Study from Denmark and elsewhere using scanning electron microscope finds Thermitic compouns in four separate samples of dust from the WTC debris

 http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

The following articles were provided by Jim Hoffman  http://wtc7.net  http://911review.com  http://911research.wtc7.net to help people understand the ideas and implications of the new paper mentioned above

Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust:
Scientists Discover Both Residues And Unignited Fragments
Of High-Tech Metal Incendiaries in Debris From the Twin Towers
by Jim Hoffman
 http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html

Wake Up and Smell the Aluminothermic Nanocomposite Explosives
As Documentation of Thermitic Materials in the WTC Twin Towers Grows,
Official Story Backers Ignore, Deny, Evade, and Dissemble
by Jim Hoffman
 http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosives_evidence_timeline.html

Hes written some best-selling books and he is going around and selling them.
If his lecture keeps referring to 'his books' then i'd be suspicious about his motivations.

No noticable 9/11 truth presence on most demos and related events these days. Those that do show up get laughed at. How many followers will attend?

Whatever you do don't ever, ever,ever, entertain the thought that there is such a thing as a false flag operation. It's very dangerous and un-left. You might end up following David Ike or becoming a staunch holocaust denying anti-Semite, reall,y this shit will bend your mind 'Common Purpose" style.

Popular Mechanics are in it for Truth and Justice and are in no way trying to sell magazines and books

"G20 protests - Top Ten placards

2. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth"

 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/G20/article6016628.ece


"A brass band played for several hours. And as the day wore on, protesters peeled away from the knots of angry young men taunting riot police to dance to a mobile disco set up on the steps of the Bank. Above the disco, someone had fixed a large poster which read: “Hundreds of Architects and Engineers Demand a Real 9/11 Investigation.”

 http://blogs.reuters.com/uknews/2009/04/01/on-the-frontline-of-the-g20-summit


Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth -  http://ae911truth.org

... are Sceptic, Boab, Magoo & Architect et al when you need 'em?

I mean, who else is going to distract us from the growing consensus for a proper investigation and an emerging truth that is both scientific in its scope and widely read?

Tin foil anyone?

Or is it anti-semitic lizards today, I forget the drill?

Trolls are off duty 'till Monday.

....seeing as no-one else has yet bothered, I will 'step up' as they say in the Wire.

1) David Ray Griffen and Professor Steven 'Jesus visited ancient America' Jones are 'respected' scholars only in the minds of 9/11 conspiracy theorists

2) The journal itself is little more than an online version of vanity publishing where 'scholars' appear to pay to get their 'research' published. If this article was peer reviewed, who by, and what were their qualifications in the relevant fields. Are their comments on the article available? Why are so many of the references simply to 9/11 conspiracy sites rather than to independent research? How many reputable journals turned this nonsense down before they stumped up cash to have it published in a journal with no real credibility?

3) For a so called 'scientific' paper why is the sample size used so ridiculously small - four samples, how representative is that?

4) What measures were put in place to ensure the samples were not contaminated from other sources. Surely efforts should have been made to ensure that all samples were collected under the same conditions and this should have been clarified in the methodology. How long were samples kept before being examined and in what conditions? What efforts were made to falsify their own conclusions (as per the scientific method) with dust samples which do not share the same characteristics. Indeed, if so many samples exist, why were only four ever cited in the research?

5) Paint is dismissed as a possible source of the flakes, yet the methodology here is flawed. No allowance is made for the fact that there are clearly different types of paint with differing chemical properties, some of which may exhibit the characteristics they state, others may not. Why was there no reference made to the specific type of paint used in their 'see its not paint' experiment and what were its exact properties? How do other types of paint compare? Later in the article they seem to state that their 'super thermite' was itself painted on to the steel. How was this achieved? How thick did this paint have to be to cause the collapse of the twin towers? How do they explain the fact that over half a tonne of thermite still fails to cut an SUV in half, if it has the devastating properties they intimate?

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

6) Given that many many tonnes of thermite would have been required to cause the collapse they claim, how come no one ever noticed it piled up in the buildings? Where was it?

7) How did they get the thermite to defy the laws of gravity by burning itself horizontally across the beams to sever them? Why have they failed to replicate the action of these super thermite charges using a steel beam of the same proportions used in the twin towers?

8) What are the exact chemical properties of this so called super thermite which is rather vaguely referred to?

8) How does this article in any way provide any conclusive proof re: conspiracy theories re 9/11. Even if this substance is thermite (which is still open to considerable dispute seeing as thermite itself is little more than iron oxide and aluminum) how can they conclusively prove that these trace elements are not products either the original construction of the towers or the subsequent clearing of ground zero. They themselves concede that only one of their measly four samples was allegedly taken within a few hours of the collapse (again, what conditions was this sample kept in during the intervening years before analysis?)

I remain unconvinced, the 'truthers' are going to have to do a lot better than this.

For those that are interested, there is an in depth discussion of this article here:

 http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=139293

From Prof Steven Jones ( http://stj911.com,  http://journalof911studies.com)
repost from  http://911blogger.com/node/19780


Since the days of Sir Isaac Newton, Science has proceeded through the publication of peer-reviewed papers. Peer-review means a thorough reading, commentary and even challenge before publication 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 choose the referees and usually pick at least one or two reviewers that the authors did NOT mention -- and that is almost certainly the case with this paper (based on commentary we received from the reviewers). In the end, all the reviewers -- who were selected by the editor(s) -- approved publication. Thus, the paper was subjected to peer review by the editor or editors, and it passed the peer-review process.

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 ( http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM)or the "Environmental Anomalies" papers ( http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/) 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...

Like where exactly does all their money come from?

They have enough of it to give out millions of free books and professionally edited dvds, yet they are VERY small in numbers. They also have enough of it to pay for flights/hotels and venue hire. Where does it all come from?