Thermate byproducts

[KJC]

I used information from an RKOwens4 video that Steven Jones never reported thermates main byproducts of barium nitrate and aluminium oxide, but a truther has mentioned that Steven Jones did find Barium, aluminium AND oxygen.

I know that aluminium oxide is a compound, and I thought that it would stay 'intact' and show up as a compound in Steven Jones' findings, but perhaps they would just show up as individual elements?

I'm really in over my head with this chemistry stuff. Is the video correct in saying that these byproducts were not found?

[Quad4_72]

but a truther has mentioned that Steven Jones did find Barium, aluminium AND oxygen.


Oxygen was found at GZ:eek:? Interesting...

[ElMondoHummus]

To answer your question directly: Jones at first had said nothing about finding barium. And the presence of aluminum oxides are expected, given that the entire facades of both towers were aluminum. If Jones has since claimed to have found barium in his analyses, then I'm the one who's behind in his knowledge. But the work I'm familiar with makes no mention of it. It's possible he's conducted additional analyses since his initial ones, so I can't comment definitively, but if he has, they must be fairly recent.

Now, to a broader topic: The entire problem with a facile chemical analysis that ignores gross physical observations is that, as NIST pointed out, it is inconclusive. Many compounds and individual elemental signatures observed can easily have explanations far separate from the use of explosives; I point to the common but decreasing citation of 1,3-DPP as evidence of explosives (it's also evidence of computer monitor combustion).

Magnesium? That's often incorporated into steel. Sulfur? That signature has a plethora of possible sources; how do you determine which portion of the signal you'd get comes from expected sources (i.e. computer monitors, burning rubber) and which portion comes from thermate (I say "thermate" here in this sentence because I'm specifically using sulfur in this argument). The point is that so much of the chemical and elemental evidence put forth by conspriacy peddlers are expected, regardless of the alleged presence of explosives or incendiaries.

That's why observations across different disciplines must agree when discussing a single event. When they don't, the hypothesis is at best incomplete, at worst out-and-out flawed and falsified. Even if we accept the Jones et. al. argument that incendiaries were used, and accept the conclusions drawn from their evidence as valid, we're still missing the gross physical evidence of incendiary use. The few validated examples of supposedly "molten" steel are small patches of evaporation noted by the Worchester researchers (and are due to eutectic reactions, not actual melting-as-in-liquefying of steel) and don't come remotely close to demonstrating that molten steel was present. The supposed testimonial evidence is not even hearsay, as it's not demonstrated that witnesses giving testimony did indeed witness "steel" or some other metal, let alone witness it prior to the towers collapse (post collapse sightings do not rise to the level of proof). In short, there is no actual physical evidence substantiating incendiaries use, and in the absence of that, chemical analyses saying that incendiaries were there fade into doubt. The explanations must also explain the lack of such gross physical characteristic signatures on the metals, and without that, the alternate explanations become the more probable ones.