I do. I was referring to the source material (note that I mentioned 'truther literature' in the text). If you choose to see it another way, excuse me for that. I shall endeavour to be more precise in the future.

You should never assume or be sure of what I believe. That is quite an assumption.

Ok, so you posted it knowing full well it was false. So, why are you upbraiding me then? That would qualify as misrepresentation would it not?

Okay. It was rather vague. If you want to discuss particular source material in that respect, implying that it is a lie, It would help to know exactly what you think is a lie. I don't like to have to guess what is being implied.

You don't want the truth. You just want attention. Surly you understand the English language well enough to understand what a "statement" is. You make many statements that are absurd and you can't prove but you state them as fact. They then become lies.

See if you can tell any difference between these two statements.

I believe nano-thermite was used.

Nano-thermite was used.

One is an opinion and one is a lie.

No, I posted it in an effort to start an actual discussion about it.
I did not have any personal opinion about it.

I was being universal in my original post, I merely used recent posts as recognisable examples and they were not intended to insult or imply anything, merely to illustrate the questionable nature of some of the literature being employed as source material-I'm certain that this use is not intentional, or intended to deceive. My mistake for not making myself clearer.

However, you were a little hostile to those that realised that the absence of gravity in the equation made the paper nonsensical, thus my belief in it being a 'hoax'.

Perhaps both are opinions.

One is simply worded as more of a challenge or with more conviction.

Both statements mean that the person making the statement believes that nano-thermite was used.

I suppose if all statements began with "I believe" you would avoid controversy.

I don't know for a fact that nano-thermite was or was not used OR if as you so confidently claim, IT IS A LIE.

I have read testimony from people who have actually discovered thermite in the dust, so I have serious doubts about whether that is a lie or the truth.

So is one an opinion or are both opinions?

Or is your claim that one is a lie true?

Can you prove it?

Why didn't you say, "I BELIEVE IT IS A LIE."

instead of: "It is a lie."

That is the truth! I do want attention! And I also want the truth!!

And I enjoy engaging in interesting thought provoking conversations about the true nature of reality.

Curiously, I have found that sometimes these kinds of conversations are upsetting to some people.

How can I engage in these conversations without attracting so much hostility? Any suggestions?

Is that one still circulating? The supposed residue particles were shown to be flakes of a rust preventative coating painted on the steel supports. The original analysis was flawed and later proven to be so.

I don't know if "that one" is "still circulating." I have read several accounts of thermite being found by more than just one person.

And I have read several accounts debunking the accounts that you read. So, who am I to believe?

Me of course.
And since you don't know who I am referring to, you can't possibly know if your alleged debunkers debunked the same people. You are so full of it.

You make a vague reference to people whom you have read without identifying those people, thus making it impossible for anyone to verify what those people said, and you say that I am full of it?

I don't have a photographic memory unfortunately.
My point is simply I have reasonable doubt.

Bushi said:



I said:

Both are opinions.

Really? All the accounts I've read (and I've a lot) all refer back to one set of experiments conducted under less than ideal conditions.


A recent paper claiming "active thermitic material" in dust collected in the vicinity of the Twin Towers after their collapse is found to have shortcomings in its methodology.
The paper also fails to explore adequately alternative, non-thermitic explanations for its findings.
Specifically, the paper's use of methyl-ethyl-ketone (MEK) to demonstrate the presence of elemental aluminum is known to yield inconsistent results because MEK could react with aluminum;
alleged elemental aluminum nanoparticles are claimed to remain unreacted after 55 hours of MEK bath, but also contradictorily to react violently already at 430°C;
photographic and spectral comparisons between commercial thermite and spheroidal particles in Ground Zero dust omit any other comparison with possible alternative sources of such findings;
DSC analysis was conducted in air, but should have been conducted in an inert gas environment in order to obtain reliable results for thermite, which does not require an external oxidizer.
The paper also does not consider the chemical composition of the corrosion-proofing paints and of the vermiculite used as thermal insulation and soundproofing at the World Trade Center and extensively documented by NIST.
These products contain exactly the same elements and exhibit the same structural characteristics as the allegedly thermitic material found by the paper's researchers in their samples.
The researchers therefore appear to have been somewhat hasty in reaching their conclusions.

Some of the authors of this study, such as Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan, are well-known for their strong support of so-called "conspiracy theories". The main author, Danish chemistry professor Niels Harrit, has also stated publicly his unorthodox views on 9/11 in writing and in TV appearances. However, I will not deal with who supports these theories. Rather, I will simply assess the conclusions and facts stated by these researchers. The authors claim to have analyzed debris dust from multiple New York sites located in the vicinity of Ground Zero, finding particles characterized by the presence of two layers, a red one and a gray one, joined in a wafer-like arrangement.


Analysis of these layers showed the presence of elements that can be observed in spectra.

- Red layer -
The red layer shows the presence of carbon, oxygen, iron, zinc, aluminum, calcium, chromium, silicon and sulfur. The authors write that the presence of calcium and sulfur might be explained by the dust generated by the gypsum wallboard that was abundant in the Twin Towers. The other elements are always present in various analyses carried out on the four samples studied in the paper. Therefore, attention is called to the constant presence of carbon, oxygen, iron, aluminum and silicon. Chromium and zinc are instead said to be present, but it is not clear in which samples they were found, since the caption of Figure 14 of the paper (shown below) suggests that the finding was occasional (note the word "sometimes").


The red layer appears to be porous and composed of particles having various shapes (faceted and laminar), embedded in a matrix that holds them. The faceted particles are rich in iron and oxygen (probably crystals) and the laminar ones are rich in silicon and aluminum. Carbon does not appear to be present specifically in the particles, but seems to be distributed within the matrix.


The porous region of the red layer, analyzed after soaking in a strong solvent, shows instead the presence of oxygen and silicon as well as carbon and iron.


- Interface between red and gray layers -
Spectral analysis of this separation region between the two layers shows the presence of oxygen and carbon.


- Gray layer -
This layer contains carbon, oxygen and iron. BSE (Back-Scattered Electron) imaging of this gray layer reveals lighter shades than the red layer. This means that the red layer is made of matter whose atomic number is, on average, lower than the matter that constitutes the gray layer. Optical and electron microscope imaging also shows that the red layer has a larger particle size distribution than the gray layer, with evident porosities and heterogeneities, in sharp contrast with the compactness of the gray layer. Both the red layer and the gray layer are sensitive to a magnetic field. In summary, the two layers, despite their different appearance and color, are found to have an extremely similar chemical composition. In particular, the red layer has a carbon-rich matrix that embeds crystal-like particles rich in oxygen and iron and other laminar particles rich in silicon and aluminum (page 15 of the paper).

- Use of Methyl-Ethyl-Ketone (MEK) -
The authors immersed samples of these particles in a bath of methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) for 55 hours in order to separate the elements of the red layer. They claim to have thus obtained, in addition to considerable swelling of the matrix of the red layer, segregation of the aluminum. They also claim that this demonstrates the presence of elemental aluminum. However, it is trivial to find that the reactivity of MEK with light metals, and particularly with aluminum, is well-known, as reported for example in this Italian document, which states (in translation, emphasis added):

10. Stability and reactivity The product is stable in normal conditions of storage and use. Heat or fire can cause the release of carbon oxides and vapors that can be harmful. Vapors can form explosive mixtures with air. Methyl ethyl ketone reacts with light metals, such as aluminum, and with strong oxidizers: it attacks various kinds of plastic. Unsuitable materials: natural rubber, butyl rubber, EPDM, polystyrene, polyethylene, polypropylene, polyvinyl chloride, polyvinyl alcohol, Polyacrylonitrile. Suitable materials: stainless steel, carbon steel, polyester, Teflon.
If the intention of the researchers was to break up the carbon matrix of the red layer to allow analysis of the nanoparticles embedded in it, the result regarding the presence of aluminum does not appear to be compatible with this goal, since it is well-established that MEK might react more or less violently with elemental aluminum. This appears to be a rather important methodological error by the researchers, since such a test might yield inconsistent results depending on whether the temperatures are suitable for the triggering of chemical reactions. The logical conclusion is that one should therefore hypothesize the very opposite of what is claimed in the study, i.e., that there is no elemental aluminum in the compound and that aluminum is present in chemical bonds, or that elemental aluminum is present but in highly oxidized conditions and therefore scarcely reactive. From a commodity point of view, MEK is sold for the following uses (translated from Italian):

"Methyl-ethyl-ketone - Used as a substitute of acetone when it is necessary to use a less volatile solvent, it dissolves shellac, rosin, cellulose resins, epoxy resins, many phenolic and acrylic resins, polystyrene etc. It is a component of vinyl and nitrocellulose paints. Methyl ethyl ketone is also suitable for cleaning instruments and tools and for washing impurities and chemical products off mechanical parts."
A data sheet of the product is available here (in Italian). Going back to the analysis of the red player, the iron-rich particles exhibit a simultaneous abundance of oxygen, with a 2:3 proportion of iron to oxygen. This means that these particles are Fe2O3, i.e., iron oxide. The simultaneous presence of iron oxide and elemental aluminum thus leads the authors to the conclusion that this is thermite. However, we have seen that the presence of reactive metallic aluminum is not at all beyond doubt. I believe, therefore, there is good reason to question this forced conclusion, which contrasts with the rules of chemistry. The authors claim to have found nanoparticles of elemental aluminum, which cannot be all that reactive if they remain unchanged after 55 hours in a methyl ethyl ketone bath (in other words, one can deduce that they should be surrounded by a compact layer of aluminum oxide, a material that withstands extremely high temperatures and has a very high hardness), yet react violently already at 430°C to trigger a thermitic reaction.

- Misleading comparisons -
In their study, the authors support their conclusions by showing charts of spectral analyses of various samples. – Combustion products of commercial thermite:


- Spheroidal particles found in Ground Zero dust some time after the collapse and after work to demolish and clear the rubble had begun:



This is a clear attempt to influence the less than careful reader by suggesting explicitly the analogy between the analyzed samples and the products of thermite reaction, without investigating whether a similar spectrum might be due to other causes and reactions. In other words, the authors jump immediately from the incorrect assessment of the presence of highly reactive elemental aluminum to the (evidently highly desired) conclusion that the collapse of the World Trade Center involved some sort of thermitic reaction of a mysterious product that is triggered at low temperature, provides twice the energy of ordinary thermite, and is characterized by the presence of nanoparticles that give explosive properties to a substance that otherwise is only an incendiary. These are dramatic claims that need to be backed by equally dramatic evidence, not by suggestions. Let's now consider the energy issue.

- Thermal DSC analysis conducted in air -
The authors analyze the behavior of the samples when heated in air in a differential scanning calorimeter (DSC). The result is that all the samples begin to burn in the temperature range between 415 and 435°C. In some cases, the heat generated by the exothermic reaction reaches 7.5 kJ/g. After combustion, spheroidal particles are found in the porous burned residues. Some of these particles are rich in iron and other are rich in silicon (which is transparent and translucent). These particles indicate that high temperatures were reached as a result of an unspecified chemical reaction (which begins at 430°C!). According to the authors, this reaction can only be thermitic. In particular, therefore, the authors claim (page 22 of the paper) that a highly exothermic reaction, such as to generate temperatures of approximately 1400°C, needed to melt iron and iron oxide, was triggered at only 430°C. What this thermitic reaction that is triggered at 430°C might be is not known, since the ignition temperature of commercial thermite is higher than 900°C. The authors seem to have failed to consider that the matrix of the red layer is highly abundant in carbon and that carbon has a lower heating value (or net calorific value) of 34.03 kJ/g, whereas thermite releases 3.9 kJ/g in combustion. In other words, one gram of carbon releases, in combustion at constant pressure, more than eight times the energy released by one gram of thermite. Since the measurement was performed in air (why? Is this another rather embarrassing error in methodology, after the MEK blunder?), one cannot exclude the combustion of carbon, which is instead highly probable. In order to obtain reliable results, since thermite does not require an oxidizer from the external environment, the DSC measurement should have been conducted in an inert gas environment (with nitrogen or argon).

I think Bushi is referring to the 'Chinese Whispers' method of transforming an opinion (i.e. "I believe nano-thermite was used") into a fact ("Nano-thermite was used"). It is easy to understand in this context.

Yes I know what he is doing.

But they are still both opinions. One just has less conviction.

So to avoid controversy, you can put "I believe" in front of every statement you utter, even facts. Because people will not always agree with YOUR FACTS.

I think you're failing to recognise that the hypothetical individual stating "Nano-thermite was used" would be presenting this as a fact, not that it is a fact.