tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828122657384873884.post5293936596010936203..comments2023-10-17T08:02:47.368-04:00Comments on DENIS RANCOURT ON CLIMATE: Peer review of Harrit et al. on 911 - Can't see any nanothermite?Denis Rancourthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16743375141824505606noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828122657384873884.post-72484782806086960692013-11-20T16:41:22.479-05:002013-11-20T16:41:22.479-05:00This piece neither confirms nor refutes nanothermi...This piece neither confirms nor refutes nanothermite. It offers some criticism of the methods of the paper, but in no way is definitive (as the hyperbole in the comments claims).<br /><br />It should be relatively easy to dig up more dust in the storage site and test it. If that is not happening, then is that because we are not allowed to access the evidence? It's only been 12 years and counting after all.<br /><br />A lot of debris is stored from the site, and this is of vital public interest, as already stated. We should be able to get the evidence and test it more thoroughly. No?<br /><br />Some idiot in this comment thread claims that the 9/11 truth movement never proved anything at all? That's criminal ignorance. The cover up is proven (a thousand times, and a thousand different ways), and this cover-up, which clearly protects the regime in Saudi Arabia is arguably high treason. Treason is "aid and comfort" to an enemy that attacks the nation. Covering up the role of the Saudi regime in 9/11 is aid and comfort.<br /><br />While the focus is on the minutia of chemical reactions, the big picture is far more clear: cover-up of the truth by the US government. That is undeniable.<br /><br />Senator Bob Graham: Re-Open the 9/11 Investigation Now<br />http://wp.me/pwAWe-1JH<br /><br />2001-10-03: FBI Communication, PENTBOMB, Omar Al Bayoumi<br />http://news.intelwire.com/2008/03/2001-10-03-fbi-communication-pentbomb.html<br /><br />Unlike these self-styled idiot "debunkers," who don't actually give a damn about what is true or not, I back up what I say with facts.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828122657384873884.post-38610175558021342602012-08-28T10:26:29.795-04:002012-08-28T10:26:29.795-04:00building 7 must have been very rusty to have falle...building 7 must have been very rusty to have fallen as quickly as it did.<br /><br />your intellectual dishonesty is astounding. <br /><br />does the cia pay better than the u of ottowa?<br /><br />--marley engvallAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03004669949170764018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828122657384873884.post-46972061020757448092012-02-29T14:28:22.281-05:002012-02-29T14:28:22.281-05:00There is now another study done on the dust, soon ...There is now another study done on the dust, soon to be published in a peer reviewed journal. I would be interested in your thoughts on this Denis.<br /><br />http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=231314Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828122657384873884.post-65426614944816492382012-02-01T04:10:16.862-05:002012-02-01T04:10:16.862-05:00I read this attempting to convince myself that har...I read this attempting to convince myself that harrit was wrong and I should abandon the truth movement, but this article is nonsense. I and quite a few others in my field have discussed the nanothermite issue (behind closed doors since we value our jobs)and have concluded the lab results are completely valid.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828122657384873884.post-80792768487118548012011-10-03T06:03:05.097-04:002011-10-03T06:03:05.097-04:00I agree with you that the paper wouldn't have ...I agree with you that the paper wouldn't have passed peer review, yet the troofers still cite it as 'scientific proof'! Sad.<br /><br />In addition to the flaws you mention, the authors failed to perform the definitive test for thermite: they failed to try and burn it under argon or under water to see if it combusted. Since thermite produces its own oxygen, that would have been a test I would have required.<br /><br />I'd also have liked to see better compositional analysis - mass spec at least. But that might just be me. At any rate, the authors' conclusion is completely unsupported by their data and that paper should never have been published.<br /><br />I guess we could look on the bright side: with the publishing of this paper, we have good evidence that Bentham Journals are NOT peer reviewed. <br /><br />And Anonymous? Iron spheres come from a lot of sources: pozzolanic materials in concrete, toner cartridges in printers, welding spatter from construction and repair and combustion of rust flakes. All of these sources are far more likely than thermite!NonnyMus2https://www.blogger.com/profile/09189430001853786638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828122657384873884.post-64433880890859636262011-10-03T05:54:11.317-04:002011-10-03T05:54:11.317-04:00The most obvious test they failed to perform was b...The most obvious test they failed to perform was burning the sample under water and under argon. Since thermite produces its own oxygen, that test would have been definitive.<br /><br />Failing to perform that test is also not explained by the authors.<br /><br />In addition, I'd like to see better compositional analysis. Mass spec at least. But that might just be me.<br /><br />At any rate, their conclusions are completely unsupported by their data. <br /><br />I guess we should look on the bright side: by getting that crap published in a Bentham journal, they proved those journals are NOT peer reviewed!NonnyMus2https://www.blogger.com/profile/09189430001853786638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828122657384873884.post-79074480363481550022011-06-15T14:04:10.322-04:002011-06-15T14:04:10.322-04:00I think nano-thermite issue requires more research...I think nano-thermite issue requires more research to acheive consensus but what about the iron-rich spheres ?<br /><br />Where did they come from ?<br /><br />They must have been molten at some time in their life and office fires / kerosene as far as I am aware cannot liquefy steel.<br /><br />Any Offers ?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828122657384873884.post-2030498248050181472011-04-26T06:35:40.870-04:002011-04-26T06:35:40.870-04:00The sheer strength and wide array of evidence mars...The sheer strength and wide array of evidence marshalled in this recent presentation by architect Richard Gage eliminates any doubt as to what was done to these buildings. The dust analysis is only a small part of it. It blows my mind to see the mental contortions people go through to resist grasping the obvious. Watch it:<br />http://vimeo.com/17994693Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828122657384873884.post-43786951418691858292011-02-13T10:57:43.889-05:002011-02-13T10:57:43.889-05:00Rancourt
Seriously?
Did you notice that the tw...Rancourt<br /><br /> Seriously? <br /><br />Did you notice that the two main authors are specialists in nano-materials?<br /><br />Did you notice that they were comparing their samples to known nanothermite explosives, and that they match?-It doesn´t matter that the Harrit material exploded at 430 but the other at 530 or so....different varieties will ignite at diff temps, but the common factor for nanothermite is that it ignites at temps way below normal thermite at 900 plus.<br /><br />The wtc beams were made out of steel - did the Harrit research show the presence of steel?<br /><br />Does rust normally occur on the nanoscale?<br /><br />Does rust normally ignite and explode at 430 degrees?<br /><br />Does rust normally produce layers of iron/al and a silicon- matrix,nanoscale?<br /><br />Does rust normally outperform conventional explosives in explosive power?<br /><br />Does rust normally ignite at 400 and produce nanoironspheres just like nanothermite?<br /><br />What other known materials are based on iron/al, that also ignite, explode, and produce ironspheres?<br /><br />Are you aware of the fact that an independent researcher Mark Basile has confirmed the presence of nanot in wtcdust samples from a museum?<br /><br />Are you aware of the study that shows nanothermie-specific materials in the airpollution after the attack?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828122657384873884.post-29725140235252142122010-12-27T15:41:06.691-05:002010-12-27T15:41:06.691-05:00THE PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE CHALLENGE
A TV documenta...THE PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE CHALLENGE<br /><br />A TV documentary which purported to explain the collapses of the Twin Towers featured a demonstration in which a house-of-cards like structure representing one of the towers was supposed to collapse from the top down. The documentary showed only the beginning of this simulated building collapse, since the producers were apparently unable to achieve progressive total collapse. This raises the question: If this newly discovered mode of structural failure is so likely to happen, why is it so difficult to reproduce? <br /><br />THE PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE CHALLENGE<br /><br />The challenge is in 5 parts, from the easiest to the most difficult.<br /><br />All five require building a structure that will undergo top-down progressive total collapse -- i.e.: when disturbed near the top, it will collapse from the top down to the bottom, leaving no part standing. The disturbance can include mechanical force, such as projectile impacts, and fires, augmented with hydrocarbon fuels. Explosives and electromagnetic energy beams are not permitted.<br /><br />Your structure can be made out of anything: straws, toothpicks, cards, dominoes, mud, vegetables, pancakes, etc.<br /><br />The designers of the Twin Towers were able to meet all 5 challenges using steel and concrete.<br /><br /><br /><br />CHALLENGE #1:<br /><br />Build a structure with a vertical aspect ratio of at least 2 (twice as tall as it is wide) and induce it to undergo top-down total progressive collapse.<br /><br />CHALLENGE #2:<br /><br />Build a structure with a square footprint and a vertical aspect ratio of at least 6.5 (6.5 times as high as it is wide), and induce it to undergo top-down total progressive collapse.<br /><br />CHALLENGE #3:<br /><br />Build a structure as required by CHALLENGE #2 which, in the process of collapsing, will throw pieces outward in all directions such that at least 80% of the mass of the materials ends up lying outside of the footprint, but their center of mass lies inside the footprint.<br /><br />CHALLENGE #4:<br /><br />Build a structure as required by CHALLENGE #2 which is capable of remaining intact in 100 MPH cross wind.<br /><br />CHALLENGE #5:<br /><br />Build a structure that meets the requirements of both CHALLENGES #3 and #4.<br /><br />http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/challenge.htmlFranciscohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06787112877520790394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828122657384873884.post-71498868437381695252010-12-27T15:32:44.120-05:002010-12-27T15:32:44.120-05:00The details of such an analysis are beyond my comp...The details of such an analysis are beyond my competence. However, to me, the visual evidence of the collapse of those buildings, especially WTC 7, which falls exactly like a demolition, leaves no other explanation than controlled demolition. It seem miraculous to me that some random force like fire and structurla damage could by themselve choreograph this effect spontaneously--something never seen before or after. For all practical purposes I consider it impossible. These things have been explained very convincingly by the many engineers and scientists researching this topic for the last few years, in sites like Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth (http://www.ae911truth.org/) Scholars for 911 Truth (http://stj911.org/), Jim Hoffman's site http://911research.wtc7.net/ and many others.Franciscohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06787112877520790394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828122657384873884.post-78124743694512835202010-12-23T18:37:27.650-05:002010-12-23T18:37:27.650-05:00These are some general comments/questions after re...These are some general comments/questions after reading your material on the 9/11 issue through several posts, Dr. Rancourt.<br /><br />First, allow me to congratulate you for your courage and independence of thought. All too rare these days.<br /><br />I have not noticed any reference to Dr. Steve Jones' work on the controlled demolition issue but would like to hear any thoughts you may have on his works.<br /><br />Elsewhere, I noticed that you were impressed by the notion that there's pods attached to the planes. This, along with the no plane in the pentagon stuff, I have always regarded as the most specious of purported 9/11 truthes' claims - likely disinformation. Have you seen the site 911research? I encourage you to see this page if you haven't already: http://911review.com/disinfo/index.html ... this is an excellent site to explore if you have not already.<br /><br />Also, you seem to discount the controlled demolition evidence based on this apparently sloppy article, but note elsewhere that WTC7 leaves little other plausible explanation. <br /><br />Finally, I would say the importance of establishing physical proof of controlled demolition is of the utmost importance, if it's the truth, because it provides a smoking gun that has obvious and incontrovertible implications of a high level conspiracy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828122657384873884.post-8302803602426665192010-12-23T11:47:14.144-05:002010-12-23T11:47:14.144-05:00@Interviewer from gulli.com
Just to clarify.
The...@Interviewer from gulli.com<br /><br />Just to clarify.<br /><br />The document you posted was produced during an ongoing email discussion about my critical review of the Harrit paper. <br /><br />The discussion is presently centered only on the first point regarding conclusive evidence that Al was present in the red layer.<br /><br />For example, Dr. Harrit has agreed to provide key SEM-EDX spectral data that did not accompany the original published article.<br /><br />After the first point, I hope that each following point can also be discussed to completion.<br /><br />After these discussions are over (for example if one side abandons and refuses to continue clarifications) I intend to make the entire and very lively exchange public.<br /><br />This will give a much more thorough picture of the exchange and one that is true and unedited.Denis Rancourthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16743375141824505606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828122657384873884.post-11241349850609586952010-12-23T11:19:47.430-05:002010-12-23T11:19:47.430-05:00mr. harrits answer to the "rust" idea
h...mr. harrits answer to the "rust" idea<br /><br />http://www.scribd.com/doc/45837672/101220-Answer-to-Denis-Rancourt-1<br /><br />he has sent it to dr. rancourt, but dr. rancourt did not publish it for some reason it seems.Interviewer from gulli.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828122657384873884.post-72770626253932511432010-12-16T17:38:34.255-05:002010-12-16T17:38:34.255-05:00@b.j. edwards
Agreed. The Truther's projectio...@b.j. edwards<br /><br />Agreed. The Truther's projections never stop to amaze me.Peternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828122657384873884.post-51272668869406870792010-12-16T12:43:32.501-05:002010-12-16T12:43:32.501-05:00I see the blinkered John Philip Anderson, AKA bofo...I see the blinkered John Philip Anderson, AKA bofors, has once again taken the opportunity to embarrass himself and the University of Michigan with utter nonsense.<br /><br />Despite the fact that the overwhelming peer-reviewed science demonstrates anthropogenic global warming is real, and that the 9/11 Truth Movement has never been able to support any of its claims nor ever present a coherent conspiracy theory, Andersen is happy to inform us that we, not himself, are the deluded ones.<br /><br />I am quite happy to live in the rational world, thank you very much, and not fall victim to such blatant denialism that surrounds Anderson.b. j. edwardshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04246035380950545787noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828122657384873884.post-53468345747352455422010-12-16T04:06:55.303-05:002010-12-16T04:06:55.303-05:00Rusted steel? Are you kidding me? You call this ...Rusted steel? Are you kidding me? You call this an "expert review"?<br /><br />Umm... gee... Professor... is there some reason you failed to cite a signal paper and why absolutely no one has found that rusted steel exhibits an explosive reaction in fires? <br /><br />If you are too stupid or deluded to figure out that "global warming" is a fraud and the 9/11 was staged by the US government, perhaps you should do us all favor stick to something you actually seem capable of doing half-decently, like exposing misconduct at the University of Ottawa.<br /><br />~ John Philip Anderson<br /> The University of Michigan, College of Engineering<br /> B.S.E in Materials Science & Engineering<br /> - Andrew A. Kucher Award for Outstanding Engineering Research<br /> M.S. in Macromolecular Science & Engineering<br /> Ph.D Candidate in Macromolecular Science & EngineeringJohn Philip Andersonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828122657384873884.post-68627863344264884242010-12-07T09:28:38.224-05:002010-12-07T09:28:38.224-05:00@Dave Kyte,
Indeed.
Here is a thorough earlier ...@Dave Kyte,<br /><br />Indeed. <br /><br />Here is a thorough earlier expert critique of the Harrit et al. paper (in French) by professor Jérôme Quirant:<br /><br />http://www.bastison.net/RESSOURCES/Critique_Article_Harrit.pdf<br /><br />In addition a by-design rust layer is used in some steels as an anti-rust coating. But Quirant argues for paint to explain the DSC traces.Denis Rancourthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16743375141824505606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828122657384873884.post-87692901029830921832010-12-06T23:53:53.117-05:002010-12-06T23:53:53.117-05:00You should also note this steel was coated with ru...You should also note this steel was coated with rust proofing paints, before shipment to the building site. Any guess as to the chemical makeup of this paint?Dave Kytehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12152646951257955985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828122657384873884.post-43661858066177978482010-12-05T23:00:49.502-05:002010-12-05T23:00:49.502-05:00"U R A MORON!"
Got to love the intellec..."U R A MORON!"<br /><br />Got to love the intellectual fortitude of twoofdom.Grandmastershekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06550937248671830310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828122657384873884.post-84483348140990550152010-12-03T11:18:56.856-05:002010-12-03T11:18:56.856-05:00"Here is an alternative explanation for the o..."Here is an alternative explanation for the observations reported by Harrit et al.<br /><br />Steel rusts."<br /><br />U R A MORON!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com