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

Alhazred The Sane

Senior Member.
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.
Well, that's your opinion. That's all it is, an opinion. You haven't produced a shred of evidence to support that opinion.
 
QUESTION: No effort was made to estimate the Fe:Al elemental ratio in

the red-layer. Synthetic thermite or nanothermite would have a ratio of 1:1.

The point is never discussed.

ANSWER: This ratio is not decisive. According to stoichiometry it

should be 1:1. However, in real life there is always more aluminum.

One reason is, that every aluminum item exposed to the atmosphere

is covered by aluminum oxide. The relative fraction of Al2O3

increases as particles get smaller as a simple mathematical

consequence.

Wonder where Dr. Rancourt got this information on nanothermite?

Please provide a reference next time.

And what on earth is “synthetic thermite”?

In contrast, from the recipe provided in ref. 25 in our paper, one can

derive an Fe/Al ratio of 0.17. But be sure that Lawrence Livermore

National Laboratory would never publish a preparation of “the real

stuff”.
Content from External Source
letters harrit and skeptic

http://rancourt.academicfreedom.ca/...ls-Harrit=Reg-aluminiu-signal=string=post.pdf
 
Last edited:
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.
Content from External Source
I don't know where you got that ratio from, 2Al + Fe203 = 1:1
 
Fig. (7). XEDS spectra obtained from the red layers from each of the four WTC dust samples, with (a) corresponding to sample 1 and so on
Content from External Source
The red layer Clearly shows aluminium at a ratio of 1:1 to Iron, what you would expect from nanothermite?. 2AL+ Fe203 = stoichiometric ratio of 1Aluminium : 1 Iron
By soaking the chips in a solvent they were able to do a test on the aluminium /silicon rich part of the red layer. Figure 17 clearly shows elemental aluminium proving its thermitic material.
Fig. (17). XEDS spectrum obtained at 10 kV from a probe of the
region of high aluminum concentration on the MEK-soaked red
chip.
Content from External Source
Fig. (19). Differential Scanning Calorimeter (DSC) traces for four red/gray chip samples found in World Trade Center dust collections.
Content from External Source
Shows endothermic reaction of one of the chips debunking whatever else you said. Yes the chips are different and more powerful than LANLs sample, thats a good thing for the test, the nanothermite is more advanced than LANLs declassified version.

The nanothermite has higher energy density as it has organic compounds in it .
 

Bill

Senior Member.
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.
Papers cover controversial subjects all the time. They even cover controversial scientific topics (especially in the medical fields). Despite the authors having previously published in peer reviewed journals this study simply lacks credibility. It seem to have been designed to get a specific result. Scientist turn to these vanity journals when they know their work will not survive the peer review process.
 
I wasn't suggesting that because they played it on TV it was true , I was showing that it has been only on two TV channels and completely ignored by other media.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
I think Tony's question has been answered. May I add my take:

I am not privy to the minds and motivations of individual members and representatives of the MSM, so we can only guess and speculate why the Harrit e.al. paper has been "ignored" by them.

Surely, the obscurity of the publishing venue along with the fringeness of the claims and the unimpressive c.v. of the authors wrt the specific scientific discipline (which really is "forensics") are all major obstacles to speedy journalistic attention. If any MSM journalists hear about it, it's not from the scientific world, not from leading forensic conferences, not from raging debates among world-class peers, but from fringy internet forums and angry young men shouting slogans on NYC streets.

Next up, the paper is, as most scientific paper, a difficult read for most journalists. In order to tackle it on its own merits, the journalists ought either to be a trained forensic researcher, or consult experts.
If and when either of these is the case, then the third and final reason why the paper doesn't get coverage kicks in - the reason why it SHOULD NOT be presented in any media as a "sensational" forensic find:

The conclusions are wrong! They not only do not follow from the data presented, they are actually contradicted by the data!

As a matter of fact, even Harrit e.al. themselves saw immediately what every forensic expert will see immediately: The chips are paint. They look like paint not just from visual appearance but also in microstructure; and nothing about them say "thermite". There is so precious little overall Al everywhere! There is so much red pigment everywhere, and this red pigment so obviously does not get reduced when the chips are burned (residue is still red). There is such a huge energy release - so much more than what thermite can do, that a few quick numbers will convince everybody who understands reaction enthalpy that almost all, if not fully all, of the measured energy release must come from organic combustion on air.


So Jones found paint. This ain't sensational. It would be a major embarrassment for any quality media outlet that runs the story as if Harrit were right.
 

econ41

Senior Member
The conclusions are wrong! They not only do not follow from the data presented, they are actually contradicted by the data!

I read the post and the style seemed familiar THEN I read the member name.

Hi Oystein.

econ41 AKA ozeco same year
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
The interesting thing is that with so many red flags about this claim... it is such a cornerstone of the truth guys CD claims not least is the hollow appeal to authority that a paper produced by people with little standing in the scientific community (look at the list of authors)... published in a pay to publish journal is being hailed in an appeal to authority as having passed muster of peer review scientific journal.

As has been pointed out in other forums, as a marketing PR strategy to keep the cash flowing to the 9/11 truth advocacy groups it's win win... and the ultimate cry is... it's all part of the cover up of the insider conspiracy. Could this whole effort be just a cynical tactic to gain more donations? The idea is not that odd. There are many types of fundamental research 9/11 truth friendly scientists could undertake with the funding they receive. But instead the funding is used to raise more funding and pay the salaries and expenses of the advocacy groups. Essentially all we have heard for years are the same claims (unsupported) over and over again.

I suppose the people will tend to follow along without much critical thinking in the age of the boob tube and now the internet. Bernays taught us how almost anything can be sold to the people... smoking, alcohol, wars, politicians... soap, fashion... and all manner of lies or memes. The 911truth movement seems to employ every trick in the marketer's quiver to.... raise not consciousness, or find the truth but money! As long as someone can make a buck. 9/11 truth groups will exist.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
Thanks for the welcome!

Sander, why then can't the "thermite story" be "sold" to the media?

I thought about it, and there is one more thing - this time something a truther might say, but with some justification in my opinion:

Public perception currently is very much opposed to 9/11 CTs - any paper, journal, TV channel deciding to run an article on some 9/11 CT claim has the choice of either going with the flow (i.e. refuting or ridiculing the Truth stuff), or go against the stream - which only works if you make a very good argument, and make it fast! But explaining to a lay audience that isn't already infected with the snake oil what the Harrit results are, how they arrived at them, and what they would mean if true, is a long article that no-one without a good education will read and comprehend.
(And those who comprehend also comprehend that the conclusions are false)

This is not the stuff that is easily sold. Too technical, and the connections are not obvious enough.
 

Hevach

Senior Member.
The media is already quite given to silliness, though. I don't believe public perception will slow down CNN one bit. Fox and MSNBC definitely bow to public perception, but specific and narrow portions of it - Fox is more likely to pass on 9/11 CTs because they would implicate a Republican president than because the public opposes the idea, they have embraced full-derp equally bunk theories when they implicate Clinton or Obama (Fox has given Alex Jones's ideas almost as much airtime as he gives them himself, and recently two of their own in-house talking heads were promoting the idea that the US assassinated one of its own generals because there's just no way a notorious drunk could die in a drunk driving crash). MSNBC once did give entirely too much attention to the theory for the opposite reason.

They would not bother with explaining results, when do they do that with real science, after all? They'd just slap up a few of those neat graphics and read verbatim whatever sounds like it'll play well on TV, with no more context than a picture of Obama not saluting.


Remember, this is the same "mainstream media" that is regularly taken in by internet trolls claiming to be insiders and experts. That has taken seriously birthers, false flagers, and worse. That destroyed the lives of at least five people by playing amateur detective and believing they found the Boston bomber in photographs. That at one time did give 9/11 truthers actual consideration. That discussed the possibility of an airplane falling into a black hole, and only dismissed it because they concluded that such a black hole would have exploded the entire universe. Fact checking is usually not on the menu, and they seem immune to ridicule.

To repeat something I said about chemtrailers: "That they do not give credence to [theory at hand] is a stunning indictment of the quality of your evidence."
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Rory Claim: Pfizer sponsors many mainstream TV shows (with the implication being that can lead to bad things) Coronavirus COVID-19 68
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
NorCal Dave Claim: There is no information on Social Media. Current Events 9
TopBunk Eyewitness variance in mass UFO/UAP sightings: a database. UFOs and Aliens 1
Mendel Media Bias Tools for Investigating and Debunking 0
Mendel Post Election Social Media Crackdowns Election 2020 19
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 Ghosts, 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