit down and take a better look at the maths (maybe, I have better things to do than being accused of deception I mean seriously, why I'm bothering to respond at all ATM is beyond me).

 

[scott3x]

Negative on both counts. Look, perhaps you like it when people say that you are pathetic or that you make pathetic excuses. Whatever floats your boat. But most people -don't- like it, and -do- consider it to be insulting. Something you may wish to keep in mind if you actually want me to respond to your points instead of your insults.

No one is buying that Scott.

So you say; but the only person who I've seen stick up for you insulting me the way you do is Kenny, someone who is known to have a penchant for doing the same. Most importantly, when it comes to what I will respond to, I'm sorry but it's not a democracy; and I'm just tired of the insults of you and Kenny.

You can’t answer

Perhaps you're right; I just can't stomach all your insults anymore. Sorry.

Look shaman_, I'm not going to start digging up all the insulting things you've said to me. Calling me a 'religious fanatic' is rather silly, given that I don't belong to any organized religion, but again, if that's what you want to spend your time doing, I really don't think I can stop you. Just don't expect me to respond all that much anymore. It just got old you know? There are actually some people here who are generally less insulting (Trippy and leopold come to mind) and I'd just rather spend my time responding to people who are more respectful.

They may lose patience with you eventually.

If they start insulting me as you and Kenny do, they'll lose me as well. There was a point where Trippy had managed to do this, but after some dialogue, we worked things out. As a general rule, Trippy isn't very insulting, especially if you don't insult him much in turn.

I have spent many more hours responding to your posts only to have you ignore them and make the original claims over and over.

It looks like you didn't read that post I linked to in my last response to you; your loss.

I suppose you could say that I'm "dodging" having to deal with your insults. I'm fine with that.

This is a pointless discussion as you will keep pretending you avoid refutations because of bad words when everyone knows this is not the whole truth.

Define "everyone".

 

[Trippy]

.
No, your ability to pretend that you know what you are talking about.

Who said the concrete in the floor slabs was all there was? If there was 425,000 cubic yards then where was all of it, level by level?

psik

Do you have any proof of their being more? Or are you referring to the alleged core concrete that truthers think was present on the lower floors?

 

[scott3x]

No, your ability to pretend that you know what you are talking about.

Who said the concrete in the floor slabs was all there was? If there was 425,000 cubic yards then where was all of it, level by level?

Do you have any proof of their being more? Or are you referring to the alleged core concrete that truthers think was present on the lower floors?

He's saying that knowing the mass/weight of the concrete still doesn't tell you its distribution. It's a point he's made many, many, many times, but I understand that you may have missed it; unlike people like shaman_ and Kenny, I realize there are many points to consider and at times, you've got to repeat the same thing over and over and over, in order to get your point across. The key is civil persistence.

 

[shaman_]

So you say; but the only person who I've seen stick up for you insulting me the way you do is Kenny

What are you talking about? No one is sticking up for anyone. We haven’t done anything that requires one to defend the other.

Don’t pretend that the only people to insult your arguments are Kenny and I. That would be dishonest Scott and I’m sure honesty is important to you…..

...

, someone who is known to have a penchant for doing the same. Most importantly, when it comes to what I will respond to, I'm sorry but it's not a democracy; and I'm just tired of the insults of you and Kenny.

Scott, you are still responding to my posts. You will happily respond to these ones because they do not contain any challenges to your 9/11 claims.

Perhaps you're right; I just can't stomach all your insults anymore. Sorry.

If you can’t handle criticism of your posts you should probably head to a conspiracy theorist forum where your foolish comments won’t be challenged.

If they start insulting me as you and Kenny do, they'll lose me as well. There was a point where Trippy had managed to do this, but after some dialogue, we worked things out.

Aww that’s nice.

As a general rule, Trippy isn't very insulting, especially if you don't insult him much in
turn.

Trippy is the best contributor to this thread.

He has not addressed hundreds of posts to you like I have. Several hundred in fact. Scott you are going to find that if you continue such behavior, the more people will debate with you the less they will respect you and the more abusive their responses will become over time.

It looks like you didn't read that post I linked to in my last response to you; your loss.

I read that ridiculous post days ago and even posted a reply to you regarding one of the sentences.

Define "everyone".

Scott you are more transparent than you realise.

So are you going to concede on the WTC7 squibs?