I don't get it... you showed me a paper that had no conclusion other than they found stuff that could be thermite, the same findings could also be iron, paint, plastic and rust
You don't get it. The paper shows that the official story combustion cannot be true. The combustion available in the official story cannot account for the measurable data (VOCs, etc.)
In fact, a simple google search shows that the paper itself sources material which debunks its claims. lol how stupid do you have to be to cite sources for your paper which actually debunk your paper?
http://www.911myths.com/html/sol-gel__thermite_and_the_wtc.html
Why did you link to a non-peer reviewed, unpublished paper? Peer reviewed, published rebuttal is required. Why? Because of stupid mistakes made by subpar blog websites like the one you just linked. Not to mention the fact that the cute blog you listed makes 0 mention of the VOCs. Anyway, back to the mistakes of your unpublished blog.
So...you didn't read and/or understand the paper. And neither did the cute blog you read. The authors don't claim it wasn't plastics. In fact, they said it was. However, they show that it wasn't from the official story combustion. Ready?
"EPA also monitored very fine particulate matter (PM) and other sizes of PM. PM is probably the most reliable indicator for the activity of structure fires, as such fires are generally known to burn incompletely, and produce PM that drifts up and outward from the source. EPA data from the West Broadway sampling site, the location closest to GZ where PM was monitored, show the following trend in very fine PM (PM 2.5 , or all particles \ 2.5 l m) in October and November 2001 (Fig. 4 ). These data show that the peaks in levels of very fine PM near GZ correspond to different dates than the peaks for the previously discussed combustion products. The five stron- gest peaks in PM 2.5 levels are centered on 23th, 26th September, and 3rd, 10th, 20th October, closer in time to the events of 9/11. None of these dates correspond to the dates of five peaks in VOCs noted above. Additionally, it is clear that the levels of PM 2.5 emissions rose more gradu- ally, and died down more gradually, indicating slower fire dynamics as might be expected from the burning of the organic materials previously thought to exist in the WTC. These data suggest that the greatest level of fire activity, associated solely with the typical fuel sources expected in the WTC, was completed by the third week of October. That is, the materials expected to burn (incompletely) in a structure fire, producing PM, were largely burned off by mid- to late-October. Therefore, the extreme spikes in air concentrations of the five VOCs noted above, particularly on 3rd, 8th November, and 9th February, point not to other sources of typical combustible materials but to other forms of com- bustion.
Did you catch that? The VOCs don't match the PM. Therefore, they are not created by the official story combustion (fire / jet fuel burning plastics)
Your article (which you didn't even read/understand unless you're being purposely deceptive) makes false claims. Probably because they aren't qualified to review the paper, just like you.
One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at levels "that dwarfed all others": 1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never observed it in any sampling we've ever done," Swartz said. He said it was most likely produced by the plastic of tens of thousands of burning computers.
The "computers" line is not Swartz's. And once again....computers can create the benzene. But not from the "official story" combustion. Not without the PM. Please understand a paper before you put in so much effort (copy/pasting the failed work of others)
Here's what your cute blog posted claiming that the authors mislead:
"One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at levels "that dwarfed all others": 1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never observed it in any sampling we've ever done," Swartz said. He said it was most likely produced by the plastic of tens of thousands of burning computers."
However, the authors linked to the very same article. This line however, ("He said it was most likely produced by the plastic of tens of thousands of burning computers.") is not a quote from Swartz. Unless Swartz speaks in the third person? But no. It's a quote from Laurie Garrett - Staff Writer.
So...the authors do one better. They give his actual quote:
[1,3-DPP was] primarily found in the gas phase (with 90% of the mass found on the front denuder). Although the source of the compound in this study is not known, it may have formed during the combustion of polystyrene or other polymers. 1,3-Diphenylpropane has been found to co-occur with polystyrene plastics (37, 38), so another possibility is that the compound was already present and encapsulated in large volumes of plastics in the buildings and was off-gassed during the pulverization process. (Swartz et al. 2003)
Which is far, far more detailed than the quote from your "Staff writer."
And then, they go on to refute his actual quote.
However, the sources Swartz uses to support 1,3-DPP as a combustion product of polystyrene are not studies of polystyrene combustion, but of gasses released in the longterm degradation of enclosed polystyrene food product packaging.
and
Other studies have shown trace amounts of 1,3-DPP as a secondary product of polystyrene combustion or thermolysis. But such studies suggest that 1,3-DPP may only form in negligible quantities and under certain conditions (Boettner et al. 1973; McCaffrey et al. 1996). In such experiments, the major product of the combustion or thermolysis of polystyrene, far outweighing others, is the monomer styrene. This leads us to the fact that, although styrene was a species of interest at 290 Broadway during the same time period as was 1,3-DPP, styrene detections were not reported in the FOIA provided data (EPA 2004). Therefore, it appears that Swartz’ first suggested hypothesis, that 1,3-DPP resulted from combustion of polystyrene, is not probable. The possibility that 1,3-DPP was off-gassed as a result of the physical destruction of debris at GZ, as in Swartz’ second hypothesis, seems possible. But it is one thing to suggest that 1,3-DPP was ‘‘encapsulated in large volumes of plastics in the buildings’’ and another thing to state in what exact materials this rare compound was encapsulated. Consumer plastics do not typically have large amounts of unusual organic compounds just simply ‘‘encapsulated’’ within them. A review of the literature uncovers one interesting source of encapsulated 1,3-DPP that may help to explain much of the unusual environmental data described above. The synthesis of novel nanostructured materials has involved the use of 1,3-DPP to functionalize mesoporous silicas through control of pore size (Kidder et al. 2003). The resulting novel hybrid materials possess silyl aryl ether linkages to the silica surface that are thermally stable to ca. 550C, but can be easily cleaved at room temperature with aqueous base for quantitative recovery of the organic moieties. (Kidder et al. 2005) Such novel nanostructured materials are known to have been the focus of intense research in the past 10 years, particularly with regard to energetic nanocomposites. Energetic nanocomposites are hybrid sol–gel materials, often made with a silica base, that have been combined with metal oxides and nano-scale aluminum powder to form superthermite materials. Much of this work has been done at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories (Gash et al. 2000; Clapsaddle et al. 2004, 2005; Simpson et al. 2004).
So both you and your non-peer reviewed, published blog source are lying when you state that the authors are trying to be deceitful. They provided a direct link to the article about the computers. The quote where Laurie Garrett - Staff Writer states that, "He said it was most likely produced by the plastic of tens of thousands of burning computers."
Not even a direct quote from Swartz! So what do the authors do? They provide you with his direct quote!
And then, they refute it.
Good thing all you faithers are capable of is "simple google searches" because I knew you would post that. And already had a response waiting to go.
Now that your cute blog has been debunked by the original paper itself, I ask yet again, please provide a peer reviewed, published refutation. It's easy to see why your little blog is not a reputable source.
And make sure this peer reviewed, published rebuttal actually addresses the VOCs this time.
Holy fuck that was bad!