The Instigator
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
truther1111
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Is the scientific manuscript "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11WTC" valid

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/9/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,376 times Debate No: 45497
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

iamanatheistandthisiswhy

Con

As agreed upon my opponent and I will debate the validity of a manuscript titled "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe" by Harrit et al. published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal in 2012. (1,2)

Before the debate starts my opponent says he only wants to debate the validity of the science, and I have agreed that we can do this. However, the fact that this article was published in the first place in this journal is a point that needs to be given some background too. I do not want this information to sway any voters but it is important to realize this article has a history.

Firstly, the publication led to the resignation of the editor in chief Prof. Marie-Paule Pilenias. This was die to the manuscript been published without her permission, as editor of the journal she had final say and that something got published without her permission means it should never have been published.(3,4) Additionally, this journal has no impact factor, which is corroborated by Bentham the journal publishers.(5) This is relevant, as this journal then is not an accredited source of information in the scientific community.

Now, onto the debate.

In this debate, I will be addressing specific factors of relevance in the various rounds and then give my opponent a chance to reply. In the final round I will summarize my arguments and give some closing thoughts regarding the manuscript.

The first point of contention regarding this manuscript is how do we even know if these samples came from the World Trade Center (WTC). The four samples used in this study were collected by non scientists. This means that the samples could have been contaminated as they were not handled properly in an evidence chain by trained scientists.

Regardless of this however, a bigger contention regarding these samples is that no effort was made by the authors to verify using a chemical signature that the samples actually came form the WTC buildings. Every material has a specific chemical signal which is determined by the composition of impurities in the material. This means the authors could have validated using chemical signatures from building material at the WTC site whether this building material did come from the WTC. This was not done and as such we have to doubt whether this material was even part of the WTC.

This chemical signature could have been very easily verified as the authors even note that "Fifteen small chips having a total mass of 1.74 mg were extracted from a 1.6 g sample of dust from which readily identifiable glass and concrete fragments had been removed by hand." So the question is why was the concrete on which this thermite was found not tested to verify its origin?

This argument clearly shows that we have to doubt the chain of custody and possible contamination. Additionally, this material may not even come from the WTC as it was not verified using chemical signatures. In the next rounds I will open further arguments casting doubt on the validity of the manuscript.

I hand the debate over to my opponent for his first rebuttals.

(1) http://www.benthamscience.com...
(2) http://www.benthamscience.com...
(3) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(4) http://videnskab.dk...
(5) http://www.benthamscience.com...
truther1111

Pro

First off I will provide a response from the main author regarding the resignation of the bentham editor .

""After the paper entitled ”Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,” which I along with eight colleagues co-authored, was published in the Open Chemical Physics Journal, its editor-in-chief, Professor Marie-Paule Pileni, abruptly resigned. It has been suggested that this resignation casts doubt on the scientific soundness of our paper.
However, Professor Pileni did the only thing she could do, if she wanted to save her career. After resigning, she did not criticize our paper. Rather, she said that she could not read and evaluate it, because, she claimed, it lies outside the areas of her expertise.
...
She could, therefore, have easily read our paper, and she surely did. But by denying that she had read it, she avoided the question that would have inevitably been put to her: ”What do you think of it?”
Faced with that question, she would have had two options. She could have criticized it, but that would have been difficult without inventing some artificial criticism, which she as a good scientist with an excellent reputation surely would not have wanted to do. The only other option would have been to ackowledge the soundness of our work and its conclusions. But this would have threatened her career.
..
I will conclude with two points. First, the cause of 9/11 truth is not one that she has taken up, and the course of action she chose was what she had to do to save her career. I harbor no ill feelings toward Professor Pileni for the choice she made.
Second, her resignation from the journal because of the publication of our paper implied nothing negative about the paper.
Indeed, the very fact that she offered no criticisms of it provided, implicitly, a positive evaluation---an acknowledgment that its methodology and conclusions could not credibly be challenged.""
Niels Harrit (1)

By questioning the chain of custody you are effectively accusing the scientists and the citizens of conspiring to fake evidence by manufacturing high-tech energetic nanocomposites that only a handful of labs in the world can even make and adding them to samples! That sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory to me!

Now that red/gray chips, or at least particles purporting to be them, have been found in professionally collected samples independent of Steven Jones', debunkers can now be assured that these red/gray chips, whatever they are, did not enter Jones' samples via accidental contamination.

""I have independently seen thermitic activity within two independent samples of World Trade Center Dust. [...] I would really like to stress that we need a lot more people involved in this work than just the few of us that are doing it right now.

My work with this has brought me to feel that this material is too big of an unanswered question and it really brings us to demand a new investigation. This is hard evidence that can not be refuted.

Anyone can replicate the work that’s been done and confirm that this material is there.""

Mark Basile, chemical engineer

1-

http://videnskab.dk...

Debate Round No. 1
iamanatheistandthisiswhy

Con


Thanks to my opponent.

My opponent has cited a comment to an article as proof that the editor in chief resigned from the journal due to the fact that she was not critical of the manuscript been published, but that her career was put in jeopardy. Firstly, this is not true she is a highly regards chemist and a list of her achievements can be easily seen, she resigned because the manuscript should never have been published as I have pointed out in the first round.(1)


Secondly my opponent asserts this comment as proof, yet the person who wrote the comment states that "Rather, she said that she could not read and evaluate it, because, she claimed, it lies outside the areas of her expertise." This is a bold faced lie, as Professor Pileni is very well published in the nano material field, and like I said is a well respected chemist.(2, 3) This comment needs to be corroborated by a statement from Professor Pileni from a reputable source and not some comment attached to a news story. Comments are not news, they are personal opinions. I would ask that my opponent does not use dishonest sources to promote his claim when the evidence runs counter to this.


My opponent criticizes me for, wondering about the chain of custody. Yet to not admit that non scientists were involved in the chain of custody is a dishonest statement. This means immediately that the chain of custody should be questioned as they were non scientists with no formal training in sample handling.


However, let the chain of custody not detract from the dropped point that the authors made no attempt to verify the material came from the WTC using chemical signatures. Hence, my opponent drops the critical point that we cannot be certain that the samples come from the WTC.


Next I would like to discuss the following new contentions.


The presence of the Thermite in the WTC according to the authors is thought to be normal thermite composition. This means it has 2 part Aluminum to 1 part Iron Oxide, and importantly they have to be intimately mixed.(4,5) If these materials are not intimately mixed the do not work, so why then are there two layers in the sample?

See the reaction below for the thermite reaction.
Fe2O3 + 2 Al → 2 Fe + Al2O3

From this reaction, we can learn about the composition of the material, however in the EDX spectra in Figure 7 there are two points of contention. 1) Why are the aluminum and Iron peaks not the same intensity as they should be? and 2) Why does the spectrum look exactly like and EDX spectrum of iron oxide commonly found in nature.(6,7)

From contention 2, we can say that this material could come from any natural source and does not have to be manufactured thermite. From contention 1, we can say that this is not thermite as the chemical composition is not accurate. So how are we sure that this is thermite when it could come from another source.


The correct thing to do would have been to use a more reliable analysis like elemental analysis and not EDX. Why did the authors not do this? The data as currently shown is not proof of thermite as the compositions are not correct and could be any commonly found iron oxide.

Lastly, why are Figure 14 and 7 different if they are from the same sample? The authors did not say they were removing signals for clarity, so this is a dubious result. This casts huge doubt on the validity of the manuscript, as all the spectra in figure 7 are the same, yet in figure 14 the spectra from the same samples has changed. Note the inaccuracies in C, O, S, Ca and Zn content.(8)

(4) http://cldfacility.rutgers.edu...
(5) http://www.rsc.org...
(6) http://cameo.mfa.org...
(7) http://cameo.mfa.org...
(8) http://www.benthamscience.com...
truther1111

Pro

Due to the limited word count I cannot post the original missing parts of the letter and have moved it to the comments section

Niels harrits line of argument was that as she is so well qualified in nano technology and did not offer comment or any reason to resign over the paper , her resignation was a shocking thing to do as people do not just resign without giving reason , cons argument that she resigned because the paper wasnt ethical has no grounds whatsoever as there is no evidence at all that she resigned for any of those given reasons, in fact Con is making a flat out lie that she resigned due to those reasons.

Chain of custody- Well in many extreme circumstances such as a terrorist attack or plane crash or disaster of some type its not always possible that scientists can perform a chain of custody, you wouldnt refute the findings of a plane crash because some of the parts of the plane were found by navy divers for example that would be ludicrous and its clear con is resorting to desperation tactics in his attempt to refute the paper. Any contamination due to any outside material could not include a high tech nano thermite only possibly made in one or two laboratories in the world.Independent scientist mark basille tested a sample of dust independent

PART 2

- Con did not read the paper properly as one side is Grey and of a different chemical composition to the red layer , the red layer contains the iron oxide intimately mixed with aluminium platelets

Fig. (10). This shows a BSE image (a) and XEDS maps (b-f) of the red-layer cross section of a red/gray chip from dust sample 1. The elements

Figure 10 shows the relative ammounts of Iron oxide and aluminium using BSE imaging of the red layer.

Fig. (11). XEDS spectra showing the elemental compositions of a grouping of thin platelets (a) and of a grouping of whitish particles (b), as seen in the high-magnification images of red layers (see Fig. (8)).

Figure 11 shows that the thin platelets are mainly composed of aluminium compared to rest of the red layer . Proving intamite mixing of iron oxide and aluminium platelets.

1) What gave you that idea ?
Here is XEDS of commercial thermite compare to figure 18 it matches perfectly in ratio
http://911research.wtc7.net...

2) Because Hematite consists of mainly Fe203 and iron oxide that is why it is similar .
- Silicon and Aluminium are consistent in the earths atmosphere and do contaminate minerals .

- This is widely known and why the authors of the paper did not rely on one XEDS to prove a case for thermitic material .
Why we know its not hematite as

-Nanosized platelets of aluminium are intimately mixed with the iron oxide which is inconsistent with naturally occuring hematite.

-Elemental aluminium was found after soaking the chips in MEK which is inconsisten with any naturally occuring hematite or aluminium as aluminium is always found naturally in an oxidized state.
*Fig. (17). XEDS spectrum obtained at 10 kV from a probe of the region of high aluminum concentration on the MEK-soaked red chip.


- After heating the chips , iron microspheres were produced with reduced Iron as shown by the reduction in Oxygen in the XEDS spectrum , this proves a thermitic reaction has taken place as a thermitic reaction reduces iron(III) oxide forming spheres.
Con must come up with a reaction that reduces iron(III) oxide forming iron spheres that does not include a thermitic reaction.
*Fig. (21)

- What is wrong with using XEDS , con must give an accurate answer as to why this test is not preferred in this case.

Surface contamination ....

'Fig. (14 ), produced the expected peaks for Fe, Si, Al, O, and C. Other peaks included calcium, sulfur,zinc, chromium and potassium. The occurrence of these elements could be attributed to surface contamination due to the fact that the analysis was performed on the as-collected surface of the red layer.'

Source used for all of the above.
http://www.benthamscience.com......

Debate Round No. 2
iamanatheistandthisiswhy

Con

Thanks to my opponent, I would ask you to keep your response to the debate and not the comments and rather address only the most important. It makes it difficult for voters and goes beyond the rules of the debate.

Arguments not answered
1) Was the sample from the WTC chemical signature analysis?

I am not lying, regarding the resignation of Prof Pileni. The resignation was due to the fact that the manuscript was published without permission. (1) This is the same newspaper source cited in the first round and my opponent keeps denying. Here is a translation to help the voters and my opponent.
“"I resign as the editor in chief," was the succinct answer in an email to videnskab.dk. Printed without permission A phone call reveals that the chief Marie-Paule Pileni never been informed that the article would be published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, which is published by 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.

My opponent has conceded the chain of custody point. The fact that it is extreme circumstances is not a reason to doubt the validity of the chain of custody argument.

Pro also states nano thermite can only be made in one or two laboratories in the world. This is false as any nano-lab anywhere in the world can produce nano thermite as can be seen in the publication history of nano-thermite manuscripts. Please do a simple Google scholar search for nano thermite.

Con rightfully points out the difference between the grey and red layers. However, this casts in doubt as to what was been analyzed in the studies and whether the compositions of iron and aluminum calculated using EDS are correct. The correct method would have been to separate the layers, then purify them and then analyze them independent of each other. This is a failure of the experimentalists and casts massive doubt on the results.

Regarding the use of EDS, EDS is a surface measurement and as such does not measure the total content of the sample. As such it is usually used only for preliminary analysis, structural analysis and not complete elemental analysis. This is due to analysis peaks overlapping, scattering of electrons and adsorption of electrons by the sample.(2,3)

These two reasons are why I doubt the ratios found as stated in my round 2 argument.

Pro has said Figure 14s extra peaks are due to surface contamination. This does not explain why this similar contamination was not found on the other samples in figure 7. Please elaborate further as this is from the same sample set and again casts huge doubt on the analysis employed.

The fact that Al and Si are inherent in minerals on earth and not thermite manufactured in the lab proves that this material could be natural and not manufactured in a lab. To counter this Pro cam up with the following argument.

“Con must come up with a reaction that reduces iron(III) oxide forming iron spheres that does not include a thermitic reaction.” Pro maybe does not understand that iron oxide can be easily reduced to multiple forms in multiple ways, even spheres.(4-6) The fact that spheres formed is irrelevant as this does not prove thermite, this only proves the reduction of iron. If Con insists this is the case, then Con needs to provide evidence from accredited scientific journals that this is the case.

(1) http://videnskab.dk...
(2) http://www.materialinterface.com...
(3) http://www.xos.com...
(4) http://www.ntu.edu.sg...
(5) http://pubs.acs.org...
(6) http://www.rsc.org...
truther1111

Pro

i had to post it into comments as you kept the word count very small.

1) This question doesnt make sense please put it in context.

She didnt give any reason why she would have decided not to publish it and considering she was one of the worlds experts in nanotechnology it would have been easy for her to debunk the paper or give a reason why she would have not published the paper if it wasnt due to her on incompetence of not being in editorial control. Does it make any sense that an editor would resign and give up her job willingly for her own incompetence then not give any reason why the paper was wrong .What does this imply she wasnt told about the paper and people below her in the company conspired to get it published without her knowing ?

Con states that any nano lab could have created the substance.

"The Naval Surface Warfare Center - Indian Head Division, which prior to 9/11 was described as "the only reliable source of aluminum nanopowders in the United States”"
(1)

So what Con is saying is that the researchers conspired with or broke into the Naval surface warfare center to obtain samples of nanothermite in which they scattered into the dust around lower manhatten in case that survivors would randomly and for sentimental reasons collect some of that dust, then these conspirators waited for years for those survivors to contact them in turn giving them the contaminated samples .

"X-ray energy-dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS) analyses

of both the red and gray layers from cross sections prepared

from the four dust samples were performed and representative

spectra are shown in Figs. (6 , 7 )."

Now con is just making stuff up or misrepresenting the tests done by professional scientists.

2- That is why cross sections were made,

Scanning electron microscopy with energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (SEM/EDX) is the best known and most widely-used of the surface analytical techniques.
(2)

Con fails to notice that almost all scientific studies use XEDS spectroscopy and other methods are less acurate in determining the composition of a material . If you want to check this I suggest you get a degree in Physics , does Con have one to make such wild claims against real scientists?


In figure 14 you should notice that all the spectra do slightly vary in their contaminants but all samples remain the same in that they have the thermite signature Fe/Al/SI/O
Who would have expected from contamination to have slightly different elements present?
Figure 14 is likely due to Gypsum contamination which would explain the Ca present.


'The fact that Al and Si are inherent in minerals on earth and not thermite manufactured in the lab proves that this material could be natural and not manufactured in a lab. To counter this Pro cam up with the following argument.'

No , because further testing was done to show that aluminium was found in its elemental form ! Something you never find in nature.

'Pro maybe does not understand that iron oxide can be easily reduced to multiple forms in multiple ways, even spheres.(4-6) The fact that spheres formed is irrelevant as this does not prove thermite, this only proves the reduction of iron. If Con insists this is the case, then Con needs to provide evidence from accredited scientific journals that this is the case.'

No doubt iron can be reduced , I never argued that. I argued for you to find a chemical reaction in which Iron oxide could be reduced in the conditions of the wtc .Your example was of a Iron oxide ball being milled !! That is not a naturally ocurring process in a fire or in any circumstance without direct human intervention.
In cons second link it provides a manner in which to reduce Iron oxide with Hydrogen gas , this has nothing to do with the conditions at the WTC ! In fact its my suspicion that con is copying and pasting google links of reducing iron to the debate without reading or understanding simple chemistry.





Debate Round No. 3
iamanatheistandthisiswhy

Con

Ok, I am going to get straight to it.

Con is accusing me of not understanding the science. Con has also made multiple ad-hominem attacks. In a previous round, I decided not to attack Cons faulty knowledge. However, no more.

I am a published chemist in the fields of nanochemistry, physical chemistry and organometallics. I got my doctorate for on of the top 50 universities in the world. Here is link to my citation reports and publications list.(1)

So when Con said in round 2 "Because Hematite consists of mainly Fe203 and iron oxide that is why it is similar ." He is ignorant of the fact that hematite is Fe2O3 and not Fe2O3 and iron oxide. Iron oxide occurs in multiple forms, hematite is one of these forms.

When Con said in round 3 ""The Naval Surface Warfare Center - Indian Head Division, which prior to 9/11 was described as "the only reliable source of aluminum nanopowders in the United States”"" He is ignorant of the fact that I can produce aluminum nanopowders in my laboratory, and has also been done by multiple other groups that have either produced nano thermite or used commercially available nano aluminum. (2-6)

Con rightfully says "Scanning electron microscopy with energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (SEM/EDX) is the best known and most widely-used of the surface analytical techniques." The reasons I pointed out in the previous round still hold as to why it is inaccurate. This is why when you publish a manuscript you have to give either XRD, elemental analysis, XPS as additional corroborating elemental analysis information. The manuscript will not get accepted if this is not the case, so why did the authors fail to do this. Again I ask the simple question.

Con has now changed his question regarding iron spheres in the WTC and claimed I do not understand the chemistry. Actually, what I showed was and replied to was your question regarding iron spheres. Now, you have shifted the goal posts asking for evidence that it must form in the conditions at the WTC. Iron can be reduced by CO (and C) which could have been present in the WTC as excess carbon source fuel can lead to incomplete combustion and CO, beside the obviously present CO2.(7) Also as pointed out before, the spectra was analyzed and not isolated speheres so to claim its pure iron when oxygen is present means it could easily be magnetite (Fe304) which can also form on combustion of Fe2O3.(8) Maybe, my opponent should meet his burden of proof and show these spheres can only form in thermite reactions. Also, show me they are pure Fe.

Con has said "No , because further testing was done to show that aluminium was found in its elemental form ! Something you never find in nature." This is based on the images 15-18 which is based on mapping and not extraction to show that this is elemental Al. Let me elaborate on these EDX images. Figure 15-18 show spectra and maps of the elements. If we look at the maps and spectra the first question is we see that all the Al regions are overlayed over other regions so we have no way to say this is elemental Al. Secondly, why did the authors not show which region the spectra come from. This is an important question, as it leads to the fact that Fig 16 is doubtful as where Si is abundant, we also see that Fe and O are similarly abundant. Hence the Fe peak is missing in the spectra, this is a very important point that needs to be addressed.

I ask Con to respond to the previous questions again and also answer the dropped questions.
(2) http://www.nanoparticles-microspheres.com...
(3) http://www.us-nano.com...
(4) http://www.singhalnanotech.com...
(5) http://link.springer.com...
(6) http://www.sciencedirect.com...
(7) http://link.springer.com...
(8) http://www.tnmsc.cn...
truther1111

Pro

I wasnt ignorant of that claim about hematite , the XEDS spectra of hematite had Fe2+ and Fe3+ iron peaks , why im not sure.Please englighten us. Nevertheless its not important to the debate in hand the composition of hematite.

Before september of 2002 were you or other scientists actively making nanothermite ?

Im not well qualified enough to answer that question please email the authors of the paper with any concerns.

Well i havent shifted the goal posts because we are not making iron spheres in a laboratory , how were iron spheres with that chemical signature produced by heating them to 440 c ? If you are a chemist you might have the answer , please englighten us.
They took these red gray chips and heated them to 440c in normal air which undergoed exothermic reaction causing the formation of iron rich spheres,they did not heat in CO .

"Fig. (21). Spheroid found in post-DSC residue showing iron-rich sphere and the corresponding XEDS spectrum. The carbon peak must be

considered indeterminate here since this sample was flashed with a thin carbon layer in order to preclude charging under the electron beam."


" A conventional quantitative analysis routine was used to

estimate the elemental contents. In the case of this iron-rich

spheroid, the iron content exceeds the oxygen content by

approximately a factor of two, so substantial elemental iron

must be present. This result was repeated in other iron-rich

spheroids in the post-DSC sample as well as in spots in the

residue which did not form into spheres. Spheroids were

observed with Fe:O ratios up to approximately 4:1. Other

iron-rich spheres were found in the post-DSC residue which

contained iron along with aluminum and oxygen (see Discussion

section).

That thermitic reactions from the red/gray chips have

indeed occurred in the DSC (rising temperature method of

ignition) is confirmed by the combined observation of 1)

highly energetic reactions occurring at approximately

430 ° C, 2) iron-rich sphere formation so that the product

must have been sufficiently hot to be molten (over 1400 ° C

for iron and iron oxide), 3) spheres, spheroids and nonspheroidal

residues in which the iron content exceeds the

oxygen content. Significant elemental iron is now present as

expected from the thermitic reduction-oxidation reaction of

aluminum and iron oxide.

The evidence for active, highly energetic thermitic material

in the WTC dust is compelling"


response to second part


"XEDS maps were acquired from the swollen red material

at a beam energy of 10 kV, in order to determine the locations

of various elements following the MEK treatment. The

data shown in Fig. (15 ) illustrate regions where iron, aluminum

and silicon are concentrated. Furthermore, the data indicate

that wherever silicon or iron is concentrated, oxygen

is also concentrated. On the other hand, there also exist regions

where the aluminum is concentrated but where the


Focusing the electron beam on a region rich in silicon,

located in Fig. (15e ), we find silicon and oxygen and very

little else (Fig. 16 ). Evidently the solvent has disrupted the

matrix holding the various particles, allowing some migration

and separation of the components. This is a significant

result for it means that the aluminum and silicon are not

bound chemically.

The next XEDS spectrum (Fig. 17 ) was acquired from a

region that showed a high concentration of aluminum. Using

a conventional quantification routine, it was found that the

aluminum significantly exceeded the oxygen present (approximately

a 3:1 ratio). Thus, while some of the aluminum

may be oxidized, there is insufficient oxygen present to account

for all of the aluminum; some of the aluminum must

therefore exist in elemental form in the red material. This is

an important result. Aluminum particles are covered with a

layer of aluminum oxide irrespective of size, thus it is reasonable

to find a significant oxygen content with the aluminum,

given the very high surface area to volume ratio of

these very fine particles."


Debate Round No. 4
iamanatheistandthisiswhy

Con

My opponent has unknowingly shown that this manuscript is not valid.

"I wasnt ignorant of that claim about hematite , the XEDS spectra of hematite had Fe2+ and Fe3+ iron peaks , why im not sure.Please englighten us. Nevertheless its not important to the debate in hand the composition of hematite." It is very important that only hematite is present as this is what is needed to make thermite.(1,2) By saying there is Fe2+ present in the sample you are saying it is not hematite. Hematite only contains Fe3+. This means it is not thermite.

I do not need to address any more points. Thanks for the concession.

Please also note that my opponent has dropped multiple arguments. However, in light of the above statement it not longer matters that my opponent dropped arguments in this debate.

To all the voters you can vote for me.

Thanks.


(1) http://webmineral.com...
(2) http://www.minerals.net...
truther1111

Pro

Sorry Con , You misread what I said, but either way it doesnt matter, I said the Spectra of Hematite the one that you provided seemed to have two spikes for Iron at Fe2+ and Fe3+ , therefore its not hematite as hematite is Fe3+.

Thankyou for debunking yourself.

Please not that I never dropped any arguments I put the quotes from the paper to respond to your questions above in previous arguments, If you would like to continue this debate Con we can . I suggest you read the paper again and or get some reasoning as to why XEDS spectrography is not accurate in testing
It is used all the time

http://www.labtesting.com...
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by truther1111 3 years ago
truther1111
After the paper entitled "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe," which I along with eight colleagues co-authored, was published in the Open Chemical Physics Journal, its editor-in-chief, Professor Marie-Paule Pileni, abruptly resigned. It has been suggested that this resignation casts doubt on the scientific soundness of our paper.
However, Professor Pileni did the only thing she could do, if she wanted to save her career. After resigning, she did not criticize our paper. Rather, she said that she could not read and evaluate it, because, she claimed, it lies outside the areas of her expertise.
But that is not true, as shown by information contained on her own website http://www.sri.jussieu.fr.... Her List of Publications reveals that Professor Pileni has published hundreds of articles in the field of nanoscience and nanothechnology. She is, in fact, recognized as one of the leaders in the field. Her statement about her "major advanced research" points out that, already by 2003, she was "the 25th highest cited scientist on nanotechnology" http://www.sri.jussieu.fr....
Since the late 1980s, moreover, she has served as a consultant for the French Army and other military institutions. From 1990 to 1994, for example, she served as a consultant for the Soci"t" Nationale des Poudres et Explosifs (National Society for Powders and Explosives).
She could, therefore, have easily read our paper, and she surely did. But by denying that she had read it, she avoided the question that would have inevitably been put to her: "What do you think of it?"
Faced with that question, she would have had two options. She could have criticized it, but that would have been difficult without inventing some artificial criticism, which she as a good scientist with an excellent reputation surely would not have wanted to do. The only other option would have been to ackowledge the soundness of our work and its conclusions. But
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by janetsanders733 3 years ago
janetsanders733
iamanatheistandthisiswhytruther1111Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Good job to both debaters. However, I think Con had a much more solid, hard, case. He simply provided more sources and showed how thermitic material discovered in the dust from 9-11 is not scientifically verifiable according to the manuscript.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
iamanatheistandthisiswhytruther1111Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: This was probably one of Pro's best debates. I'm glad he focused on 1 issue, and explored it. Unfortunately, Con swept the board. Con clearly had more, and more reliable sources. S&G should be obvious. As to conduct, Pro, you don't get to make arguments in the comments section. It's also disingenuous to use that comment you tried to use in support of the resignation point. As to arguments, Pro continues to not understand very basic problems with the science he presents. Seriously, though, this is probably one of Pro's best debates, and I hope he learns from it. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.