Debunked: Iron Microspheres in 9/11 WTC Dust as Evidence for Thermite

[Mick West]

UPDATE

This article was written in 2012. A more up-to-date discussion of where the iron microspheres came from can be found at:
https://www.metabunk.org/making-iron-microspheres-grinding-impacts-welding-burning.t9533/

The iron microspheres (as evidence for thermite) were debunked years ago, but they keep coming up. The bottom line is:

• Iron Microspheres form from condensed vaporized iron or from molten iron
• You can melt iron by igniting it with a Bic lighter, if the pieces of iron are thin enough.
• There are several other sources of iron microspheres
• Iron microspheres were expected in the WTC dust

Here's an iron-rich microsphere found by the USGS, who did not consider it at all suspicious: (it's about 30µm, 0.03mm, in diameter)


If you ignite some steel wool with a hydrocarbon flame, then you get lots of iron spheres, some of the same size as these microspheres. Note this is not from the flame melting the steel, but from the steel itself burning, and melting itself. This is only possible with a sufficiently large surface area to mass ratio - i.e. with very small or very thin particles.



The below debunking is by Dave Thomas of NMSR, JREF, and others. I'm collating it here to allow easier reference via Google, and so we don't have to keep going over the same ground.


http://www.nmsr.org/nmsr911.htm

What about the iron microspheres? The iron has a thin layer of rust flakes that can easily be removed by sticky tape. The iron is heated red hot or hotter and subjected to hurricane force blast furnace like wind. The iron flakes are liberated as small particles and some iron is vaporized. Like drops of water, the iron flakes form molten spheres that solidify and the fume also condenses into spheres, the most efficient geometrical form. … The formation of iron and other type spheres at temperatures obtainable by the combustion of petroleum or coal based fuels is not a new or unique process. These spheres are the same as iron and alumino-silicate spheres in the well-studied fly ash formed from contaminants in coal as it is burned in furnaces. – Rich Lee"

Content from External Source

The answer to the mystery of the microspheres - "Iron melts only at temperatures far higher than possible in normal fires, so how could microspheres have possibly been formed on 9/11?" – is simply that very small metal particles have much lower melting points than their bulk material counterparts (around 900 o C for iron nanoparticles, as opposed to 1535 o C for bulk iron). This is called the "thermodynamic size effect." The towers contained thousands of computers and electric gadgets. Wires and filaments and meshes from electronics, as well as thin rust flakes and other small iron particles, could all have easily been made into microspheres during the WTC conflagration. To see a vivid demonstration of this phenomenon, watch the video on NMSR's YouTube channel, 'theNMSR', in which a BIC lighter is used to burn steel wool, creating numerous iron microspheres without any Thermite at all!

Content from External Source

Another experiment by Dave Thomas, simply burning some beams in a wood fire:

The following is extracted from a JREF forum thread with extensive discussion of the objections. Please read at least the first three pages of that thread to see if your personal objections are covered.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=264234 (archive: http://archive.is/ypm04)

Burning some scrap primer painted steel

in a wood fire in a barrel:

made iron microspheres:


Iron Microspheres can also created from a high energy collision or friction between iron oxide (rust) and aluminum. As seen by this classic science experiment using two rusty iron cannonballs, one coated with aluminum foil.




Given the high energy of the collapsing building and the large amount of aluminum cladding in close contact with a large area of steel, then there would certainly be some microspheres created via this mechanism.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other in-thread references:

• Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction

RJ Lee Reports:

• WTC Dust Signature Report - Composition and Morphology
• Expert Report - WTC Dust Signature
• WTC Dust Signature Report - Asbestos

Other:

• Millette: Progress Report on the Analysis of Red/Gray Chips in WTC Dust (1 March 2012)
• Harrit, et al: Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe (2009)
• JREF Discussion of Millette Paper

 

[Hitstirrer]

Yes Mick. I've seen those arguments before. And as before there are many counter arguments. The 'fly-ash' suggestion is the most plausible as it is the only one capable of producing the sheer volume of microspheres discovered.

(Somehow I can't imagine that you are really supporting the view that many tons of steel wool was stored in the buildings. And melted wires and filaments from computers are hardly likely to amount to tons of material.)

The 'fly ash' idea stems from the theory that fly ash would contain many iron microspheres from the process that the ash was recovered from. Then, that ash, as a waste product, with its embedded microspheres, was sold as an ingredient for the lightweight concrete used to pour the floor systems in the towers.

When that concrete was pulverised by gravity, those microspheres already embedded in the concrete were then released, to be found in the dust in Manhatten by RJ Lee.

As I say, plausible.

Until you look closer at microspheres that can occur in fly ash and compare them microscopically with the microspheres in the WTC dust. As I understand it they differ quite markedly. I don't have the papers to hand showing that research as it was some years since this aspect was before me, but no doubt your own resource database may find it and be able to confirm or refute that 'difference' as being relevent.

 

[Mick West]

When that concrete was pulverised by gravity, those microspheres already embedded in the concrete were then released, to be found in the dust in Manhatten by RJ Lee

The same RJ Lee who also says the spheres would have been formed in the WTC fires. Something that AE911 seriously misrepresented:

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/505-faq-3.html

Substantial quantities of previously molten iron spheres, up to 150 times the background level of iron in dust from other buildings in the area, were found and documented by the US Geological Survey (USGS) and The RJ Lee Group (RJ Lee). RJ Lee found the microspheres in amounts up to 6% inside the skyscraper across the street from WTC 2. Other scientists estimate a total of 10-100 tons of microspheres altogether throughout Lower Manhattan. These spheres were so plentiful that RJ Lee used them as a “signature component” of the WTC Dust and the EPA discussed their use as signature markers. RJ Lee notes that the microspheres were “created during the event,” that is, they were not created by welding operations during the cleanup of Ground Zero. The previously molten state of these microspheres indicates that they were created by temperatures hot enough to melt iron. Office fires and jet fuel fires, which do not produce such high temperatures, could not possibly have produced them.

Content from External Source

So AE911 are either lying, or misinformed. And this falsehood has been on their site for years, even though it has been shown to be false. The very same source they quote has directly refuted them.

The formation of iron and other type spheres at temperatures obtainable by the combustion of petroleum or coal based fuels is not a new or unique process. These spheres are the same as iron and alumino-silicate spheres in the well-studied fly ash formed from contaminants in coal as it is burned in furnaces. – Rich Lee"

Content from External Source

 

[Hitstirrer]

This debate has raged for years and I see no merit in a 'groundhog' debate.

But I did note your spin on one line.

RJ Lee quote :- "RJ Lee notes that the microspheres were “created during the event."

Mick quote :- "RJ Lee who also says the spheres would have been formed in the WTC fires."

You spun the 'created during the event' words to mean 'fire', when equally the 'creation during the event' could have been by 'thermite'.

RJ Lee's words could be interpreted either way, by either side of the debate.

Don't you just love the way words can be picked apart to suit any argument.

But there is one extra snippet that is rarely mentioned. That of microspheres of Molybdenum being found in the dust, and Molybdenum has a very high melting point of 2617ºC. Far beyond office furniture fire temperatures. Hmmmm.

 

[Jazzy]

Microspheres of iron are created by the condensation from vapor of iron molecules.

This occurs when fly ash is created, when sparks are struck with steel by friction. If oxygen is available these spheres should be partly comprised of oxygen, and what you're looking at is iron oxide. But it isn't impossible in the collapse of a large building for there to be no temporarily available oxygen, and then the microspheres will be pure iron.

The only difference will be the effect the cooling time will have on the degree of oxidation. Fly ash should be more oxidized.

Either way, using microspheres of iron is no way to prove some point about (shall I put this in?) thermite.

Best try alumina, Al2O3, the BIG waste product from burning thermite. Bright, white, easy to track. Was there any? Pfft...

 

[Jazzy]

That of microspheres of Molybdenum being found in the dust, and Molybdenum has a very high melting point of 2617ºC. Far beyond office furniture fire temperatures. Hmm.

Friction generates higher temperatures than that. Several steels contain molybdenum. Hmm.

 

[Hitstirrer]

Best try alumina, Al2O3, the BIG waste product from burning thermite. Bright, white, easy to track. Was there any? Pfft...

And I understand highly volatile, and the vapour dissipates rapidly, thus leaving no trace. As you so accurately say Pfft...

 

[Hitstirrer]

Friction generates higher temperatures than that. Several steels contain molybdenum. Hmm.

Friction? You sure? Please support that claim by evidence.

 

[Jazzy]

And I understand highly volatile, and the vapour dissipates rapidly, thus leaving no trace. As you so accurately say Pfft...

NO.

It's a refractory material used to make sandpaper. Like white sand.

 

[Jazzy]

Friction? You sure? Please support that claim by evidence.

Frictional heating falls between many stools, and has very few references.

So I'll implore you to use your brain. The amount of frictional heat energy one can impart into the surface of a material can always be made to exceed the amount causing it to dissociate into elements and turn into a plasma, after which event there is no friction possible (although other forces remain).

Don't waste my time. Spend more of your own considering what happens to meteorites. And what temperatures they reach.

 

[kawika]

Has it been determined with certainty that fly ash or slag was even used at the WTC in 1969? The WTC towers used Type 1 cement in its lightweight concrete floors. WTC7 used regular weight concrete. Type 1 isn't found under the Blended Hydraulic Types that include ash/slag.

See this link:

http://www.cement.org/basics/concretebasics_history.asp

Looking further I see this about slag. Does this mean it has no iron in it?

Blast-furnace slag, or iron blast-furnace slag, is a nonmetallic product consisting essentially of silicates, aluminosilicates of calcium, and other compounds that are developed in a molten condition simultaneously with the iron in the blast-furnace.

http://www.cement.org/basics/concretebasics_supplementary.asp

Also see this about fly ash.

Fly ash, the most commonly used pozzolan in concrete, is a finely divided residue that results from the combustion of pulverized coal and is carried from the combustion chamber of the furnace by exhaust gases. Commercially available fly ash is a by-product of thermal power generating stations.

Lastly:

The United States uses a relatively small amount of blended cement compared to countries in Europe or Asia.

 

[Mick West]

This debate has raged for years and I see no merit in a 'groundhog' debate.

But I did note your spin on one line.

RJ Lee quote :- "RJ Lee notes that the microspheres were “created during the event."

Mick quote :- "RJ Lee who also says the spheres would have been formed in the WTC fires."

You spun the 'created during the event' words to mean 'fire', when equally the 'creation during the event' could have been by 'thermite'.

RJ Lee's words could be interpreted either way, by either side of the debate.

Not really. He quite clearly says that the WTC fires would have created microspheres from the iron (steel) in the building.

 

[Hitstirrer]

NO.

It's a refractory material used to make sandpaper. Like white sand.

Agreed. When its manufactured as a composite material.

But when its just been vaporised inside an extremely high temperature thermetic reaction it doesnt hang around to make sandpaper.

The vaporised atoms are dissipated rapidly and form a minute portion of the total volume of dust and other vaporised material.

 

[Hitstirrer]

Frictional heating falls between many stools, and has very few references.

So I'll implore you to use your brain. The amount of frictional heat energy one can impart into the surface of a material can always be made to exceed the amount causing it to dissociate into elements and turn into a plasma, after which event there is no friction possible (although other forces remain).

Don't waste my time. Spend more of your own considering what happens to meteorites. And what temperatures they reach.

Are you being serious ?

You are trying to compare gravitational friction between steel items accelerating downwards together, and with therefore almost zero differential speed in respect to each other to cause any friction at all - and to then compare that with plasma events and meteorites ?

And that such tiny possibility of friction can produce billions of iron rich microspheres spread over miles of Manhattan.

Come on.

 

[Mick West]

Agreed. When its manufactured as a composite material.

But when its just been vaporised inside an extremely high temperature thermetic reaction it doesnt hang around to make sandpaper.

The vaporised atoms are dissipated rapidly and form a minute portion of the total volume of dust and other vaporised material.

Why don't the vaporized atoms of iron dissipate rapidly?

You are going to find aluminum oxide everywhere anyway. A better question (raised many times elsewhere) is why there's no aluminum in the red chips? (which are almost certainly paint chips).

 

[Hitstirrer]

Why don't the vaporized atoms of iron dissipate rapidly?

A better question (raised many times elsewhere) is why there's no aluminum in the red chips? (which are almost certainly paint chips).

No aluminium ? Of course thare was aluminium there or the investigation would have halted at that point.

Page 12 of the Bentham paper :-

"The chemical signatures found in the red layers
are also quite consistent (Fig. 7), each showing the presence
of aluminum (Al), silicon (Si), iron (Fe) and oxygen (O), and
a significant carbon (C) peak as well.

 

[Mick West]

My mistake, I meant actual pieces of pure aluminum. Like you have in thermite.

 

[Landru]

Evidence Bentham Science Publishers articles are not true peer reviewed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bentha...cite_note-The_Open_Chemical_Physics_Journal-9

n 2007, the Bentham Open Science journal, The Open Chemical Physics Journal, published a study contending dust from the World Trade Center attacks contained "active nanothermite".[9] Following publication, the journal's editor-in-chief Marie-Paule Pileni resigned stating, "They have printed the article without my authorization… I have written to Bentham, that I withdraw myself from all activities with them".[10]
In a review of Bentham Open for The Charleston Advisor, Jeffrey Beall noted that "in many cases, Bentham Open journals publish articles that no legitimate peer-review journal would accept, and unconventional and nonconformist ideas are being presented in some of them as legitimate science." He concluded by stating that "the site has exploited the Open Access model for its own financial motives and flooded scholarly communication with a flurry of low quality and questionable research."[11]

Content from External Source

 

[Hitstirrer]

My mistake, I meant actual pieces of pure aluminum. Like you have in thermite.

I thought that it had been explained. Ordinary thermite has particles of Al that have been ground down from a larger piece of Al. Nanothermite is built upwards from atomic level rather than ground down. The Al is there at nano particle level. You wont see "actual pieces of pure aluminum" like you can in thermite.

 

[Hitstirrer]

Evidence Bentham Science Publishers articles are not true peer reviewed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bentha...cite_note-The_Open_Chemical_Physics_Journal-9

So you use wikipedia, a source that all academia refuses to accept as legitimate, as a means to further your argument.

The words 'Pots' and Kettles' spring to mind.

 

[Landru]

So you use wikipedia, a source that all academia refuses to accept as legitimate, as a means to further your argument.

The words 'Pots' and Kettles' spring to mind.

That's why there are footnotes. From http://videnskab.dk/teknologi/chefredaktor-skrider-efter-kontroversiel-artikel-om-911

Et telefonopkald afslører, at chefredaktør Marie-Paule Pileni aldrig er blevet orienteret om, at artiklen ville blive bragt i The Open Chemical Physics Journal, der bliver udgivet af tidsskriftmastodonten Bentham Science Publishers.

»De har trykt den artikel uden min tilladelelse, så da du skrev til mig, anede jeg ikke, at artiklen var udkommet. Det kan jeg ikke acceptere, og derfor har jeg skrevet til Bentham, at jeg trækker mig fra alle aktiviteter hos dem,« fortæller Marie-Paule Pileni, der til daglig er professor med speciale i nanomaterialer på det velansete Université Pierre et Marie Curie i Frankrig.

Content from External Source

Of course I'll use Google translator.

A phone call reveals that chief Marie-Paule Pileni never been informed that the article would be published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, published by the journal juggernaut Bentham Science Publishers.

"They have printed the article without my authorization else, so when you wrote to me, I had no idea that the article was published. I can not accept, and therefore I have written to Bentham that I resign from all activities with them, "says Marie-Paule Pileni, who normally is a professor specializing in nanomaterials at the renowned Universite Pierre et Marie Curie in France .

Content from External Source

Please try to be less snarky. It can often lead to a violation of the politeness policy.

 

[Jazzy]

when its just been vaporised inside an extremely high temperature thermetic reaction it doesnt hang around to make sandpaper.

The laws of evidence say it does. Iron microspheres do, so why not aluminum oxide?

vaporised atoms are dissipated

Nothing SOLID "dissipates" in such a way as not to be present at all.

You are trying to compare gravitational friction

There is no such thing as gravitational friction. Just friction.

almost zero differential speed

High speed isn't necessary to generate great frictional energy.

to then compare that with plasma

You really have a different way of reading...

And that such tiny possibility of friction can produce billions of iron rich microspheres spread over miles of Manhattan. Come on.

There are 1.1 *10^22 atoms in a cubic centimeter of iron. If there are a billion atoms in a microsphere, that still allows for ELEVEN THOUSAND BILLION microspheres from the equivalent of a stainless teaspoon.

Come on.

Does this mean it has no iron in it?

No.

Fly ash, the most commonly used pozzolan in concrete, is a finely divided residue that results from the combustion of pulverized coal

There is iron in coal. The plants that made the coal contained some iron. Doesn't chlorophyll contain iron?

I thought that it had been explained. Ordinary thermite has particles of Al that have been ground down from a larger piece of Al. Nanothermite is built upwards from atomic level rather than ground down. The Al is there at nano particle level. You wont see "actual pieces of pure aluminum" like you can in thermite.

I bet you can chemically test for it, though.

 

[Hitstirrer]

Please try to be less snarky. It can often lead to a violation of the politeness policy.

Yes. I apologise. I will try to refrain from that. But you are plain wrong in claiming that the paper wasn't properly peer reviewed. I answered the question about peer review in a different thread, and gave a link to a blog by one reviewer where his credentials were given.

Of course I was already aware of that resignation event. Academia does tend to close ranks. Don't you think that this is a case of 'Ad Hom' though. Such entries as yours focus on the messenger rather than the message. You are dismissing many scientists agreement to the information in the paper, on the grounds that you dont like the means of getting that message out.

If someone resigned after receiving flack for allowing such a controvertial subject to be published on her watch that is not relevent to the peer reviewed paper. And don't forget that up to date that paper has not been debunked and forced to be revoked.

 

[Hitstirrer]

I bet you can chemically test for it, though.

 

[Hitstirrer]

Yes and that was my point to Mick

 

[Landru]

Yes. I apologise. I will try to refrain from that. But you are plain wrong in claiming that the paper wasn't properly peer reviewed. I answered the question about peer review in a different thread, and gave a link to a blog by one reviewer where his credentials were given.

Of course I was already aware of that resignation event. Academia does tend to close ranks. Don't you think that this is a case of 'Ad Hom' though. Such entries as yours focus on the messenger rather than the message. You are dismissing many scientists agreement to the information in the paper, on the grounds that you dont like the means of getting that message out.

If someone resigned after receiving flack for allowing such a controvertial subject to be published on her watch that is not relevent to the peer reviewed paper. And don't forget that up to date that paper has not been debunked and forced to be revoked.

She resigned because of that paper. Her field is thermite.

 

[Hitstirrer]

She resigned because of that paper. Her field is thermite.

But she didn't publish a paper that was peer reviewed debunking the paper did she. Why not ?

 

[Hitstirrer]

She resigned because of that paper. Her field is thermite.

Surely if she disagreed so strongly with the content to resign her post she would have given the reasons why she so strongly disagreed with the contents of the paper.

 

[Hitstirrer]

She resigned because of that paper. Her field is thermite.

That leads me to think that it wasnt the content but the subject.

 

[Landru]

That leads me to think that it wasnt the content but the subject.

No it was the fact that it was a bad magazine.

http://videnskab.dk/teknologi/chefredaktor-skrider-efter-kontroversiel-artikel-om-911

Hun føler sig ikke bare snigløbet, men undrer sig også over, at artiklen om støvanalyserne efter terrorangrebet på USA 11. september 2001 overhovedet har fundet vej til The Open Chemical Physics Journal.

»Jeg kan ikke acceptere, at det emne bliver bragt i mit tidsskrift. Den artikel handler slet ikke om fysisk kemi eller kemisk fysik, og jeg kunne godt tro, at der ligger et politisk synspunkt bag offentliggørelsen. Hvis nogen havde spurgt mig, ville jeg sige, at artiklen aldrig burde have været publiceret i det her tidsskrift. Punktum,« konstaterer den tidligere chefredaktør.

Content from External Source

Google translation:

She feels not only stabbed in the back*, but is also concerned that the article on dust analysis following the terrorist attack on the United States 11 September 2001 has even found its way into The Open Chemical Physics Journal ."I can not accept that the item is put in my journal. The article is not about physical chemistry or chemical physics , and I could well believe that there is a political viewpoint behind its publication . If anyone had asked me, I would say that the article should never have been published in this journal. Sentence , " notes the former chief .

Content from External Source

*[Admin Translation note snigløbet = Danish for "angribe på en lumsk og overraskende måde" = "attacked in a treacherous and surprising way" = "stabbed in the back". source: http://www.dsn.dk/ro/ro.htm]

Also:

»Jeg var faktisk i tvivl om dem i forvejen, for jeg havde flere gange bedt om information om tidsskriftet uden at høre fra dem. Det optræder ikke på listen over internationale tidsskrifter, og det er et dårligt tegn. Nu kan jeg se, at det er, fordi det er et dårligt tidsskrift,« siger Marie-Paule Pileni og fortsætter:

»Der er heller ingen referencer til The Open Chemical Physics Journal i andre artikler. Jeg har to kolleger, som gik med til at offentliggøre en artikel, der heller aldrig er blevet citeret nogen steder. Hvis ingen læser det, er det er dårligt tidsskrift, og der er ikke brug for det,« lyder den hårde dom.

Content from External Source

Google translation:

"I was really unsure about them in advance , because I had repeatedly asked for information about the magazine without hearing from them. It does not appear in the list of international journals, and it's a bad sign. Now I can see that it is because it is a bad magazine , "says Marie- Paule Pileni and continues:" There are no references to The Open Chemical Physics Journal in other articles . I have two colleagues who agreed to publish an article that never has been quoted anywhere. If no one reads it, it is bad magazine , and there is no need for it, " reads the harsh judgment.

Content from External Source

 

[Landru]

That leads me to think that it wasnt the content but the subject.

They also print phony science papers for $800.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17288-crap-paper-accepted-by-journal.html#.UlnoRVPhExo

Sheer nonsense
So Davis teamed up with Kent Anderson, a member of the publishing team at The New England Journal of Medicine, to put Bentham's editorial standards to the test. The pair turned to SCIgen, a program that generates nonsensical computer science papers, and submitted the resulting paper to The Open Information Science Journal, published by Bentham.

The paper, entitled "Deconstructing Access Points" (pdf) made no sense whatsoever, as this sample reveals:

In this section, we discuss existing research into red-black trees, vacuum tubes, and courseware [10]. On a similar note, recent work by Takahashi suggests a methodology for providing robust modalities, but does not offer an implementation [9].

Acronym clue
Davis and Anderson, writing under the noms de plume David Phillips and Andrew Kent, also dropped a hefty hint of the hoax by giving their institutional affiliation as the Center for Research in Applied Phrenology, or CRAP.

Yet four months after the article was submitted, "David Phillips" received an email from Sana Mokarram, Bentham's assistant manager of publication:

This is to inform you that your submitted article has been accepted for publication after peer-reviewing process in TOISCIJ. I would be highly grateful to you if you please fill and sign the attached fee form and covering letter and send them back via email as soon as possible to avoid further delay in publication.

The publication fee was $800, to be sent to a PO Box in the United Arab Emirates. Having made his point, Davis withdrew the paper.

Content from External Source

 

[MikeC]

And I understand highly volatile, and the vapour dissipates rapidly, thus leaving no trace. As you so accurately say Pfft...

AFAIK Alumina Al2O3 is not highly volatile a all - it is a solid, and extremely stable! It is the skin on every "bare" aluminium surface, and the abrasive compound on most "sand" papers.

This paper discusses the phase of the products of thermite reactions - and as far as I can tell the aluminium product is liquid and solid.

 

[Hitstirrer]

They also print phony science papers for $800.[/quote]

I must refer you to my previous answer. You continue to use 'ad hom' attacks despite having had your attention drawn to that. All of your input is focussed on the publication route rather than the information itself.

As it happens I tend to agree with you about the way that Bentham was run and managed. And I also agree that resignation was probably in order. Not from the acceptance of a perfectly good and expertly peer reviewed paper, but rather from the lack of detection of a fraudulent and bogus 'gobbledegook' paper such as you describe.That took away all credibility from them. As I said, the final nail in her resignation coffin was the controvertial nature of the nano paper on the back of the bogus one.

If you consider for a moment, you will realise that if the information in the nano paper was peer reviewed correctly, then the information needs to be addressed, rather than the cyberpaper it was written on. That has been done by people better qualified than us, and up to the date of writing has not been refuted by any other paper that has been peer reviewed.

The only ones calling for it to be withdrawn are people in forums such as this who are not qualified to do that. In fact an attempt has been made to replicate the nanothermite laboratory work but after months the result has still failed all peer review and the authors and funders have now taken a very low profile on that project. The outcome is still awaited. And until then the original paper remains valid.

As you are aware, as requested, I earlier gave you full details of one of the peer reviewers and asked if you wished to challenge his credentials. Quite sensibly you demurred. But another member here launched an 'ad hom' attack at him personally rather than to his credentials, using the excuse that if his personality could be questioned then that automatically undermined his professional credibility.

That is classic ad hominum logic, and bogus, as most here realise.

To be honest I am starting to find such tactics tiresome in this forum and even more so when its use is highlighted and ignored within a few posts on the same topic. Please cease.

 

[Hitstirrer]

Seems that I screwed up inputting my text. Obviously only the first few words there are Landru's quote. The rest is my own input. sorry guys.

 

[Jazzy]

Seems that I screwed up inputting my text. Obviously only the first few words there are Landru's quote. The rest is my own input. sorry guys.

You can re-edit it easily, you know.

And until then the original paper remains valid.

Nope. Until it is respectably peer-reviewed it has no validity. That's how it works.

I am starting to find such tactics tiresome in this forum and even more so when its use is highlighted and ignored within a few posts on the same topic. Please cease.

A feeling I happen to agree with you about. About some of your compatriots. Might there be a balance, there?

 

[Hitstirrer]

Until it is respectably peer-reviewed it has no validity.

So you are questioning the credentials, motive, and personal credibility of the reviewer who has broken convention and identified himself ? And also feel able to say that others involved in the peer review process have no 'respectibility' - even though you have no idea who they are. I find that position somewhat untenable bearing in mind that the world and his wife have been desperately trying to debunk that paper, on technical grounds, for years, and failed.

 

[Landru]

So you are questioning the credentials, motive, and personal credibility of the reviewer who has broken convention and identified himself ? And also feel able to say that others involved in the peer review process have no 'respectibility' - even though you have no idea who they are. I find that position somewhat untenable bearing in mind that the world and his wife have been desperately trying to debunk that paper, on technical grounds, for years, and failed.

There is no ad hominum attack. You presented the journal as a peer reviewed platform and a voir dire of the journal clearly shows that it is not a recognized peer reviewed journal. As Ms. Pileni says"

"I was really unsure about them in advance , because I had repeatedly asked for information about the magazine without hearing from them. It does not appear in the list of international journals, and it's a bad sign. Now I can see that it is because it is a bad magazine , "says Marie- Paule Pileni and continues:" There are no references to The Open Chemical Physics Journal in other articles . I have two colleagues who agreed to publish an article that never has been quoted anywhere. If no one reads it, it is bad magazine , and there is no need for it, " reads the harsh judgment.

Content from External Source

 

[Hitstirrer]

There is no ad hominum attack. You presented the journal as a peer reviewed platform

I did not present the journal at all. I presented the scientific paper that was printed in there. You have decided that because you don't like the cyberpaper it was 'printed' on that you can ignore the message in that scientific paper.

The paper itself has subsequently been submitted to the most rigorous 'peer review' imaginable by being exposed to every scientist with equal or superior qualifications in the world, and no one has yet been able to refute it by publishing their own peer reviewed rebuttal. The ultimate peer review has thus taken place.

 

[Landru]

I did not present the journal at all. I presented the scientific paper that was printed in there. You have decided that because you don't like the cyberpaper it was 'printed' on that you can ignore the message in that scientific paper.

The paper itself has subsequently been submitted to the most rigorous 'peer review' imaginable by being exposed to every scientist with equal or superior qualifications in the world, and no one has yet been able to refute it by publishing their own peer reviewed rebuttal. The ultimate peer review has thus taken place.

That's not how it works. No one is going to waste time rebutting something that was published in a vanity publication. The more telling thing is that no other reputable journal quotes it.

 

[Hitstirrer]

That's not how it works. No one is going to waste time rebutting something that was published in a vanity publication. The more telling thing is that no other reputable journal quotes it.

You really havn't thought this through have you. Do you not realise that many people are fiercely trying to rebutt it. They have reached out in all directions to do that. But failed. And you still focus on the messenger rather than the message.