RE: Re: [OPE] The Science of 9/11

The one thing which seems not to fit in with the paint theory, which is a-priori more plausible is the fact that the particles were quite strongly exothermic when subject to micro-heating which is not what one would expect from paint unless it contained metallic aluminum as a sacrificial anode.. The claim that it contained kaolin as the aluminium source would not allow for the measured exothermic reaction since the aluminium is in an oxidised state in kaolin.
________________________________________
From: ope-bounces@lists.csuchico.edu [ope-bounces@lists.csuchico.edu] On Behalf Of Allin Cottrell [cottrell@wfu.edu]
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 2:45 AM
To: Outline on Political Economy mailing list
Subject: Re: Re: [OPE] The Science of 9/11

On Sun, 19 Apr 2009, Philip Dunn wrote:

> Must read the paper - except I am not a materials scientist and
> would probably be out of my depth.

I guess none of us here are materials scientists, and we have to
go on what we can judge of apparent coherence, cogency and
relevance of evidence in the respective expositions of the 9/11
conspiracy theorists and the debunkers. So far as I can tell the
debunkers have it by a wide margin.

Allin Cottrell
_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Mon Apr 20 04:40:59 2009