Concerning your "Woodruff Miller, Dept Chair, BYU Engineering" was written in 2006, well before the 2009 "Active Thermitic Material....." paper was published.

BYU spokesperson Carri Jenkins said.
"The university doesn't have an opinion regarding the theory,"

Btw, over 1600 architects and engineers agree, so lets stick to the peer reviewed paper you have a problem with, ok.

Prof. David L. Griscom- "together with my recommendation to the Editors that they publish the paper after the authors had considered my suggestions." "And I found absolutely nothing to criticize in the final version of the Harrit et al. paper!"

Get your own dust samples. Ask NIST/USGS.

Never mind how much, what was Nano-Thermite doing there in the first place?

3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:

Why won't Dr. Steven Jones release the "rigorous non-critical" peer review comments offered by David L. Griscom regarding his nanothermite paper?

Why won't Dr. Steven Jones allow anyone else access to his dust sample for testing?

How much nanothermite did Niels Harrit estimate was used in the supposed controlled demolition of WTC 1, 2, & 7?

"The university is aware that Dr. Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of WTC buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."

Woodruff Miller, Dept Chair, BYU Engineering

Hey ctcole77, if you ever come up with any primer paint chips that we can burn which yields microspheres, would you be kind enough to PM me? Thanks. The Harrit team is emphatic that no spheres were present in the chips before igniting them.

How old are you? Can you spell GROW UP?

I find it funny that you think some forum where people pat each other on the back is sufficient. Unfortunately for you, peer-review trumps this silliness every time.

"A lot of Zn was present in the dust (a fact recorded also in the USGS data set for the WTC dust). The fact that no Zinc or Ca show up in the post-MEK XEDS spectra, Figs 16, 17 and 18, appears to be ignored by the JREF'ers but is crucially important as demonstration that this is NOT primer paint." - Steven Jones

"Here's what you need to know (especially if you are not a scientist): UNLESS AN OBJECTOR ACTUALLY PUBLISHES HIS OR HER OBJECTION IN A PEER-REVIEWED ESTABLISHED JOURNAL (yes that would include Bentham Scientific journals), THEN THE OBJECTION IS NOT CONSIDERED SERIOUS IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD NOT WORRY ABOUT NON-PUBLISHED OBJECTIONS EITHER." - Steven Jones.

CAN YOU SPELL D-E-B-U-N-K-E-D?

911 TRUTH DEBUNKED!

There has been a great deal of reasoned evaluation of the paper itself and the results of those evaluations have not been positive.

For the most part there is a a great deal of proof out there that the "red/grey chips" that Jones et al based their paper on, are in fact a rust inhibiting primer paint with a Kaolinite base. "We can also say that because Kaolinite is present and that it is embedded in a Carbon based matrix with Rhomboidal Fe2O3 that a more likely explanation for the red material is paint." JREF

Now this twist has forced the Jones/Harrit/Roberts crew to slightly alter their story-line. Now they are suggesting that this primer paint that was used in the towers was actually the super-secret explosive nano-thermite and that the big plan was to run around spraying the underside of the floor systems with "explosive paint".

Again, you/she proceed to provide not a single solid scientific rebuttal, only administrative bickering and personal political bias against, well.. inconvenient science. One particularly notable comment attributed to Ms. Pileni is this one: "Marie-Paule Pileni points out that because the topic lies outside her field of expertise, she cannot judge whether the article in itself is good or bad.". Strangely, her areas of research seem to contradict that.

Why would a nanotechnology expert and former 'powdered explosives consultant' not want to comment on a paper discussing nano-thermitic explosives?

Oh you mean that FAKE paper that has still yet to be peer reviewed?

You know, the paper which REFUSED to allow the chief editor to even look at their results.

I can write a paper denying the moon landings and have 5 of my best moon landing cronies rubber stamp it as fact.

Have you watched the Chris Mohr debate?