Why hasn't the U.S. mainstream media reported on the claim that nanothermite was found in WTC dust?

Tony Szamboti

Active Member
A corollary to the earlier thread I posted, asking why U.S. law enforcement hasn't tested the WTC dust for evidence of thermitic materials, is the somewhat strange issue of why the reality that a number of technical scholars claiming to have found nanothermite in WTC dust hasn't been reported on in the U.S. mainstream media. I am sure average people would at least like to hear that it has been claimed and to then demand law enforcement look into the allegation.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
A corollary to the earlier thread I posted, asking why U.S. law enforcement hasn't tested the WTC dust for evidence of thermitic materials, is the somewhat strange issue of why the reality that a number of technical scholars claiming to have found nanothermite in WTC dust hasn't been reported on in the U.S. mainstream media. I am sure average people would at least like to hear that it has been claimed and to then demand law enforcement look into the allegation.
If you are going to make a claim that something is "somewhat strange", then please provide evidence in terms of similar examples with quantification. Otherwise this is just you voicing an opinion, and will be moved to the Rambles section.
 

Alienentity

Active Member
A corollary to the earlier thread I posted, asking why U.S. law enforcement hasn't tested the WTC dust for evidence of thermitic materials, is the somewhat strange issue of why the reality that a number of technical scholars claiming to have found nanothermite in WTC dust hasn't been reported on in the U.S. mainstream media. I am sure average people would at least like to hear that it has been claimed and to then demand law enforcement look into the allegation.
I don't know that it's strange. One of my main criticisms of the 2009 Bentham paper is that it wasn't submitted to or published by an respected, well-known scientific journal. This practically guarantees it's going to be passed over by journalists for articles in more solid journals. If you were to pick up a copy of Scientific American and see this story that would be far more noteworthy.
Another major problem for the Bentham paper, IMO, is that none of the authors are recognized for work in nanomaterials, let alone explosive sol-gels. Again it would give a huge boost to their credibility if the main author was such a person.

Also Tony, given the highly inflammatory nature of the allegations in the paper, as well as the immense pain of the 9/11 attacks, I think you'd expect American MSM to be very cautious in handling the subject. You can see the difference even in Canadian coverage, where the Fifth Estate has given a lot of coverage and airtime to Richard Gage in their two 9/11 conspiracy specials. Gage was given almost free reign recently, with no direct rebuttal to his allegations. That was aired on CBC across the nation.
 

Tony Szamboti

Active Member
I think the claim of finding nanothermite in the WTC dust is somewhat sensational and that it would appear strange to any rational person that the U.S. mainstream media has not covered it as a sensational allegation. In fact, to my knowledge, no U.S. mainstream media has even mentioned it.

A sensational allegation the US. mainstream media did cover, prior to the Iraq war, was Dick Cheney saying that lead hijacker Mohammed Atta was seen meeting with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague prior to Sept. 11, 2001. That wasn't even caveated as an allegation at the time and we now know there was never any evidence that it happened.

Another sensational allegation made around the same time and covered by the U.S. mainstream media was that there was an old airliner used to train hijackers located at a facility south of Baghdad called Salmon Pak. To my knowledge this was never confirmed.

The U.S. mainstream media reported a number of sensational things given to it by Dick Cheney and others in the administration, as fact and not just allegation, only to later find that much of the information was untrustworthy and was from Ahmed Chalabi who had been convicted of embezzlement in absentia in Jordan and was wanted there at the time.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I think the claim of finding nanothermite in the WTC dust is somewhat sensational and that it would appear strange to any rational person that the U.S. mainstream media has not covered it as a sensational allegation. In fact, to my knowledge, no U.S. mainstream media has even mentioned it.
.
The claim that Hitler is living on the moon is "Sensational". You need a bit more to go on than that.

When the government claims something, it carries vastly more weight (or at least newsworthy significance significance) than just some random person claiming something. So obviously the media reports government claims, regardless of what they are. Some random guy claiming to have found thermite is not the same as the government claiming something equally sensational.
 

Tony Szamboti

Active Member
The claim that Hitler is living on the moon is "Sensational". You need a bit more to go on than that.

When the government claims something, it carries vastly more weight (or at least newsworthy significance significance) than just some random person claiming something. So obviously the media reports government claims, regardless of what they are. Some random guy claiming to have found thermite is not the same as the government claiming something equally sensational.
It wasn't just a random guy claiming to have found nanothermite in the WTC dust. There were nine authors on that paper with some holding PhDs in relevant scientific fields.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It wasn't just a random guy claiming to have found nanothermite in the WTC dust. There were nine authors on that paper with some holding PhDs in relevant scientific fields.
Random fringe scientists then.

The problem is that almost no matter how outrageous the claim, you can always find some scientists (out of the millions available) to support it. So the press is justifiably cautious about following up on a story with earth-shattering implications, just because a few guys with PhDs said something.

For example, Professor David Griscom, PhD, has a very distinguished looking resume:
Does that mean that when he writes:
then the press should be giving attention to the "chemtrail" conspiracy theory?

I know you feel marginalized Tony. But this is not because people are marginalizing you, it's because you are in the margins.
 

Tony Szamboti

Active Member
Random fringe scientists then.

The problem is that almost no matter how outrageous the claim, you can always find some scientists (out of the millions available) to support it. So the press is justifiably cautious about following up on a story with earth-shattering implications, just because a few guys with PhDs said something.

For example, Professor David Griscom, PhD, has a very distinguished looking resume:
Does that mean that when he writes:
then the press should be giving attention to the "chemtrail" conspiracy theory?

I know you feel marginalized Tony. But this is not because people are marginalizing you, it's because you are in the margins.
Mick, your entire post here is nothing but opinion.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
I don't know that it's strange. One of my main criticisms of the 2009 Bentham paper is that it wasn't submitted to or published by an respected, well-known scientific journal. This practically guarantees it's going to be passed over by journalists for articles in more solid journals. If you were to pick up a copy of Scientific American and see this story that would be far more noteworthy.
Another major problem for the Bentham paper, IMO, is that none of the authors are recognized for work in nanomaterials, let alone explosive sol-gels. Again it would give a huge boost to their credibility if the main author was such a person.

Also Tony, given the highly inflammatory nature of the allegations in the paper, as well as the immense pain of the 9/11 attacks, I think you'd expect American MSM to be very cautious in handling the subject. You can see the difference even in Canadian coverage, where the Fifth Estate has given a lot of coverage and airtime to Richard Gage in their two 9/11 conspiracy specials. Gage was given almost free reign recently, with no direct rebuttal to his allegations. That was aired on CBC across the nation.
Bentham is not a proper peer-reviewed journal. They also print phony science papers for $800.

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

 

Tony Szamboti

Active Member
Bentham is not a proper peer-reviewed journal. They also print phony science papers for $800.

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

And how many papers have you authored and published in any type of journal?
 

Tony Szamboti

Active Member
For $800 I can publish in Bentham
So why don't you try and show us it is as easy as you claim?

It is clear from your answer that you have never published a scientific paper of any type. That isn't surprising given the type of comment you made.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
So why don't you try and show us it is as easy as you claim?

It is clear from your answer that you have never published a scientific paper of any type. That isn't surprising given the type of comment you made.
Somebody already did. Did you read the link?

Please refrain from personal attacks Tony. There is a politeness policy.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
The point of this thread is why hasn't the US mainstream media reported on the claim that nanothermite was found in WTC dust? One of the claims was published in a non peer-reviewed journal Bentham. In addition Dr. Marie-Paule Pileni quit the journal where it was published.

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

Of course I'll use Google translator.

Bold added.

This maybe why the MSM didn't pick it up. It should be noted that the Dr. has been published.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie-Paule_Pileni#Major_publications
 

Alienentity

Active Member
I'm in agreement that Dick Cheney's comments were infinitely more likely to be picked up by MSM than the pronouncements of Niels Harrit or his colleagues. That's a no-brainer.

And once again the Harrit paper wasn't published in a recognized and respected journal. Bentham Chemical Open isn't even in the top 100 chemistry journals, I checked. I would remind you that when Dr Steven Jones was at his career height, he was publishing in the top science journals, such as Nature and Physical Review Letters. People paid a lot of attention to his work in the mainstream because of this.
If he hadn't published there, I doubt he would have received so much attention and respect.

Harrit et al. do not seem motivated to have their claims validated by top forensic scientists. In fact when a highly respected professional such as Dr Millette studied the chips, they fell over themselves to discredit him. Hardly making friends, they are.
 
One question for the peer review process,

1. One of the reviewers was in contact with the authors is that allowed ? or did i misread this.
reviewer griscom said .

"I finally provided my advice to authors in 12 single-spaced pages, together with my recommendation to the Editors that they publish the paper after the authors had considered my suggestions"
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
One question for the peer review process,

1. One of the reviewers was in contact with the authors is that allowed ? or did i misread this.
reviewer griscom said .

"I finally provided my advice to authors in 12 single-spaced pages, together with my recommendation to the Editors that they publish the paper after the authors had considered my suggestions"
That's what is supposed to happen. The reviewers tell the authors what is wrong with their paper, so they can fix it.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
One question for the peer review process,

1. One of the reviewers was in contact with the authors is that allowed ? or did i misread this.
reviewer griscom said .

"I finally provided my advice to authors in 12 single-spaced pages, together with my recommendation to the Editors that they publish the paper after the authors had considered my suggestions"
The referee is not in direct contact with the author (often they don't know who each other are). The advice is sent to the editor and attached to the paper when returned to the author.
 

cjnewson88

Member
mmhmm.. Nine authors, most of them well known conspiracy theorists, publish a paper in an obscure vanity journal, after which the authors run away from submitting to any serious technical journals, or mainstream scientists or engineers. Instead it sits in the gutter drains of the internet get bounced around conspiracy forums, and Tony wonders why no mainstream media outlets have reported it? Wow.

I think Ron Wieck puts it best:
 
Last edited:
Wrong they were scientists some of who have published more than 100 peer reviewed papers in scientific journals before publishing this paper then they are automatically labelled conspiracy theorists by debunking forumers when they disagreed with the official story,so anyone who disagrees with the official story is automatically conspiracy theorist. No wonder the mainstream journals won't publish this paper , they are not running away from anything its just mainstream journals wouldn't touch the paper because it would damage the reputation of their journal.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
Wrong they were scientists some of who have published more than 100 peer reviewed papers in scientific journals before publishing this paper then they are automatically labelled conspiracy theorists by debunking forumers when they disagreed with the official story,so anyone who disagrees with the official story is automatically conspiracy theorist. No wonder the mainstream journals won't publish this paper , they are not running away from anything its just mainstream journals wouldn't touch the paper because it would damage the reputation of their journal.
They chose to publish in a journal that published nonsense for $800. Did you read the thread? Don't forget the editor resigned when this was published.
 
umm yea that would make all police work bunk and detectives useless as they are conspiracy theorists. Turns out nowadays you can't be opposed anything the US government says without being labelled a conspiracy theorist when the US government are the biggest liars and conspiracy theorists on the planets like their theory of weapons of mass destruction .
Can you do science without being labelled a conspiracy theorist? Niels harrit never actually claimed that the US government were behind 911 , not once ! He only said he found nano thermite . Science should be free of politics.
 
Did the editor give a reason why she resigned or the paper had a flaw in it ? If it costs 800 dollars why don't you get a paper published in it on your debunking theories like the molten steel is aluminium and other pseudoscience.
 

cjnewson88

Member
She resigned because somehow the paper was published without her go ahead. I have no idea how this happens. All it shows is that the paper did not go through the proper channels even for the Bentham Publishers. Here is what she said:

They have printed the article without my permission, so when you wrote to me, I did not know that the article had appeared. I cannot accept this, and therefore I have written to Bentham that I resign from all activities with them”, explains Marie Paule Pileni, who is professor with a specialty in nanomaterials at the renowned Universite Pierre et Marie Curie in France.

“I cannot accept that this topic is published in my journal. The article has nothing to do with 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. Period.”
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.co.nz/2009/04/bentham-editor-resigns-over-steven.html

What more could we expect from junk science of which the contents doesn't even fit the conclusion.
 
What do you mean the contents don't fit the conclusion , what part ?
What exactly does anyone have wrong with the paper , anyone?

The 2009 publication in The Open Chemical Physics Journal (TOCPJ) of a fabulous paper by Harrit et al. entitled “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” Some disparagers of the 9/11 Truth movement have alleged that TOCPJ is a place on the web where anybody can buy a publication without peer review. Absolutely false! I know this because I was one of the referees of the Harrit et al. paper. The editors asked for my opinion. And after about two weeks of studying what the authors had written, checking relevant references, and gathering my thoughts, I finally provided my advice to authors in 12 single-spaced pages, together with my recommendation to the Editors that they publish the paper after the authors had considered my suggestions. Still, some skeptical readers may ask how anyone can rate a scientific paper as “fabulous.” Well, I am the principal author of 109 papers (and a co-author of an additional 81) in peer-review journals. And have refereed a least 600, and possibly as many as 1000, manuscripts. So you would be right in calling me an aficionado of articles published in scientific journals. And I found absolutely nothing to criticize in the final version of the Harrit et al. paper! Apropos, twelve of my own publications have appeared in the American Institute of Physics’ Journal of Chemical Physics (an old fashioned paper journal), so it is accurate to say that chemical physics (of inorganic materials) is my main specialty."


David Griscom
B.S. in Physics, Carnegie-Mellon University, 1960 Ph.D. in Physics, Brown University, 1966. Fellow, American Physical Society.Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science. Fellow, American Ceramic Society. Member, Geological Society of America, Research Physicist at Naval Research Laboratory (NRL), Washington, DC, 1967-2001. Fulbright-García Robles Fellow at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 1997. Invited Professor of Research at Universités de Paris-6 & 7, Lyon-1, et St-Etienne (France) and Tokyo Institute of Technology, 2000-2004. Adjunct Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Arizona, 2004-2005. Consultancy: impactGlass research international, 2005-present. Winner, one national and two international research awards and honored by Brown University with a "Distinguished Graduate School Alumnus Award." Author, 195 papers in peer-reviewed journals and books,Principal Author of 113 of these.


What qualifications do you have?????
 

cjnewson88

Member
They done XEDS maps and images with Scanning Electron Microscope which were done perfectly. The XEDS show the composition of the chips and displayed those elements it could detect. This should have been the first give away for them to go looking for a new hypothesis. The Aluminium spike in the red layer is tiny compared to other, far more abundant elements in the chips. Considering the Al mix to Fe2O3 to make thermite (1:3) the maximum possible thermite content of the chips is tiny.

Their next dead give away was when they had a look at their SEM images and reported on "thin sheet-like particles rich in Al and Si", particles which you can see clearly in the SEM images. They failed to recognise (or at the very least failed to report) that these sheets of Al/Si are Kaolin Clay plates, commonly used in the LaClede primer paint used on the floor trusses in the Twin Towers.

They find 4 chips which match the same results and labelled them (a)-(d). They then take a 5th chip, unlabelled, and soak it in MEK. This chip is not identical to chips (a)-(d). It shares similar properties in terms of the XEDS results, but shows spikes in several more elements. They claim the chip is "contaminated", in fact the chip is Tnemic Red 99, a common primer paint used on the WTC steel. This chip is subject to a DSC test, in which they cook it to 700C and react surprise when it catches fire.

The next failure occurs when they claim the DSC recorded energy density and reactions similar to samples of nano-thermite. This was an out right misrepresentation of the results. The spikes are nothing alike, and this becomes even more apparent when you add the zero line to their graph.

b39beb09e63f499804220945e4657236.jpg

Thermite (red line) remains heavily endothermic until it burns much later than chip, creates a different reaction curve which peaks 100C higher, before dropping back to an endothermic reaction. It's not the same material. His own test shows this.

What's more damaging, is that one of his tests showed a reaction of over 7.5Kj/g. The paper even states very clearly that the maximum energy density of thermite can be no more than 3.9Kj/g. They say this, but do not realise the implications of it. What this means is that the reaction they measured was not from thermite. It cannot be from thermite. What the reaction was caused by was the combustion of the organic matrix of the paint. If they had performed their DSC in an inert atmosphere like Argon or Nitrogen, they could have avoided organic materials being measured because thermite is self oxidising. But they didn't. Even after they realised their results were far too high for thermite. This makes their definitive test almost entirely useless because they did not isolate the variables.

And before you go on the usual truther fail train of misunderstanding, higher energy density does not mean it is more explosive, or more thermitic.

Gun Powder - 3 Kj/g
Thermite - 3.9 Kj/g
TNT - 4.6 Kj/g
HMX - 5.5 Kj/g
Harrit et al Sample - 7.5Kj/g
Wood - 16.2 Kj/g
Sugar - 17 Kj/g
Animal Fat - 37 Kj/g
Jet Fuel - 42.8 Kj/g

The final icing on the cake is that the authors carried out better tests which allowed them to see the exact material the chips were made of. These TEM and FTIR tests are mentioned in the paper, with the note that they are to be released "later". That was 2009. Despite the repeated requests Jones has refused to release the data. Seem legit?...

But as of 2012 it is irrelevant. Dust samples tested through an independent lab found red/grey chips with the exact same XEDS maps as the Bentham (a)-(d). However, they carried out FTIR and TEM tests, and actually released the results. They found the plates of Al-Si which Harrit et al reported on were indeed plates of Kaolin Clay. The remainder of the chip was made up of an Epoxy Resin. The grey layer was carbon steel. The red/grey chips are primer paint coated on steel. What's more, it confirmed the Aluminium detected was chemically bound to the silicon. Thermite needs elemental Aluminium. It cannot react with Kaolin. The results show the chips did not contain any elemental Aluminium. No elemental Aluminium, No Thermite.

See for yourself:

http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/64959841/9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112webHiRes.pdf

Harrit et al paper is a scientific joke. Its tests were inconclusive and poorly executed. It excluded the results of key tests. It drew a conclusion which did not match the results. It published in an obscure paper by sneaking past the journals editor. The authors never attempted to push it into the mainstream limelight. Its conclusion has been scientifically refuted. And that is why it has never been picked up by mainstream media. It is nothing but pure conspiracy theory paranoia garbage.
 
Last edited:

Melbury's Brick

Senior Member.
Conspiracy theorist James Fetzer has his doubts. If the pro controlled demolition community are unconvinced, is is reasonable to say that it's a non story to the media?

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/has-nanothermite-been-oversold-to-911.html

 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
Did the editor give a reason why she resigned or the paper had a flaw in it ? If it costs 800 dollars why don't you get a paper published in it on your debunking theories like the molten steel is aluminium and other pseudoscience.
You didn't read the thread. Post 18 https://www.metabunk.org/threads/wh...ermite-was-found-in-wtc-dust.2881/#post-82706

She resigned as a direct result of this paper being published. Why would I spend $800 on a journal I know is discredited?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Did this deidre lady give any clue as to why she was unhappy with the paper , did she read it. ?
The topic here is "Why hasn't the U.S. mainstream media reported on the claim that nanothermite was found in WTC dust?". So please ensure you stick to that. Thanks.
 

cjnewson88

Member
It's simple. The paper was printed in an obscure journal. There was never an attempt made by the authors to push it into the mainstream limelight. They ran away from publishing it in any serious technical journals, and refused (and still today) to give their samples out for others outside the 9/11 conspiracy movement to test. I think dprjones puts it best:

""Baring in mind that the conclusions that they reach in this paper, basically uncovers one of the greatest conspiracies the world have ever known. Where do they go in order to publicize their findings?? The Open Chemical Physics Journal. This, it has to be said, is an interesting choice, and by interesting, I mean, not only are the contents of the paper not appropriate for a journal proporting to cover that topic, but I also mean it in a totally and deliberately sarcastic way. The journal, is nothing short of a joke. Despite having an editorial board of 90 or so people from throughout the world, in 2009, the journal published 4 papers. To give you some idea of how staggering this is, Youtube user Thunderf00t, has published on average, 4 papers a year."

The Thermite Conspiracy
 
I don't think any large papers wanted to publish the paper , I don't think they ran away from it. They just couldn't get them to accept a to review a paper with such a controversial subject.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
JFDee QAnon goes mainstream Current Events 56
Mick West Debunked: Mainstream media admits smart meters are spying devices Conspiracy Theories 9
Critical Thinker Understanding the demonisation of the mainstream media General Discussion 114
J The Radiation Warnings You Won’t Get from the Mainstream Propaganda Machine Science and Pseudoscience 4
Critical Thinker Claim: Correlations Between Media Preference and Coronavirus Infection Rates Coronavirus COVID-19 11
TEEJ Sunlit contrail, Cambridgeshire, UK causing media flap 15th April 2020 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 0
Greylandra Debunked: media headline "Judea declares war on Germany" [boycott] Conspiracy Theories 20
skephu Solar geoengineering and the chemtrails conspiracy on social media Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Trailblazer Contrail videos on social media Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Mick West Explaining the Ghost Boy in the Back Seat Photo with Occam's Razor UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 99
Mick West Conspiracy? Trump Repeating Falsely Attributed Quote from Russian Media. Conspiracy Theories 26
Mick West Debunked: Cop Car Towed to Media Location then Torched at Million Mask March - BX10 LNV Conspiracy Theories 111
Mick West Debunked: USGS Scientist: Major San Francisco Quake On Hayward Fault Expected Any Day Now Science and Pseudoscience 8
Graham2001 Debunked: FVX Research [Fake Web Site] Conspiracy Theories 1
Mick West Debunked: Kylie Jenner's Chemtrail Meme Tweet Contrails and Chemtrails 54
D RF humaid convoy to Donbass unloaded weapons and ammo 30th Nov 2014 General Discussion 0
Graham2001 9/11 'Predictions' in the Media 9/11 16
E** Claim: Forbes article proves Obama/government caught telling media to coverup ebola Conspiracy Theories 2
Critical Thinker The Anti Media, makes bogus claim that "CDC admits Ebola could be airborne" Conspiracy Theories 75
Mick West Debunked: Islamic State (ISIS) orders female circumcision (FGM, Female Genital Mutilation) Conspiracy Theories 53
Leifer does Social Media + Ego help drive conspiracy theories ? General Discussion 63
Lode Social Media Lie Detector General Discussion 1
moderateGOP Links to Newtown 911 Tapes suspiciously Missing on Alternative Media sites Conspiracy Theories 12
dunbar Corporate Media and the Alternatives General Discussion 31
Alchemist Why Is There A Media BLACK OUT On These CRAFT Contractors? Boston Marathon Bombings 9
Soulfly DOJ investigation of the AP debunk the government controlling the media? General Discussion 0
BlueCollarCritic Bilderberger Group Cover-up In The Media (Explained) Conspiracy Theories 21
hopstoopid Debunked: Sandy Hook. Media staging photos. Sandy Hook 167
Mick West Debunked: "war of perception... conducted continuously using the news media" Quotes Debunked 1
Mick West Debunked: "The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media" Quotes Debunked 91
Mick West Dead Bird Panic - How Media Focus Distorts a Subject General Discussion 10
Related Articles































Related Articles

Top