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

Thermite as a reasonable explanation for carbon nanotubes in the wtc dust.

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 3 votes the winner is...
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/23/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,448 times Debate No: 44441
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (35)
Votes (3)

 

truther1111

Pro

Thermite is a reasonable explanation for the presence fo carbon nanotubes in the wtc dust.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy

Con

Thank you to my opponent for clarifying the resolution, I encourage readers to read the comments I made before I accepted the debate.

Back to the debate, my opponent asserts that carbon nanotubes (CNTs) found in the world trade center (WTC) debris is reasonable evidence for the use of thermite. Or to put it in another way that the twin towers were brought down using controlled explosions using thermite.

My job is to show that the CNTs can come from any other reasonable source, by doing this I show that my opponents assertion is not true. If we consider the multiple methods that have been used to produce CNTs we see that there are normally two very important constituents in the production a) you need a metal catalysts and b) you need a carbon source. (1,2) It should also be noted that it is possible to from CNTs with absolutely no metal catalyst which would be already one reason to doubt that the CNTs found in the WTC debris was not caused by thermite.(3)

So what metal catalyst are used to produce CNTS? The most commonly used are iron, cobalt, molybdenum or nickel. Additionally, a range of other metals can be used such as silver, gold, copper, lead, indium etc. It should also be noted that other non metal catalysts such as silicon carbide, germanium (mettaloid), magnesium oxide and aluminum oxide can also be used to produce CNTs. If we look at these catalysts we can see that the metal source can come from either the steel, computer cable's, light bulbs and multiple other sources which were part of the WTC structure. This means it is completely plausible that the metal catalyst source probably does not come from thermite as asserted by my opponent. In fact, it is far more likely that the metal source comes from the building materials.

With respect to a carbon source used in the synthesis of the CNTs, I do not believe this is a matter for debate. If my opponent asserts there were CNTs then there must have been a carbon source which could have come from a multitude of things ranging from jet fuel to gas to carbonized interiors.

The only possible contention that my opponent could possibly have is the synthetic temperature at which CNTs form. Probably my opponent will claim that most often CNTS are produced at high temperatures. However these temperatures are dependent on the catalyst, and there are studies that show CNTs can be produced at room temperature and at temperatures which jet fuel burns.(4,5,6) This means it is entirely plausible that CNTs could form at the temperatures which were present on the day the WTC collapsed.

In conclusion, I have shown here that the catalyst, carbon source an temperature needed to produce CNTs does not require thermite. As such my opponents assertion while possible is highly unlikely (not reasonable) as there are a multitude of ways that CNTs could have formed during the WTC fires and it is not direct evidence for thermite.

I hand the debate back to my opponent.

(1) http://www.intechopen.com...
(2) http://web2.mendelu.cz...
(3) https://nano.tu-dresden.de...
(4) http://oceantech.co.in...
(5) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
(6) http://www.cpchem.com...
Debate Round No. 1
truther1111

Pro

While Thermite is a reasonable explanation for the presence fo carbon nanotubes in the wtc dust it could be possible due to other causes and was never claimed by the truth movement as proof of thermite. Unreacted nanothermite was discovered with sol gel matrix which could explain some of the carbon nanotubes.
Con and I have agreed that this topic of debate is pointless and so I forfeit.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy

Con

I thank my opponent for not letting the debate time out on forfeits.
Debate Round No. 2
iamanatheistandthisiswhy

Con

Thanks Truther :)
Debate Round No. 3
35 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by truther1111 3 years ago
truther1111
Yes I made a mistake as I don't know the intimate workings of how papers are published if you have a concern you should contact the publishers or the authors they could explain to you the process.
Im not threatening you , Im just saying you are attacking a paper and reviewers for mal practice . That has nothing to do with me , I'm just online telling you maybe your wrong on this one and if you investigate it further or lay a complaint with the journal you will find out your wrong.
None of the other debunkers have argued with point before and I even posted on a skeptic community and they gave me the last reply.
"The advice was sent to the editor and attached to the paper when returned to the author"

I assume that the announcement of the reviewer was included in the acknowledgements when the paper was published by the editor therefore he would have been anonymous until after the paper was actually published.
Either way just because a paper is peer reviewed or not doesn't make it fact, there are many peer reviewed papers that have turned out to be completely wrong.
Find a flaw in the science and we can debate that.
Read the paper , 'those who condemn before investigation are the most ignorant of all ' Einstein.
Posted by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Don't accuse me of slander when you are the one presenting the false evidence. I am pointing out what the problems are based on what you are saying to me. In effect you have changed your story completely. As if it was blind review according to the journal then what you are claiming makes no sense except through an ethics violation.

We are done, as I see I have no reason to engage your dishonesty and then personal attacks when you are wrong. The honorable thing would be to accept your mistake and not threaten.

Again just by the way you are saying he announced he was the reviewer after publication of the manuscript. Yet his name is included in the acknowledgements. Just admit you are wrong.

BTW My credentials are not at debate in this issue, what is at debate is either your dishonesty or the dishonesty of people who published the manuscript.
Posted by truther1111 3 years ago
truther1111
The advice was sent to the editor and attached to the paper when returned to the author.

Not direct communication as you can see however the reviewer after the paper was published decided to announce who he was as he is highly qualified , by the way how many peer reviewed papers have you published and have you ever worked for DARPA , if not I wouldn't go around slandering these scientists or journals you will get sued.
Posted by truther1111 3 years ago
truther1111
I didn't write the paper so i don't know about peer reviewing processes I'm sure there is a logical and ethical explanation if you want me to dig deeper
Posted by truther1111 3 years ago
truther1111
lol
Posted by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Now that you have clarified the position let me drop this bombshell on you. This is from the website where the manuscript was published. This refutes every claim you have made this far. This refutes that the manuscript should have ever been published.

Bentham Science Publishers (BSP) follows the single blind peer-review procedure for submissions of all manuscripts to its journals. Single blind is the most common type of peer-reviewing in which the identity of the reviewers is not disclosed to the authors of the submitted manuscript concerned. The anonymity of reviewers allows for objective assessment of the manuscript by reviewers and also free from any influence by the authors on the reviewers comments.
http://www.benthamscience.com...
Posted by truther1111 3 years ago
truther1111
they didn't directly contribute to the paper , but gave further requirements for passing the paper,
Posted by truther1111 3 years ago
truther1111
the referees in the open peer review process gave advice for further experiments that the authors should carry out before passing the paper, I don't see how there is anything wrong with that it just made it a more robust paper .
Posted by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Do you understand the difference between referees comments and making an actual contribution? Please read more about the peer review process, or consult someone other than me who has published something to find out if a contributor is allowed to review a manuscript they contributed towards.
Posted by truther1111 3 years ago
truther1111
what a boring debate and waste of time that would be

"feedback from referees conveyed to authors with the editors' advice frequently results in manuscripts being refined "

Is that not contributing to the manuscript ?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 3 years ago
Ore_Ele
truther1111iamanatheistandthisiswhyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro openly forfeited.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
truther1111iamanatheistandthisiswhyTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: As per the comments, Pro forfeited.
Vote Placed by Tophatdoc 3 years ago
Tophatdoc
truther1111iamanatheistandthisiswhyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro conceded. Good luck to you both in future debates.