[Closed]Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center

[dtugg]

Correction: for having the wrong convictions, as is: not in line with the government.

Correction: For making up really stupid fantasies based on nothing but his hatred for Bush and using the university to promote them.

[BCR]

Why should they if their sorry government careers are on the line?

I am arguing the evidence, but no one has provided the evidence I have requested....the thermite spectra.

[9/11-investigator]

Again, ordinary paper has about six times the energy content of thermite. Never knew paper was such a dangerous substance, did you? Your houses could explode and burn down at any moment! :D

According to debunkers it brought down WTC7 ('office fires').

But, are you suggesting that one can burn a hole through the engine of a 'crappy french car' with 2 or 3 copies of the NYT?

[dtugg]

According to debunkers it brought down WTC7 ('office fires').

According the Daniel Nigro, the fire chief that was there and in charge too. Maybe he was in on it? Nigro doesn't sound like a joooo name to me though.

[Macgyver1968]

Here's what I don't understand. We argue about paint chips as evidence of thermite being used...but avoid the obvious things...like thermite reactions produce and abundance of very bright light and smoke, that just aren't seen on the video a few moments before the collapse started.

ALL thermite reactions, whether they be nano or not, produce the same reaction. Molten iron is produced. If you paint on thermite and ignite it. It will turn into molton iron and flow off harmlessly. The molton iron needs something to hold it in place, to give it enough time to transfer its heat to the object. How can painted on thermite do that?

[BigAl]

No. Assuming a 100% efficient thermite reaction and 100% of all the heat generated (after heating the Fe and Al203) is going to melt the steel with a final temperature of 1540°C the perfect scenario would allow 1g of thermite to melt 1.88g of steel. Funnily enough this comes from a paper by a truther - It's not a bad way to get a theoretical upper limit and I think the chemistry and mathematics is good - shame about alot of the rest. http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JLobdillThermiteChemistryWTC.pdf


So how many grams of slag are produced as a result?

[James Redford]

Okay, let me say this so even a 5 year old can understand it. Show me a spectra for thermite, not thermite residue.



This really ain't that hard.....

And by the way, the spectra for Fig 24 and 25 are NOT a match.

They are almost an exact match. Due to differences in chemical composition of the different samples of thermite (i.e., between the commercial thermite and the flakes of thermite in the W.T.C. dust), no rational chemist or physicist expects them to be an exact match. But both spectrograms show the signature of reacted aluminothermics: the major peaks of both are exactly what one expects to find from the aluminothermic reaction.

Thermites represent a large class of compositions which can be, in practical terms, endlessly varied, which depending on the particular composition of the thermite analogue will result in somewhat different spectrograms.

But there is no doubt that these red/gray flakes are thermite, since they have the chemical make-up of thermite and undergo the thermite reaction. So by definition they are thermite. Indeed, these flakes give off a higher energy reaction than common thermite due to their nanometer-range sized particles, so not only are they thermite, but they are a very advanced form of thermite known as super-thermite (also called nano-thermite).

[9/11-investigator]

Here's what I don't understand. We argue about paint chips as evidence of thermite being used...but avoid the obvious things...like thermite reactions produce and abundance of very bright light and smoke, that just aren't seen on the video a few moments before the collapse started.

Why should it be visible on 'the video'? It happened inside the building.

It was an inside job, remember! :D

[9/11-investigator]

http://www.911blogger.com/node/19761?page=1

Ik looks like prof. ones is reading this thread as well...

Note that page charges for scientific journals are very common these days -- the new-jerk comments I'm hearing that this is some kind of "vanity press" are totally wrong. Page charges for scientific papers are typically paid by the university of the first or second author, and this is the case for this paper.

[BigAl]

http://www.911blogger.com/node/19761?page=1

Ik looks like prof. ones is reading this thread as well...

Note that page charges for scientific journals are very common these days -- the new-jerk comments I'm hearing that this is some kind of "vanity press" are totally wrong. Page charges for scientific papers are typically paid by the university of the first or second author, and this is the case for this paper.


Vanity press means that being willing to pay the charge is the only criteria for getting published.

[T.A.M.]

They are almost an exact match. Due to differences in chemical composition of the different samples of thermite (i.e., between the commercial thermite and the flakes of thermite in the W.T.C. dust), no rational chemist or physicist expects them to be an exact match. But both spectrograms show the signature of reacted aluminothermics: the major peaks of both are exactly what one expects to find from the aluminothermic reaction.

Thermites represent a large class of compositions which can be, in practical terms, endlessly varied, which depending on the particular composition of the thermite analogue will result in somewhat different spectrograms.

But there is no doubt that these red/gray flakes are thermite, since they have the chemical make-up of thermite and undergo the thermite reaction. So by definition they are thermite. Indeed, these flakes give off a higher energy reaction than common thermite due to their nanometer-range sized particles, so not only are they thermite, but they are a very advanced form of thermite known as super-thermite (also called nano-thermite).

must suck that all the scientists, all the journals, all of the scientific community (save a small, but of course superiorly thoughtful and intelligent group, of which you are a part) don't think so.

I mean how many journals is that now? Oh that is right, the journals that this WORLD CHANGING evidence has been published in are (1) a journal that Jones founded, and (2) journal(s) where you have to pay to have your paper published.

IS THAT IT? Those journals, and because you say so? is that it? really?

Please return to 2006, from which you came.

TAM:)

[Senenmut]

Links are not evidence bubba....now where is my spectra for thermite.

someone might have posted this by now, its in this clip that jones did. this is comparing the chemical signatures.

at time 2.28 he puts up the red chips compared to commercial thermite.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4186920967571123147

[metamars]

They are almost an exact match. Due to differences in chemical composition of the different samples of thermite (i.e., between the commercial thermite and the flakes of thermite in the W.T.C. dust), no rational chemist or physicist expects them to be an exact match. But both spectrograms show the signature of reacted aluminothermics: the major peaks of both are exactly what one expects to find from the aluminothermic reaction.

Thermites represent a large class of compositions which can be, in practical terms, endlessly varied, which depending on the particular composition of the thermite analogue will result in somewhat different spectrograms.

But there is no doubt that these red/gray flakes are thermite, since they have the chemical make-up of thermite and undergo the thermite reaction. So by definition they are thermite. Indeed, these flakes give off a higher energy reaction than common thermite due to their nanometer-range sized particles, so not only are they thermite, but they are a very advanced form of thermite known as super-thermite (also called nano-thermite).

From listening to investigative reporter/nutritional expert Gary Null, I learned that there are typically about 6 grades of nutritional supplements. I'm not sure, but I suppose that they must vary principally in terms the amounts of contaminants. If this is the case, then I would expect spectra of these various grades of nutritional products to vary somewhat.

The question of how to determine "is this sample somewhat different, but basically the same?" is just the sort of question that I would defer to a domain expert.

[boloboffin]

Six threads so far at Democratic Underground about this, and I don't think I'm counting the prank one mocking how many threads there are. Any discussion of this topic is limited to the September 11th forum, you see, and so threads are moved there as they crop up. And this is not the same person, mind you, this is many different people.

This silly paper is going viral, as much as it can.

[RedIbis]

Six threads so far at Democratic Underground about this, and I don't think I'm counting the prank one mocking how many threads there are. Any discussion of this topic is limited to the September 11th forum, you see, and so threads are moved there as they crop up. And this is not the same person, mind you, this is many different people.

This silly paper is going viral, as much as it can.

As well as on Raw Story. The comments there are overwhelmingly favorable.

[boloboffin]

As well as on Raw Story. The comments there are overwhelmingly favorable.

That doesn't change the fact that the paper is whack.

[Pardalis]

This is a new paper, recently published and peer reviewed.

Where's the peer review?

Why do you trust Jones' microsphere samples if you don't trust DNA evidence?

[RedIbis]

That doesn't change the fact that the paper is whack.

Care to be more specific about what is "whack" about the paper?

[BigAl]

Care to be more specific about what is "whack" about the paper?

Any paper that says A is like B and shows charts of A but not B is an intellectual fraud and aimed at the scientifically illiterate. I don't have to know anything about the science to see that.

[Pardalis]

Red, why do you trust this one activist's paper about metals he found, and at the same time you don't trust DNA evidence recovered by hundreds of people and analyzed by many professional pathologists?

[leftysergeant]

The question of how to determine "is this sample somewhat different, but basically the same?" is just the sort of question that I would defer to a domain expert.

Jonsey is going to have to show me a working thermite charge with anything near the amount of silicon in his samples before I think he can tell the difference between paint chips and lipstick.

[beachnut]

This is a new paper, recently published and peer reviewed.
No RedIbis, the ideas in the paper are not new, Dr Jones has been pushing this for a long time; it is still junk. Jones has packaged it in a new package to fool the dumb people at his 911blogger pit of stupid 911 ideas.


It was no peer review it was published in a vanity journal. They had to pay to have it published because it failed peer review at real science journals.

You could write a paper and have it published too, it only takes money to publish you lies and fraud on 911.

You need to stop being so gullibly and taking the anti-intellectual 911Truth path to stupid ideas.

[KDLarsen]

Danish media Jyllands Posten writes about the article:
(in danish though...)
http://jp.dk/nyviden/article1654301.ece

If I'll get the time, I'll try to make a translation. But from the glance of it, its a truther-dream.
Politiken also had an article up, I followed their link the Videnskab.dk - and sure enough, the comment section was full of the same old debunked crap (No planes at Pentagon/Shanksville, hijackers were beduins etc).

I wrote a reply comment - and apparently drew Niels Harrit out. I'll have to post a reply to him later.

Oh, and somewhat ironic, the author of the article at Videnskab.dk is Thomas Hoffman - I wonder if he's related to Jim ;)

[T.A.M.]

the only way Jones can get a "peer review" is to pay a magazine to give it to him. The same magazine (I would not dignify it with the label of Journal) that virally solicited unqualified professionals in unrelated fields to be on their board of editors, etc....

Come on Red, if this is the best Jones can do with his World Changing discovery, what does this tell you?

oh wait, let me guess, it tells you the scientific community, and scientific journals in general, are bought off by the man.

TAM:)

[Sunstealer]

Gee, Ca and Si are not in that paper but they are in the woo paper by Jones as is Ti. Why?

Why is Ti in the Jones pay as you go paper spectrum? Why are Ca, and Si in the thermite? Does this cut into the heat per kg?

When can you give the total heat needed in joules and the total thermite required?

Never?It shouldn't be because it does not aid the thermite reaction - all it will do is make it less efficient. However you get Ca and Si in Kaolin which is extensively used in paint. More on this in a bit.

[16.5]

This is a new paper, recently published and peer reviewed.

Prove that claim.

Also, a couple of pages ago metamars posted a calculation claiming that a millimeter thick coat of paint would heat up steel beam to the point of "tilt."

Let us put aside the fraudulent theory as a whole, who on earth breathing air knows what Jones and the boys left out of their stupid calculation?

Sometimes I cannot believe how stupid truthers are in pushing their lies.

[Sunstealer]

So how many grams of slag are produced as a result?When you say "slag" what do you mean? If it's the waste products then it would be the 1g of thermite converted to liquid Fe and solid Al2O3 and the 1.88g of liquid steel. Remember this is massively over optimistic because you'd definitely require far more thermite due to the efficiency of the reaction being less than 100% and the reduction in heat efficiency due to losses to the surroundings. I think it's a good idea to use the optimistic upper limit because then by using that if the maths shows that you would need ridiculous amounts of thermite then it cannot possibly happen.

[BigAl]

When you say "slag" what do you mean? If it's the waste products then it would be the 1g of thermite converted to liquid Fe and solid Al2O3 and the 1.88g of liquid steel. Remember this is massively over optimistic because you'd definitely require far more thermite due to the efficiency of the reaction being less than 100% and the reduction in heat efficiency due to losses to the surroundings. I think it's a good idea to use the optimistic upper limit because then by using that if the maths shows that you would need ridiculous amounts of thermite then it cannot possibly happen.

Thanks. Just checking.

[Sunstealer]

They are almost an exact match. Due to differences in chemical composition of the different samples of thermite (i.e., between the commercial thermite and the flakes of thermite in the W.T.C. dust), no rational chemist or physicist expects them to be an exact match. But both spectrograms show the signature of reacted aluminothermics: the major peaks of both are exactly what one expects to find from the aluminothermic reaction.

Thermites represent a large class of compositions which can be, in practical terms, endlessly varied, which depending on the particular composition of the thermite analogue will result in somewhat different spectrograms.

But there is no doubt that these red/gray flakes are thermite, since they have the chemical make-up of thermite and undergo the thermite reaction. So by definition they are thermite. Indeed, these flakes give off a higher energy reaction than common thermite due to their nanometer-range sized particles, so not only are they thermite, but they are a very advanced form of thermite known as super-thermite (also called nano-thermite).Dross. You don't know what you are talking about. You cannot do compositional analysis with EDS just from the spectra alone. If you had any experience on a SEM you would know this. In order to get a rough idea you need to run the SEMs EDS software package that will do a computation for you giving compounds. Jones doesn't even do this BASIC procedure. There is no data in the paper showing how they get their ratios.

The best way to do this would be by xray diffraction (XRD). Again if you knew what you were on about you'd know this too but instead you bow down to Jones because you are too ignorant and blinded to actually understand the paper.

This could be sorted in less than a week. Jones could send the samples to an independent lab and a full XRD spetra could be produced detailing EXACTLTY the compounds present. From my experience the only possible reason that you couldn't do it would be that you need a certain sample size but technology has moved on since I actually performed XRD and this will reduce the size required.

Jones does not do this, instead he mucks about on a SEM and comes to the wrong conclusion which I shall come to later. Can anyone think why?

Yep, that's right, he prefers to string truthers along because they are too stupid and ignorant to know any better.

[Sunstealer]

Can we please get back on topic? It would be nice for a mod to tidy this thread up. Jones et al have produced a paper and they have some data that can be analysed to see whether what they claim is correct. I don't think it is going to be hard to show that what they have got isn't thermite.

[R.Mackey]

:D What a bizarre thread. It's like all the Truthers jumped in here like passengers rushing to the last lifeboat, as the Truth Movement turns turtle.

I noted just yesterday -- oh, six pages ago -- that Dr. Jones's own data proves the stuff is not thermite. I don't know what it is (I still maintain it is probably paint), but it for sure isn't thermite.

Others have found two of these features already. There are more. Give it a look, and we can compile a nice, short list.

Also, to metamars, I approve of your attempt to quantify the problem. I don't agree with your numbers, but you are trying to do the right thing and I wish others would react accordingly rather than just light you up for it.

If you want to redo those calculations, there's two things to keep in mind: (1) The thickness proposed by Dr. Jones is roughly 20 microns, no more than that; and (2) a coating over the surface of the steel cannot be focused onto a 1/4 kg section of the steel. The latter assumption is the source of your 2% mass-fraction estimate, and it's a bad assumption.

Running my own rough numbers, if we assume the most vulnerable of all columns -- a minumum thickness perimeter column, which is a box column 356 mm on a side and 6.35 mm (0.25 in) thick -- consider a 20 micron coating of the nanodoubletalk put onto all sides, which is impossible, but let's go with the worst case. The alleged nanostuff has an energy content of about 7 kJ/g (using the highest of his WILDLY varying four samples), and assuming thermite has a specific gravity of about 4, means 28 kJ/cm3.

The total amount of "film" would be 4 x 356 mm x 0.020 mm = 28.48 mm2 per unit length, or 28.48 cm3 per meter of column, with an energy content of 797 KJ per meter of column.

The column, in contrast, has 4 x 356 mm x 6.35 mm of steel per meter, or 9042 mm2 per unit length, or 9042 cm3 per meter of column. At 7.85 g/cm3 this means the column mass is 71 kg/meter.

Steel heat capacity is roughly 460 J / (kg K). So the nanocrap would heat the steel column by (797 kJ/meter) / [(460 J / kg K) (71 kg/meter)] = 24 Kelvins, or 24oC.

Again, this is the optimal case -- thinnest and weakest column, total application on all four sides, most optimistic energy content estimate, and 100% efficiency in applying heat to steel. From this, we reason that in order to be effective, we need at least 16 times the thickness to have any useful effect even on the weakest of columns, even with utterly reliable and efficient ignition and adherence to the column while burning.

There are no such samples to be found. Paper's full of crap. QED.

[Galileo]

:D What a bizarre thread. It's like all the Truthers jumped in here like passengers rushing to the last lifeboat, as the Truth Movement turns turtle.

I noted just yesterday -- oh, six pages ago -- that Dr. Jones's own data proves the stuff is not thermite. I don't know what it is (I still maintain it is probably paint), but it for sure isn't thermite.

Others have found two of these features already. There are more. Give it a look, and we can compile a nice, short list.

Also, to metamars, I approve of your attempt to quantify the problem. I don't agree with your numbers, but you are trying to do the right thing and I wish others would react accordingly rather than just light you up for it.

If you want to redo those calculations, there's two things to keep in mind: (1) The thickness proposed by Dr. Jones is roughly 20 microns, no more than that; and (2) a coating over the surface of the steel cannot be focused onto a 1/4 kg section of the steel. The latter assumption is the source of your 2% mass-fraction estimate, and it's a bad assumption.

Running my own rough numbers, if we assume the most vulnerable of all columns -- a minumum thickness perimeter column, which is a box column 356mm on a side and 6.35mm (0.25 in) thick -- consider a 20 micron coating of the nanodoubletalk put onto all sides, which is impossible, but let's go with the worst case. The alleged nanostuff has an energy content of about 7 kJ/g (using the highest of his WILDLY varying four samples), and assuming thermite has a specific gravity of about 4, means 28 kJ/cm3.

The total amount of "film" would be 4 x 356 mm x 0.020 mm = 28.48 mm2 per unit length, or 2.848 cm3 per meter of column, with an energy content of 79.7 KJ per meter of column.

The column, in contrast, has 4 x 356 mm x 6.35 mm of steel per meter, or 9042 mm2 per unit length, or 904 cm3 per meter of column. At 7.85 g/cm3 this means the column mass is 7.1 kg/meter.

Steel heat capacity is roughly 460 J / (kg K). So the nanocrap would heat the steel column by (79.7 kJ/meter) / [(460 J / kg K) (7.1 kg/meter)] = 24 Kelvins, or 24oC.

Again, this is the optimal case -- thinnest and weakest column, total application on all four sides, most optimistic energy content estimate, and 100% efficiency in applying heat to steel. From this, we reason that in order to be effective, we need at least 16 times the thickness to have any useful effect even on the weakest of columns, even with utterly reliable and efficient ignition and adherence to the column while burning.

There are no such samples to be found. Paper's full of crap. QED.

There were 8 other scientists on the study who confirmed Jones was right.

It is now a proven scientific fact that thermite was used to desroy the WTC.

[Pardalis]

Galileo must be spinning in his grave right now.

[dtugg]

There were 8 other scientists on the study who confirmed Jones was right.

It is now a proven scientific fact that thermite was used to desroy the WTC.

Well, you are the clone of the great Galileo Galilei so I guess you must be right.

[beachnut]

:D ...There are no such samples to be found. Paper's full of crap. QED.
It is worse; Hoffman has taken this and put it in the ceiling tiles; something like 300,000 ceiling tiles in the WTC at and below the impact zones.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/blasting_scenario.html

Building stupid on stupid 911Truth digs deeper into the pit of ignorance now 7 plus years deep and filled with stupid.

[Gaspode]

Derail removed.

Keep on-topic please. Report off-topic posts rather than respond to them. Thanks.

[BCR]

They are almost an exact match. Due to differences in chemical composition of the different samples of thermite (i.e., between the commercial thermite and the flakes of thermite in the W.T.C. dust), no rational chemist or physicist expects them to be an exact match. But both spectrograms show the signature of reacted aluminothermics: the major peaks of both are exactly what one expects to find from the aluminothermic reaction.

Thermites represent a large class of compositions which can be, in practical terms, endlessly varied, which depending on the particular composition of the thermite analogue will result in somewhat different spectrograms.

But there is no doubt that these red/gray flakes are thermite, since they have the chemical make-up of thermite and undergo the thermite reaction. So by definition they are thermite. Indeed, these flakes give off a higher energy reaction than common thermite due to their nanometer-range sized particles, so not only are they thermite, but they are a very advanced form of thermite known as super-thermite (also called nano-thermite).

I am not a chemist, but I do qualify as a "physics expert" and the peaks DO NOT MATCH. If I'm bored later, I might just do an overlay and show you how they don't match. Only an untrained eye would say they matched in any form what-so-ever.

[beachnut]

There were 8 other scientists on the study who confirmed Jones was right.

It is now a proven scientific fact that thermite was used to desroy the WTC.
The paper proves the fact that the 8 other scientists are dolts on the issue too. You have proven you don’t understand the subject matter. Please state in your own words how it was done. How was thermite used to destroy the WTC tower; details please?

You can’t do it; you can’t explain how it was done due to what reason? Help out JR below and present the new formula for extra heat from thermite.

[beachnut]

...
But there is no doubt that these red/gray flakes are thermite, since they have the chemical make-up of thermite and undergo the thermite reaction. So by definition they are thermite. Indeed, these flakes give off a higher energy reaction than common thermite due to their nanometer-range sized particles, so not only are they thermite, but they are a very advanced form of thermite known as super-thermite (also called nano-thermite).
Pure claptrap.

Please show the equation for the release of energy of this super nano woo Dr Jones delusional thermite.

You can't. No doubt you are full of junk ideas too.

Just post the new higher energy of using chemistry notation to show how they get extra heat energy. Show the new equation for extra energy. This is going to be cool.

What were the Ca and the Si for in the spectra you have not adopted for your apologies for terrorists and terrorism? Why are you joining the delusion and lies of 911Truth?

I can’t wait to see how you have changed chemistry and got extra energy out of a known chemical reaction. Is it magic? Is it just a lie? Is it wishful thinking?

Just jot down the formula, display the equation. Can you do that, or are you repeating the bs from the paper due to gullibility?

BTW, some of the flakes gave off less heat; oops

bet you want to say faster rate of reaction, not more total heat... just some help; saved you having to post more crap

[BigAl]

... Indeed, these flakes give off a higher energy reaction than common thermite due to their nanometer-range sized particles, so not only are they thermite, but they are a very advanced form of thermite known as super-thermite (also called nano-thermite).

Nano-thermite goes BOOM. Nobody heard BOOM at WTC.

[Galileo]

:D What a bizarre thread. It's like all the Truthers jumped in here like passengers rushing to the last lifeboat, as the Truth Movement turns turtle.

I noted just yesterday -- oh, six pages ago -- that Dr. Jones's own data proves the stuff is not thermite. I don't know what it is (I still maintain it is probably paint), but it for sure isn't thermite.

Others have found two of these features already. There are more. Give it a look, and we can compile a nice, short list.

Also, to metamars, I approve of your attempt to quantify the problem. I don't agree with your numbers, but you are trying to do the right thing and I wish others would react accordingly rather than just light you up for it.

If you want to redo those calculations, there's two things to keep in mind: (1) The thickness proposed by Dr. Jones is roughly 20 microns, no more than that; and (2) a coating over the surface of the steel cannot be focused onto a 1/4 kg section of the steel. The latter assumption is the source of your 2% mass-fraction estimate, and it's a bad assumption.

Running my own rough numbers, if we assume the most vulnerable of all columns -- a minumum thickness perimeter column, which is a box column 356 mm on a side and 6.35 mm (0.25 in) thick -- consider a 20 micron coating of the nanodoubletalk put onto all sides, which is impossible, but let's go with the worst case. The alleged nanostuff has an energy content of about 7 kJ/g (using the highest of his WILDLY varying four samples), and assuming thermite has a specific gravity of about 4, means 28 kJ/cm3.

The total amount of "film" would be 4 x 356 mm x 0.020 mm = 28.48 mm2 per unit length, or 28.48 cm3 per meter of column, with an energy content of 797 KJ per meter of column.

The column, in contrast, has 4 x 356 mm x 6.35 mm of steel per meter, or 9042 mm2 per unit length, or 9042 cm3 per meter of column. At 7.85 g/cm3 this means the column mass is 71 kg/meter.

Steel heat capacity is roughly 460 J / (kg K). So the nanocrap would heat the steel column by (797 kJ/meter) / [(460 J / kg K) (71 kg/meter)] = 24 Kelvins, or 24oC.

Again, this is the optimal case -- thinnest and weakest column, total application on all four sides, most optimistic energy content estimate, and 100% efficiency in applying heat to steel. From this, we reason that in order to be effective, we need at least 16 times the thickness to have any useful effect even on the weakest of columns, even with utterly reliable and efficient ignition and adherence to the column while burning.

There are no such samples to be found. Paper's full of crap. QED.

You fail to produce a peer reviewed scientific paper that contradicts the fact that thermite was found at ground zero.

If you want to overturn science, you need some real proof.

None of your papers get peer reviewed because they are bogus psuedo-science with many conspiracy theories melded in.

[Sunstealer]

I am looking at the possibility that the material that Jones has is Kaolin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaolinite) or China Clay and Iron Oxide (not sure of the exact type, but I'm coming to the conclusion that it is Fe2O3 commonly known as haematite or red iron oxide). Both of these substances are widely used in the paint industry.

http://www.mineralco.net/kaolin/index.php
http://www.mineralco.net/red-iron-oxide/index.php

If you look at the compositions here http://www.dhirajlal.com/minerals.html you can clearly see that there is a good match for the spectra that Jones comes up with. Notably Fig 7 sample c). You can clearly see that this is slightly different from the other 3 samples because it contains Na, S, K and Ca in addition to the commonality of C, Fe, O, Si, Al.

Looking at the SEM photo Fig 4 - you can clearly see that there are two distinct layers with different morphologies. This rules out thermite - no ifs or buts, it's not thermite. I'll guarantee that there won't be pure Aluminium in the sample either. The bottom or "gray layer" is consistently shown to be iron oxide of some type and is clearly a complete layer and is not in particle form. There is no way that this is going to be able to react with any Aluminium because it doesn't have sufficient enough surface area, it's not a particulate. This indicates that it is not thermite.

Kaolin with added lime (CaO) is also found in concrete and mortar.

The Carbon is the one that is foxing me. Originally I thought it could be from the conductive carbon tape that is used to hold the samples to the stage. It's more likely that this is in the form of Calcium Carbonate which is used in both cement and paint (as an extender) manufacture.

Here is a high quality SEM photo of Kaolin http://www.sem-edx-lab.uni-tuebingen.de/site/typo3temp/pics/d5b352a015.jpg taken from this site (http://www.sem-edx-lab.uni-tuebingen.de/site/index.php?id=7).

Compare and contrast the plate-like structures with Figs 8, a-c). Note also how they say

Again it was observed that the thin sheet-like particles are rich in Al and SiPage 15 (bottom under fig 9). - Kaolin, Al2Si2O5(OH)4

Compare there Fig 11a) EDS of these plate-like structures with Kaolin

http://www.scielo.org.ar/scielo.php?pid=S0327-07932007000200005&script=sci_arttext (Note: The Au is gold and you can ignore it, because it is the metallisation of the sample - you won't get any Fe or C (and I'm not sure whether the C is from the tape and they aren't too sure about it either), because it's a pure sample, however the Al, Si and O peaks and the characteristic of the spectra are identical. I'm certain that what they are looking at with regard to the plate-like structures is Kaolin Al2Si2O5(OH)4. Thermite does not contain Kaolin.

I'll have to take another look at the bright particles, because these seem to be an iron oxide of some sort. The SEM images need to be labelled with the exact parts where they are taking the EDS from and composition. Grrr it's a bit sloppy.

I'll leave it at that for the moment, but from what I've looked at this definitely isn't thermite.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I'm afraid I have little, if anything, to add to this conversation. In fact, I believe that except for posts by R.Mackey, Sunstealer and 911files, this thread is mostly noise.

That being said, I'm posting here just to make sure that my name is on Galileo's hit list.

The 9/11 denial movement is dead Galileo... deal with it.

[Sunstealer]

I noted just yesterday -- oh, six pages ago -- that Dr. Jones's own data proves the stuff is not thermite. I don't know what it is (I still maintain it is probably paint), but it for sure isn't thermite.


If you want to redo those calculations, there's two things to keep in mind: (1) The thickness proposed by Dr. Jones is roughly 20 microns, no more than that; and (2) a coating over the surface of the steel cannot be focused onto a 1/4 kg section of the steel. The latter assumption is the source of your 2% mass-fraction estimate, and it's a bad assumption.Notice also how bad their SEM skills are. Not a single shot showing the two layers completely and square on to the beam so you can get an accurate measurement of the thickness's. I was going to comment on the thinness of the paint after reading

There are at least three mechanical and physical properties he's worked out here that prove it isn't thermite. That's even if we overlook that huge quantities of it would be needed to cause anything, etc. -- I'll let you guys spot them. It's quite hilarious. but I thought I'd go for something less obvious and let others have a crack. Paint this thin is obviously not going to cut steel beams - it is hilarious how their own paper proves that a) it's not thermite and b) that they don't know what they are doing or looking at.

Happy days! :)

[Galileo]

Study: Scientists Discover Active Thermitic Material in WTC Dust

Berkeley, CA, April 3, 2009 -- A new study by independent scientists and researchers suggests the cause behind the catastrophic destruction of World Trade Center Towers on September 11th can be seen in the dust itself: active thermitic material, a highly engineered explosive.

The study, published today in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, describes a finding of "red/gray bi-layered chips" in samples of dust taken from vicinity of the World Trade Center following its destruction. Using tools such as a scanning electron microscope (SEM) and x-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS) to analyze the material, the study authors concluded that, "the red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic."

The study's finding lends new support to the demolition theory put forth by critics of the official reports.

READ THE REST, AND WEEP!

http://stj911.org/press_releases/ActiveThermiticMaterial.html

[Sunstealer]

There were 8 other scientists on the study who confirmed Jones was right.

It is now a proven scientific fact that thermite was used to desroy the WTC.No it's most definitely not. R. Mackey and myself are showing you that it's definitely not thermite. I don't have time to spend days on this but there are numerous problems with this paper and I think it would take me 1-2 weeks to actually go through it and scientifically point out their flaws.

How much Kaolin is in thermite Galileo?

[beachnut]

READ THE REST, AND WEEP!

http://stj911.org/press_releases/ActiveThermiticMaterial.html
They discovered paint was at the WTC. This is funny and sad; you don’t have the knowledge to save yourself from fraud.

[-hp-]

When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite.

Does this mean that this so-called nano-thermite won't heat the steel above this temperature? That would mean that the steel won't loose more than 20 percent of its room temperature strength. Even a typical office fire is capable of more damage than this "super-thermite". LOL :D

[Sunstealer]

I've also identified what the grey layer is likely to be. This stuff looks awfully similar and would certainly fit the bill. http://www.cmmp-france.com/ironorgb.html

Look at the SEM photo in that link. Notice the scale? Yep 10 microns. Now look at how thick each piece is. Around 10 microns. Now go back to figures 4 and 5 in the Jones paper. Compare the thickness of the grey layer.

Compare the SEM photographs and look for similar or different characteristics. The Fe2O3 morphology or structure is identical. You can clearly see the similarities. We know from the EDS that this part is only Fe and O.

A quick googling for "Micaceous Iron Oxide" (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&hs=ENF&num=30&q=%22Micaceous+Iron+Oxide%22&btnG=Search&meta=) and it throws up hundreds of sites and low and behold it's primary use is guess what? Yep, protection of structural steel and has been used for more than 100 years.

Jones and the rest of the dolts haven't a clue! This is brilliant. The have got a small piece of plate Fe2O3 anti-corrosion paint (the gray layer) that has obviously flaked away from what ever it was painted on.

What do you think you do after you've applied the anti-corrosion? Come on truthers you can do it. Yep, you paint over it! That is what the red layer is. It contains Kaolin and red iron oxide pigment - paint!

And that is what a materials scientist does. He looks at the evidence, gathers information and then proves what the material is.

Any truthers care to comment?

[Thunder]

Study: Scientists Discover Active Thermitic Material in WTC Dust

Berkeley, CA, April 3, 2009 -- A new study by independent scientists and researchers suggests the cause behind the catastrophic destruction of World Trade Center Towers on September 11th can be seen in the dust itself: active thermitic material, a highly engineered explosive.

The study, published today in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, describes a finding of "red/gray bi-layered chips" in samples of dust taken from vicinity of the World Trade Center following its destruction. Using tools such as a scanning electron microscope (SEM) and x-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS) to analyze the material, the study authors concluded that, "the red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic."

The study's finding lends new support to the demolition theory put forth by critics of the official reports.

READ THE REST, AND WEEP!

http://stj911.org/press_releases/ActiveThermiticMaterial.html

Um....isnt this just the same thing published in a different truther magazine? who cares?

"A new study by independent scientists and researchers"

lololool

its over buddy. you lost. deal with it and move on.

[Galileo]

I've also identified what the grey layer is likely to be. This stuff looks awfully similar and would certainly fit the bill. http://www.cmmp-france.com/ironorgb.html

Look at the SEM photo in that link. Notice the scale? Yep 10 microns. Now look at how thick each piece is. Around 10 microns. Now go back to figures 4 and 5 in the Jones paper. Compare the thickness of the grey layer.

Compare the SEM photographs and look for similar or different characteristics. The Fe2O3 morphology or structure is identical. You can clearly see the similarities. We know from the EDS that this part is only Fe and O.

A quick googling for "Micaceous Iron Oxide" (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&hs=ENF&num=30&q=%22Micaceous+Iron+Oxide%22&btnG=Search&meta=) and it throws up hundreds of sites and low and behold it's primary use is guess what? Yep, protection of structural steel and has been used for more than 100 years.

Jones and the rest of the dolts haven't a clue! This is brilliant. The have got a small piece of plate Fe2O3 anti-corrosion paint (the gray layer) that has obviously flaked away from what ever it was painted on.

What do you think you do after you've applied the anti-corrosion? Come on truthers you can do it. Yep, you paint over it! That is what the red layer is. It contains Kaolin and red iron oxide pigment - paint!

And that is what a materials scientist does. He looks at the evidence, gathers information and then proves what the material is.

Any truthers care to comment?

Any moron can post drivel on a conspiracy website. Go get your wacky theories peer reviewed and published by an international team of independent scientists.

[Sunstealer]

Um....isnt this just the same thing published in a different truther magazine? who cares?

"A new study by independent scientists and researchers"

lololool

its over buddy. you lost. deal with it and move on.Oh they have totally lost.

I expect people to apologise for believing this was thermite without any thought whatsoever and acknowledge that I am right. Jones has zero evidence for themite. His "thermite chips" are nothing but

Micaceous Iron Oxide (MIO) - his gray layer (no doubt that this is an individual MIO flake as shon in my link, which is used to protect the structural steel from corrosion.

The "red layer" has been shown to contain Kaolin and red iron oxide, two constituents of red paint.

The two explanations tally perfectly. Game over. Took less than 2 days to prove Jones wrong.

[T.A.M.]

Any moron can post drivel on a conspiracy website. Go get your wacky theories peer reviewed and published by an international team of independent scientists.

you mean like Bazant did?

Certainly you don't mean Jones and his "Buy a publish" scheme do you?

Yes I want my research published in a Journal where I have to pay to have it published, and the list of people on the editorial board include people with english degrees, who were solicited via viral emailing, and PAID to sign up etc...

yes...that is reputable science.

I wonder why Jonesy et al have never gotten published in any of the known journals. You know, the kind where you DON'T BUY the publication of your article, but rather, get published on THE MERITS of your work.

TAM;)

[apathoid]

Any moron can post drivel on a conspiracy website. Go get your wacky theories peer reviewed and published by an international team of independent scientists.

:i:

My irony meter runneth over..

[T.A.M.]

Oh they have totally lost.

I expect people to apologise for believing this was thermite without any thought whatsoever and acknowledge that I am right. Jones has zero evidence for themite. His "thermite chips" are nothing but

Micaceous Iron Oxide (MIO) - his gray layer (no doubt that this is an individual MIO flake as shon in my link, which is used to protect the structural steel from corrosion.

The "red layer" has been shown to contain Kaolin and red iron oxide, two constituents of red paint.

The two explanations tally perfectly. Game over. Took less than 2 days to prove Jones wrong.

If you have $600 to spend, I propose you collect your research, put it together in proper form, and submit it to the same journal as a follow up to his paper...

Boy wouldn't that put the red in his rage.

TAM:D

[Pardalis]

Any moron can post drivel on a conspiracy website. Go get your wacky theories peer reviewed and published by an international team of independent scientists.

For a clone of a great astronomer, your response to Sunstealer isn't very scientific.

[Sunstealer]

Any moron can post drivel on a conspiracy website. Go get your wacky theories peer reviewed and published by an international team of independent scientists.Actually if you bother to actually read what I have posted you will see that I am perfectly correct without any shadow of a doubt. I'm rather pleased, because this is the sort of thing that I do professionally for a living.

I'll have a look to see whether there is the a way to put what I've found to them. They will have to back down, it's now blindingly obvious what their material is.

You obviously have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. If I had read their paper and done the same research and thought it was thermite I'd be backing Jones et al and saying on here that they were right.

Now deal with it.

[thewholesoul]

Don't you ever get tried of being wrong and accusing innocent people of mass murder?

finding thermite in the WTC dust is not accusing anybody?

[thewholesoul]

There is no indication that the chips were ever anything other than a paint-thin layer of somethinmg.

p 25 of the paper explains the tests they conducted to distinguish the red chips from red paint. what objections do you have against their testing?

[thewholesoul]

Wow, they found red paint. This has already been discussed at JREF - use the search function and you'll find the thread and then you'll find my post where I prove that it's red paint.

did you sample some of the red chips from teh WTC dust and run them through various tests before reaching that conclusion? arm chair science does not refute the peer reviewed scientific paper.

[Sunstealer]

p 25 of the paper explains the tests they conducted to distinguish the red chips from red paint. what objections do you have against their testing?Very easy. They don't give any data with regard to the paint they compared their chips with.

Knowing that the grey layer is MIO and the red layer Kaolin and Iron oxide the only thing that I can think of that might partially dissolve is maybe some sort of binder in the red paint. This would also explain the large Carbon peaks that they continue to get throughout the EDS spectra.

[BCR]

someone might have posted this by now, its in this clip that jones did. this is comparing the chemical signatures.

at time 2.28 he puts up the red chips compared to commercial thermite.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4186920967571123147

Thanks for the link, but the spectra he shows is for the resultant spheriods, NOT the raw thermite. But since they are similar to the Fig 24/Fig 25 spectra discussed earlier, I'll use them for a comparison (Dr. Jones in the video asks that this be done).

http://aal77.com/jref/jones_youtube.jpg

Obviously the quality of the YouTube graphs is rather poor as seen above, but I did extract a screenshot and scaled the two spectra to matching scale.

http://aal77.com/jref/jones_compare.jpg

It is easy to see how the elemental components match up. I changed the color for the thermite sample for easier comparison.

Iron - matches in composition and proportion fairly well.
Oxygen - significantly greater proportion in the thermite spectra as would be expected from a very robust oxidation process.
Aluminum - greater proportion in the thermite spectra as to expected since Aluminum was one of the primary reactants.
Silicon (forgive the misspell in the graphic) - Again, greater proportion in the thermite spectra.
Sulfur - nonexistent in the thermite spectra.

The materials used for each spectra DO NOT represent the same chemical process. I also marked an area with a box which is also significantly different. Both obviously are the resultant of chemical reactions involving Iron Oxide (rust), but that is really the only thing that can be said as far as equivalency goes.

[boloboffin]

You know, with two people still working at Brigham Young, maybe Brigham Young should be aware of this paper.

[BCR]

I've also identified what the grey layer is likely to be. This stuff looks awfully similar and would certainly fit the bill. http://www.cmmp-france.com/ironorgb.html

Look at the SEM photo in that link. Notice the scale? Yep 10 microns. Now look at how thick each piece is. Around 10 microns. Now go back to figures 4 and 5 in the Jones paper. Compare the thickness of the grey layer.

Compare the SEM photographs and look for similar or different characteristics. The Fe2O3 morphology or structure is identical. You can clearly see the similarities. We know from the EDS that this part is only Fe and O.

A quick googling for "Micaceous Iron Oxide" (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&hs=ENF&num=30&q=%22Micaceous+Iron+Oxide%22&btnG=Search&meta=) and it throws up hundreds of sites and low and behold it's primary use is guess what? Yep, protection of structural steel and has been used for more than 100 years.

Jones and the rest of the dolts haven't a clue! This is brilliant. The have got a small piece of plate Fe2O3 anti-corrosion paint (the gray layer) that has obviously flaked away from what ever it was painted on.

What do you think you do after you've applied the anti-corrosion? Come on truthers you can do it. Yep, you paint over it! That is what the red layer is. It contains Kaolin and red iron oxide pigment - paint!

And that is what a materials scientist does. He looks at the evidence, gathers information and then proves what the material is.

Any truthers care to comment?

Oh my, Dr. Jones super-duper thermite is paint chips :jaw-dropp

[Galileo]

Thanks for the link, but the spectra he shows is for the resultant spheriods, NOT the raw thermite. But since they are similar to the Fig 24/Fig 25 spectra discussed earlier, I'll use them for a comparison (Dr. Jones in the video asks that this be done).

http://aal77.com/jref/jones_youtube.jpg

Obviously the quality of the YouTube graphs is rather poor as seen above, but I did extract a screenshot and scaled the two spectra to matching scale.

http://aal77.com/jref/jones_compare.jpg

It is easy to see how the elemental components match up. I changed the color for the thermite sample for easier comparison.

Iron - matches in composition and proportion fairly well.
Oxygen - significantly greater proportion in the thermite spectra as would be expected from a very robust oxidation process.
Aluminum - greater proportion in the thermite spectra as to expected since Aluminum was one of the primary reactants.
Silicon (forgive the misspell in the graphic) - Again, greater proportion in the thermite spectra.
Sulfur - nonexistent in the thermite spectra.

The materials used for each spectra DO NOT represent the same chemical process. I also marked an area with a box which is also significantly different. Both obviously are the resultant of chemical reactions involving Iron Oxide (rust), but that is really the only thing that can be said as far as equivalency goes.

Wowza! You should get a job as a science journal referee! The JREF forum is not a legitimate science jourmal, too bad for you.

[T.A.M.]

Neither is Bantham Open Access Publishing. The optional word for them is "Legitimate" which they are not.

TAM:)

[GregoryUrich]

:D What a bizarre thread. It's like all the Truthers jumped in here like passengers rushing to the last lifeboat, as the Truth Movement turns turtle.

I noted just yesterday -- oh, six pages ago -- that Dr. Jones's own data proves the stuff is not thermite. I don't know what it is (I still maintain it is probably paint), but it for sure isn't thermite.

Others have found two of these features already. There are more. Give it a look, and we can compile a nice, short list.

Also, to metamars, I approve of your attempt to quantify the problem. I don't agree with your numbers, but you are trying to do the right thing and I wish others would react accordingly rather than just light you up for it.

If you want to redo those calculations, there's two things to keep in mind: (1) The thickness proposed by Dr. Jones is roughly 20 microns, no more than that; and (2) a coating over the surface of the steel cannot be focused onto a 1/4 kg section of the steel. The latter assumption is the source of your 2% mass-fraction estimate, and it's a bad assumption.

Running my own rough numbers, if we assume the most vulnerable of all columns -- a minumum thickness perimeter column, which is a box column 356 mm on a side and 6.35 mm (0.25 in) thick -- consider a 20 micron coating of the nanodoubletalk put onto all sides, which is impossible, but let's go with the worst case. The alleged nanostuff has an energy content of about 7 kJ/g (using the highest of his WILDLY varying four samples), and assuming thermite has a specific gravity of about 4, means 28 kJ/cm3.

The total amount of "film" would be 4 x 356 mm x 0.020 mm = 28.48 mm2 per unit length, or 28.48 cm3 per meter of column, with an energy content of 797 KJ per meter of column.

The column, in contrast, has 4 x 356 mm x 6.35 mm of steel per meter, or 9042 mm2 per unit length, or 9042 cm3 per meter of column. At 7.85 g/cm3 this means the column mass is 71 kg/meter.

Steel heat capacity is roughly 460 J / (kg K). So the nanocrap would heat the steel column by (797 kJ/meter) / [(460 J / kg K) (71 kg/meter)] = 24 Kelvins, or 24oC.

Again, this is the optimal case -- thinnest and weakest column, total application on all four sides, most optimistic energy content estimate, and 100% efficiency in applying heat to steel. From this, we reason that in order to be effective, we need at least 16 times the thickness to have any useful effect even on the weakest of columns, even with utterly reliable and efficient ignition and adherence to the column while burning.

There are no such samples to be found. Paper's full of crap. QED.

Hi Ryan,

You may have already seen it but Dr. Greening calculated 10 degress C. He didn't show his work.:)

[Galileo]

Galileo must be spinning in his grave right now.

Galileo does not spin. He uses clear communication. It is the archie debunkers and Ed Gein who spin in graves.

[GregoryUrich]

I'm wondering about the grey layer. The only information they provide is that it is primarily iron oxide...but it sure doesn't look like rust. I have checked out some rust inhibitors that contain (you guessed it) iron oxide. Gray metal primer is my guess.

[Pardalis]

Galileo does notse spin. He uses clear communication.

Then something must have went wrong in the cloning, 'cause this Galileo ain't communicating intelligently.

Why don't you address the many points raised by Sunstealer? Afraid of criticism?

[BCR]

Wowza! You should get a job as a science journal referee! The JREF forum is not a legitimate science jourmal, too bad for you.

No sir, but it was you who said:

Argue the evidence.

I can't help it if you are incapable of doing the same thing.

[Galileo]

Then something must have went wrong in the cloning, 'cause this Galileo ain't communicating intelligently.

Why don't you address the many points raised by Sunstealer? Afraid of criticism?

I waiting for him to puiblish in a legitimate scientific journal. He has hab 8 years to do it. He would have to prove that he is even qualified to discuss these topics. Until then, I will put him on ignore.

[Pardalis]

That's a "yes" then.

[BCR]

I waiting for him to puiblish in a legitimate scientific journal. He has hab 8 years to do it. He would have to prove that he is even qualified to discuss these topics. Until then, I will put him on ignore.

Obviously better qualified than you. Just like a truther....ignor the truth.

Macky, Sunstealer and I should write this thread up as a paper and publish it in the "pay-to-play scientific journal" like Dr. Jones did.

[Jackanory]

Galileo ain't communicating intelligently.

Why don't you address the many points raised by Sunstealer? Afraid of criticism?

Galileo doesnt understand what Sunstealer has been saying. Its over his head because its not jobby job speak.

[T.A.M.]

Macky, Sunstealer and I should write this thread up as a paper and publish it in the "pay-to-play scientific journal" like Dr. Jones did.

Now that would be worth something...just to see the look on Jones' Face.

TAM:)

[bje]

Dr. Jones has posted some prescient follow up notes. He must be reading jref:


http://911blogger.com/node/19761?page=1

Remember, Steven Jones dissembles poorly.

[Sunstealer]

I'm wondering about the grey layer. The only information they provide is that it is primarily iron oxide...but it sure doesn't look like rust. I have checked out some rust inhibitors that contain (you guessed it) iron oxide. Gray metal primer is my guess.It's definitely MIO - Micaceous Iron Oxide. Have a look - the data sheets even give 150 and 325 mesh which fits the sort of size flakes that we see in the paper.

http://lamoxindustries.com/products.html
http://www.cmmp-france.com/ironorgb.html

[A W Smith]

Any moron can post drivel on a conspiracy website. Go get your wacky theories peer reviewed and published by an international team of independent scientists.

You first, And no jones didn't. Again. Its a pay to play vanity journal published from a third world country where they worship cows. With seven other truthers (no not scientists) simply nodding their heads in agreement. The control samples are absent. Thus, pseudoscience. And theres no valid chain of custody for the samples to begin with. Just dust from Manhattan allegedly collected by your average joe/jane citizen. Anyone can draw circles on a satellite image and claim whatever it is they allegedly collected came from there. It could be brake lining dust for all we know, Sorry you lose. But you should be used to living the life of a loser by now.

[R.Mackey]

Hi Ryan,

You may have already seen it but Dr. Greening calculated 10 degress C. He didn't show his work.:)

I didn't see it, but there are a lot of assumptions in play, so I'd say his result and mine are in acceptable agreement. Thanks for checking.

Science demands cross-checking. So far, the outlier is, envelope please, Dr. Jones. Bet you didn't see that coming.

[Sunstealer]

I waiting for him to puiblish in a legitimate scientific journal. He has hab 8 years to do it. He would have to prove that he is even qualified to discuss these topics. Until then, I will put him on ignore. :jaw-dropp Astonishing. Truthers just keep on surprising me (for the worse unfortunately). I guess if the facts and the truth aren't what people want to hear then they just ignore it by putting people on ignore. What is it with these people? You take the time to read a paper, the paper doesn't add up, you use your knowledge and experience to work out exactly what the material is and they don't want to know. Instead of debating they chuck out a nonsense post like this.

It's a damn good job that we don't have these sorts of people working as engineers - we'd end up with some shoddy crap that at best didn't work. Imagine them designing aircraft /shudder.

[R.Mackey]

Macky, Sunstealer and I should write this thread up as a paper and publish it in the "pay-to-play scientific journal" like Dr. Jones did.

I respectfully decline, for reasons I stated the first time this came up. The problem is that Bentham is either incapable of or uninterested in rejecting false papers of this kind. I see no reason to pay them for the privilege of explaining why they're idiots with an illustration. Nor do I want such a paper on my C.V. The way to deal with this, once no reasonable doubt remains, is to repudiate and then ignore.

Bentham has made its bed, and it now shall sleep in it.

[BCR]

:jaw-dropp Astonishing. Truthers just keep on surprising me (for the worse unfortunately). I guess if the facts and the truth aren't what people want to hear then they just ignore it by putting people on ignore. What is it with these people? You take the time to read a paper, the paper doesn't add up, you use your knowledge and experience to work out exactly what the material is and they don't want to know. Instead of debating they chuck out a nonsense post like this.

It's a damn good job that we don't have these sorts of people working as engineers - we'd end up with some shoddy crap that at best didn't work. Imagine them designing aircraft /shudder.

Amen! I recall a project I worked three months on at DuPont and reached a point of impasse. I emailed our statistics Ph.D. down in Round Rock stating my problem and asking for his input. A few weeks later, I got a rather involved and detailed response telling me how what I was attempting to do was impossible. I guess I should have waited for his reply, because a few days after sending him the initial email I arrived at a solution and we already had the new process in production. So much for the non-engineer Ph.D's :D

[A W Smith]

I waiting for him to puiblish in a legitimate scientific journal. He has hab 8 years to do it. He would have to prove that he is even qualified to discuss these topics. Until then, I will put him on ignore.

Because thats all you have. A finger in each ear with both eyes closed. Sorry to rain down on your world but your horse left the gate with four broken legs. This junk was debunked almost two years ago.

[BCR]

I respectfully decline, for reasons I stated the first time this came up. The problem is that Bentham is either incapable of or uninterested in rejecting false papers of this kind. I see no reason to pay them for the privilege of explaining why they're idiots with an illustration. Nor do I want such a paper on my C.V. The way to deal with this, once no reasonable doubt remains, is to repudiate and then ignore.

Bentham has made its bed, and it now shall sleep in it.

I was just teasing Mackey. I don't have cash to waste on publishing something in the funny papers. Darn, I won't even go debate P4T/CIT nonsense and it is free.

[boloboffin]

Jones is over at 911Blogger saying that the paper passed internal review at BYU, but they wouldn't let the one guy take billing as he should have. He should have been before Herritt. He also says the new head of Physics at BYU read this paper and is convinced explosives were at the site.

[thewholesoul]

No it's most definitely not. R. Mackey and myself are showing you that it's definitely not thermite. I don't have time to spend days on this but there are numerous problems with this paper and I think it would take me 1-2 weeks to actually go through it and scientifically point out their flaws. How much Kaolin is in thermite Galileo?

YAWN...your "armchair science" is becoming tiresome. May I suggest you contact Professor Jones, request a sample of the red chips and TEST them in support of your "it was red paint" hypothesis.

[A W Smith]

YAWN...your "armchair science" is becoming tiresome. May I suggest you contact Professor Jones, request a sample of the red chips and TEST them in support of your "it was red paint" hypothesis.
Ill call your yawn and raise you a ho hum **cough** chain of custody **cough**

[A W Smith]

Jones is over at 911Blogger saying that the paper passed internal review at BYU, but they wouldn't let the one guy take billing as he should have. He should have been before Herritt. He also says the new head of Physics at BYU read this paper and is convinced explosives were at the site.
That was before he wrote anything on it.

Oh but wait!! Now he using BYU as a fallback? I thought Bentham was his gold standard? Apparently he realises Bentham = ************ vanity press.

[T.A.M.]

YAWN...your "armchair science" is becoming tiresome. May I suggest you contact Professor Jones, request a sample of the red chips and TEST them in support of your "it was red paint" hypothesis.

yah, like Jones is going to give his samples to anyone.

Once again, I have Olbermann on line one, and Rachel Maddow on line 2. Both would give their genitalia to see Bush hang, so tell Jones to send it to them.

TAM:)

edit: Then again, how much would it take to burn a little thermite, mix i with some of his sample, and then give it to someone else to analyze. Think he is above doing so? Think again.

TAM:)

[BCR]

YAWN...your "armchair science" is becoming tiresome. May I suggest you contact Professor Jones, request a sample of the red chips and TEST them in support of your "it was red paint" hypothesis.

"Armchair science" is not the word for it, "real world science" is more like it. Engineers take the "pie-in-the-sky" daydreaming of Ph.D's like Jones and make them work in the real world. We are asked (that is how we make a living) to take papers and ideas as presented and see if they stand up to real world application. Dr. Jones's presentation is not one I would take to my engineering/production manager for consideration.

[T.A.M.]

I tell you what. Here is something they can do.

Take samples known to be from the collapses, with a proper chain of custody. Have them analyzed by independent scientists (you know, those without an agenda) and ask them if there is any thermite in them thar samples.

TAM:)

[Senenmut]

sunstealer-

i have a question about what u said :
"http://www.scielo.org.ar/scielo.php?...pt=sci_arttext (Note: The Au is gold and you can ignore it, because it is the metallisation of the sample - you won't get any Fe or C (and I'm not sure whether the C is from the tape and they aren't too sure about it either), because it's a pure sample, however the Al, Si and O peaks and the characteristic of the spectra are identical. I'm certain that what they are looking at with regard to the plate-like structures is Kaolin Al2Si2O5(OH)4. Thermite does not contain Kaolin."

the aluminum in kaolin is not elemental. from what the article says:
Our observations show that the red material contains substantial
amounts of aluminum, iron and oxygen, mixed together
very finely. In the sample soaked in MEK, we observed
a clear migration and aggregation of the aluminum
away from other elements and determined that elemental
aluminum and iron oxide must be present.

this is after the bath in MEK. does kaolin break apart in MEK to produce elemental aluminum?

[BCR]

I am going to repeat myself as many times as it takes. Someone please get from Dr. Jones or another source, a control sample (thermite) spectra (raw) that I can compare to the spectra of the "flakes". That will resolve the matter of whether or not they are thermite. Pretty simple really. Maybe that is why Dr. Jones did not submit such control sample spectra.

[beachnut]

Any moron can post drivel on a conspiracy website. Go get your wacky theories peer reviewed and published by an international team of independent scientists.
You got the moron right, Dr Jones is a moron and the other authors are his underlings that make them sub-morons.

You presented a paper by morons who had to pay to publish their failed ideas.


YAWN...your "armchair science" is becoming tiresome. May I suggest you contact Professor Jones, request a sample of the red chips and TEST them in support of your "it was red paint" hypothesis.

You missed the point, how do you fail to read and comprehend easy stuff?

[Sunstealer]

YAWN...your "armchair science" is becoming tiresome. May I suggest you contact Professor Jones, request a sample of the red chips and TEST them in support of your "it was red paint" hypothesis.It's not armchair science at all. I clearly show the link between the EDS data, the structure of the platelets and the link to Kaolin. I've provided that here and there is no doubt. You can also clearly see the Fe2O3 particles embedded in this material (I've yet to look at binders. That's red paint, which is what we see on the sample

I've also shown directly that the grey layer is MIO.

You see that grey layer had me foxed. I couldn't work out why the grey layer wasn't red because the EDS data clearly shows an iron oxide and I've got good experience with steel and rust. I initially thought that Jones et al had accidentally mis-labled the layers, which is easily done. I know cos I've done it in the past!

So I had another look at the macro-photographs and the grey layer is actually very metallic looking so I thought that maybe this was actually rust that spalled off and had some paint attached. The SEM photo of the layer just looked wrong for rust. I was stumped. So I decided to have a quick look for corrosion protection and came across this MIO, which is very widely used on structural steel. What I didn't have was a SEM photo or any size in which to compare that to the Jones chip. It could have been something completely different and not in anyway like the grey layer on the chip but nope, it's exactly the same.

A tiny individual platelet of MIO from an anti-corrosion material with some red pain adhering to it. It fits and what's more I've shown how I got to that conclusion by showing people the evidence in my posts.

Whilst I don't want to big myself up, this is part and parcel of my profession. Failure Investigation is a big part of it and we often have to identify materials and failure mechanisms using the sorts of tools Jones has used. I've done the same thing as I would do at work.

I even went off a tangent thinking that the grey layer was concrete or mortar because I thought the layers might have been mis-labeled. I went back and checked, realised the error and started to look in more detail at the red layer. I suspected that Kaolin was present because the EDS data and the structure observed under the SEM points in that direction. What I then had to do was to make sure, that is why I linked to several sources that correlate with the EDS data and even better I got a high quality image of Kaolin which is identical to the Jones photos.

I doubt Jones would give me a sample because I'd would ultimately want to separate the two layers and subject them to XRD analysis which most likely would mean crushing the two samples to a powder. Still not sure if there is enough material to perform XRD, but that's what I would do. It would definitely clear everything up. Then again probably not because people will believe what they want to even when firm evidence is against them.

I note that not a single truther has been able to argue against the evidence I have shown. Instead they poo-poo it and talk about being published or calling it arm chair science etc, etc.

If I had to walk into a court of law tomorrow and give evidence I wouldn't sweat it at all because I've arrived at the right answer and can demonstrate that the right answer has been arrived at and therefore convince people. And yes I've had to give evidence in court before as a metallurgist and I was scared <rule 10>less.

[Senenmut]

now if sunstealer is right and this is pain or thermite as jones claims, doesnt the authorities need to find out who painted this **** on the wtc and find out if there are more building around with the same kind of stuff on their steel. considering it reacts at 430C, seems to me it would be a huge fire safety issue!

[R.Mackey]

now if sunstealer is right and this is pain or thermite as jones claims, doesnt the authorities need to find out who painted this **** on the wtc and find out if there are more building around with the same kind of stuff on their steel. considering it reacts at 430C, seems to me it would be a huge fire safety issue!

Have any paper lying around in your house?

Guess what temperature it reacts at? And how much heat it puts out?

Once again, this reminds me of the joke papers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax) crying about the dangers of oxidane... it kills tens of thousands every year, it comes out of the tailpipes of cars, it's found in over 99% of American homes, yet nobody does anything about it! Won't you think of the children..!

In other words, this is what happens when a fraudster tries to scare a non-technical and gullible public. It's pretty darn easy to fool a lot of people if one has no scruples.

[beachnut]

now if sunstealer is right and this is pain or thermite as jones claims, doesnt the authorities need to find out who painted this **** on the wtc and find out if there are more building around with the same kind of stuff on their steel. considering it reacts at 430C, seems to me it would be a huge fire safety issue!
Better not go home, the contents of your house have much more energy than thermite. Oh noes, don't driver your car; the gasoline is about 10 times the energy of thermite. Better not drink the water either.

And don’t eat chocolate chip cookies they have more energy than gasoline. On noes…

You missed more, go back and read what he said about the coating on steel; go study coatings etc.
Dr Jones made up thermite and is backing in false evidence.

[Sunstealer]

XRD service $40 per sample - minimum sample size "half a grain of rice". http://attminerals.com/x-ray_diffraction_service.htm

There you go. No more expensive messing about on the SEM get it to them and they'll do it. They may have to use a microprobe, but hey they give you the graph and do the interpretation.

Does Jones have $40? Why doesn't he use a service like this and get absolute proof of thermite. It will give compounds not just elements. 40 lousy bucks and we could all go home.

[Sunstealer]

double post.

[Senenmut]

Have any paper lying around in your house?

Guess what temperature it reacts at? And how much heat it puts out?

Once again, this reminds me of the joke papers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax) crying about the dangers of oxidane... it kills tens of thousands every year, it comes out of the tailpipes of cars, it's found in over 99% of American homes, yet nobody does anything about it! Won't you think of the children..!

In other words, this is what happens when a fraudster tries to scare a non-technical and gullible public. It's pretty darn easy to fool a lot of people if one has no scruples.

so the new york codes would be ok with this in buildings?? would it pass code if they knew it reacted at 430C? and if it reacts like thermite, it would be self propagating.
are u ok with this stuff on building?

[boloboffin]

so the new york codes would be ok with this in buildings?? would it pass code if they knew it reacted at 430C? and if it reacts like thermite, it would be self propagating.
are u ok with this stuff on building?

I'm perfectly OK with paint in buildings. You know, paper reacts at far lower temperatures and releases more energy than thermite or Jones' paint chips. I'm OK with paper in buildings, too.

[A W Smith]

so the new york codes would be ok with this in buildings?? would it pass code if they knew it reacted at 430C? and if it reacts like thermite, it would be self propagating.
are u ok with this stuff on building?

You are aware of course that the steel this paint is on also has fireproofing OVER the paint? Which is more than we can say about wall paneling, vinyl wall covering, woodwork or common office furniture and computer terminals for that matter.

[ozeco41]

I'm perfectly OK with paint in buildings. You know, paper reacts at far lower temperatures and releases more energy than thermite or Jones' paint chips. I'm OK with paper in buildings, too.

And surely the relevant issue is "Why are we discussing thermate/ite?"

There are two obvious reasons: Because it was used in demolition; OR ..it is interesting even though it wasnt used ...#2 naturally including the case of "No Demolition".

Since it is: A relatively simple matter to demonstrate that no demolition was needed to cause or assist the collapse of either WTC 1 or WTC 2; AND only slightly more complicated to show that it was highly improbable that any demolition did assist the collapse...should I assume that people here are discussion thermite/ate purely for interest?

[RedIbis]

Have any paper lying around in your house?

Guess what temperature it reacts at? And how much heat it puts out?

Once again, this reminds me of the joke papers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax) crying about the dangers of oxidane... it kills tens of thousands every year, it comes out of the tailpipes of cars, it's found in over 99% of American homes, yet nobody does anything about it! Won't you think of the children..!

In other words, this is what happens when a fraudster tries to scare a non-technical and gullible public. It's pretty darn easy to fool a lot of people if one has no scruples.

Let's reset for a moment. So far I see that your objections are that you don't consider Bentham a legitimate journal and the red/gray chips are paint.

The paper addresses this issue and makes this important point:

Correspondingly, the DSC tests demonstrate
the release of high enthalpy, actually exceeding that of
pure thermite. Furthermore, the energy is released over a
short period of time, shown by the narrowness of the peak in
Fig. (29). The post-DSC-test residue contains microspheres
in which the iron exceeds the oxygen content, implying that
at least some of the iron oxide has been reduced in the reaction.
If a paint were devised that incorporated these very
energetic materials, it would be highly dangerous when dry
and most unlikely to receive regulatory approval for building
use.

My bold. Are you prepared to say that the paint in the WTC would have behaved this way?

[16.5]

The paper addresses this issue and makes this important point:

My bold. Are you prepared to say that the paint in the WTC would have behaved this way?

Gee, wait til old Red hears about Wall Paper!

By the way, just that quote shows what a joke this paper is. The whole sentence is pure speculation, but Truthers swallow it whole.

Anyway, Red, I'm pleased you are back, now that your fraud of a Doctor has been completely destroyed over the course of a couple of afternoons.

[boloboffin]

Wow. According to you guys, there are no samples of structural steel that experienced temperatures hotter than 250 degrees Celsius. So these paint-on nanothermites never ignited.

More seriously, the primer is under the paint, and the paint is under the fireproofing, and even if the primer ignited, it's MICRONS thin and would have posed no threat to the columns AT ALL.

Jiminy.

[leftysergeant]

In the sample soaked in MEK, we observed
a clear migration and aggregation of the aluminum
away from other elements and determined that elemental
aluminum and iron oxide must be present.

this is after the bath in MEK. does kaolin break apart in MEK to produce elemental aluminum?

Did the aluminum also separate from the silicon? If "no" then "FAIL."

[Sunstealer]

sunstealer-

i have a question about what u said :
"http://www.scielo.org.ar/scielo.php?...pt=sci_arttext (Note: The Au is gold and you can ignore it, because it is the metallisation of the sample - you won't get any Fe or C (and I'm not sure whether the C is from the tape and they aren't too sure about it either), because it's a pure sample, however the Al, Si and O peaks and the characteristic of the spectra are identical. I'm certain that what they are looking at with regard to the plate-like structures is Kaolin Al2Si2O5(OH)4. Thermite does not contain Kaolin."

the aluminum in kaolin is not elemental. from what the article says:
Our observations show that the red material contains substantial
amounts of aluminum, iron and oxygen, mixed together
very finely. In the sample soaked in MEK, we observed
a clear migration and aggregation of the aluminum
away from other elements and determined that elemental
aluminum and iron oxide must be present.

this is after the bath in MEK. does kaolin break apart in MEK to produce elemental aluminum?Well I don't understand how they can claim elemental iron oxide - something is either an element or a compound.

Secondly Our observations show that the red material contains substantial amounts of aluminum, iron and oxygen, mixed together
very finely.Is contradicted by the correctly stated analysisIt is also shown that within the red layer there is an intimate mixing of the Fe-rich grains and Al/Si plate-like particles and that these particles are embedded in a carbon-rich matrix.The analysis contradicts their "observations". Their own EDS data and SEM photos show this is not the case. What you have in Fig 8 is Fe[2O3 crystals (bright white) which are what makes the paint red amongst Kaolin which are the platelets. I also think there is a binder, because there are some other structures which haven't been analysed by EDS and the only explanation for the Carbon in the sample would be a (organic?) binder of some sort. They also say "these particles are embedded in a carbon-rich matrix", which looks to be correct.

It is extremely rare to find elements such as Si, Al, Fe in their elemental form when you are also finding substantial O peaks - all SEM experience tells you it's FeO, Fe203, Fe3O4, Al2O3, SiO2 that will be present . Bearing in mind the Si and Al are observed in the platelets and the platelets are one structure, then the platelets must consist of a compound with Al and Si in them. BSE image data also makes a strong link.

Similarly a SEM is more than capable of resolving particle size as we've seen 1µm resolutions, however, they haven't been able to find any Al particles (not always round because of different forming methods). They cloud over the issue and talk about Al2O3 on the surface - I'm surprised that they couldn't use a spot beam to determine this without measuring some of the surrounding material.

Your comment about Kaolin being soluble in MEK is very well made. Not many people would think of this as an explanation for observing Al/Si/O in plate form but seeing elemental Aluminium or Alumina after treatment with MEK. I did do a quick search a few hours ago, because that was my first thought but haven't had more time to look. I'm not familiar with MEK so I've no idea at present. If they did separate out Al particles then they should have put them in the bloody SEM! Or at lease have done some image analysis under an optical microscope to prove what they say. Their BSE analysis between O and Al after MEK treatment looks to correlate fine to me (Fig 15) and they make a small mistake in saying

On the other hand, there also exist regions where the aluminum is concentrated but where the oxygen may not accompany it commensurately. To confirm and to quantify these observations,If you look at the top rleft of the sample you can clearly see areas devoid of Si and Fe, but Al and O match up. This indicates Al2O3.

I'll look into the MEK/Kaolin issue. We may also see some separation due to the binder breaking down.

Anyway very late - A paper like this takes a week or two to properly digest especially when there is so much data and many claims.

[BCR]

For me, I am simply not qualified to evaluate (looks like Sunstealer and Mackey have that in hand). So I'm done here unless someone wants to come up with a spectral analysis of a control sample of thermite. I won't however hold my breath.

[metamars]

Bearing in mind the Si and Al are observed in the platelets and the platelets are one structure, then the platelets must consist of a compound with Al and Si in them. BSE image data also makes a strong link.



This Ph.D. thesis on nanothermites (http://etd.lib.ttu.edu/theses/available/etd-05032005-162438/unrestricted/JGranier_dissertation_FINAL.pdf), p.5, shows Al particles as rough, spherical like objects. The MoO3 oxidizer looks more plate-like.

I guess the question I have is: Is elemental Al, encased in an aluminum oxide layer, always spherical?

FWIW, over 30 years ago, I was friendly with a material scientist who worked with aluminum. He told me (as best I can recall) that he had discovered a way to layer Al-?? alloys in very thin layers - I think 1 or two atoms thick - by applying pressure to the alloy sample as it cooled, in a cyclic fashion. He told me (with a smile) that when he gave a talk to an Al producer wherein he talked about his discovery, the envelope containing his payment was heavier than usual.

I have no idea if making Al oxide platelets with elemental Al inside is possible, or why you would want to do that. But I'll bet Professor T. might know. Maybe I should look him up.

Hopefully he wasn't "in on it". :eek:

[thewholesoul]

I note that not a single truther has been able to argue against the evidence I have shown. Instead they poo-poo it and talk about being published or calling it arm chair science etc, etc.

I apologise if my comments appeared to poo-poo your argument.

Reading over your posts you make a strong argument.

Paint of this thickness couldn't possibly melt through the thickness of material inherent in a steel beam

This is a good point, but if only 1 mm is required then this problem is surmountable. Perhaps the application of nanothermite is not to cut through the steel beams but rather heat it sufficiently so that it looses its strength?

I was expecting data and the source of the paint they use for comparison so waited until I had read the entire paper, but none turns up. This is very sloppy to say the least.

I agree. If they determined exactly what paint was used in the WTC they should have presented it. The fact they didnt present the WTC paint is troubling.

There are two distinct layers with different morphologies. This rules out thermite - no ifs or buts, it's not thermite. I'll guarantee that there won't be pure Aluminium in the sample either. The bottom or "gray layer" is consistently shown to be iron oxide of some type and is clearly a complete layer and is not in particle form. There is no way that this is going to be able to react with any Aluminium because it doesn't have sufficient enough surface area, it's not a particulate. This indicates that it is not thermite

good point. but to be entirely convinced i would need to see an example of nanothermite to observe whether they are bilayered, or not.

Micaceous Iron Oxide (MIO) - his gray layer. The "red layer" has been shown to contain Kaolin and red iron oxide, two constituents of red paint.


Its a strong argument that could be confirmed by identifying the exact paint used in the wtc.

However some red chips contained lead, potassium, barium and copper. are these components consistent with Kaolin?

Finally, the explosive potential of these red chips needs to be empirically demonstrated. If they explode as Jones et al suggests then I would see this as a descent argument against your claim that it was normal paint.

peace

[wowest]

"'Our observations show that the red material contains substantial amounts of aluminum, iron and oxygen, mixed together very finely. In the sample soaked in MEK, we observed a clear migration and aggregation of the aluminum away from other elements and determined that elemental aluminum and iron oxide must be present.'

"this is after the bath in MEK. does kaolin break apart in MEK to produce elemental aluminum? ... Well I don't understand how they can claim elemental iron oxide - something is either an element or a compound."

Very funny.

Even if someone had given me the paper to proofread (and I've done that kind of work), I doubt that I would have noticed that one. Here: it should have read

"...determined that iron oxide and elemental aluminum must be present."

There. Happy?

Honestly, there are enough people here who don't understand what's going on at all that you shouldn't make a joke like that.

[T.A.M.]

"'Our observations show that the red material contains substantial amounts of aluminum, iron and oxygen, mixed together very finely. In the sample soaked in MEK, we observed a clear migration and aggregation of the aluminum away from other elements and determined that elemental aluminum and iron oxide must be present.'

"this is after the bath in MEK. does kaolin break apart in MEK to produce elemental aluminum? ... Well I don't understand how they can claim elemental iron oxide - something is either an element or a compound."

Very funny.

Even if someone had given me the paper to proofread (and I've done that kind of work), I doubt that I would have noticed that one. Here: it should have read

"...determined that iron oxide and elemental aluminum must be present."

There. Happy?

Honestly, there are enough people here who don't understand what's going on at all that you shouldn't make a joke like that.

umm....ok

do you have anything else, perhaps a little more substantive, to add?

TAM:)

[A W Smith]

This is a good point, but if only 1 mm is required then this problem is surmountable. Perhaps the application of nanothermite is not to cut through the steel beams but rather heat it sufficiently so that it looses its strength?

And how long would the ignition of this coating last? The reaction wouldn't last long enough to have any noticeable effect, Your sounding like MaxPhoton with his "pre weakened" theory.

Finally, the explosive potential of these red chips needs to be empirically demonstrated. If they explode as Jones et al suggests then I would see this as a descent argument against your claim that it was normal paint.

peace
I think if you applied a propane torch as jones did to any number of everyday substances you would see similar reactions, did I mention this coating was under a layer of fireproofing?

[J. Edward Tremlett]

New Scientific Study: Smoking Gun Evidence of 9/11 Explosives in WTC Dust

[I]by Josh Mitteldorf Page 1 of 1 page(s)

A new article in the Open Chemical Physics Journal details chemical evidence from the 9/11 dust of thermite cutting charges.

...

READ THE REST OF THIS WELL WRITTEN ARTICLE:



I just came over from that "well-written" article. You'll all be happy to know that you're a bunch of "mind controlled robots" for daring to dispute the imperial wisdom of Dr. Jones. (insert rolled eyes here)

In all seriousness, thank you for your skepticism and debunking. I'm sorry to say the troofer movement is alive and well, at least on websites like Op Ed News.

Still, I was put on the world to be the vegetarian at the all-meat chili cookout, so...

[Dog Town]

In all seriousness, thank you for your skepticism and debunking...

Welcome.

Still, I was put on the world to be the vegetarian at the all-meat chili cookout, so...
What a waste, of canine teeth!

[JamesB]

I didn't notice this in the paper, but maybe I skipped over it, but did Jones ever identify any paint from his dust samples? We know that paint was present at the towers in extremely large quantities, and that some of it must be in the dust, so if he can identify his super magic nano-thermite, than shouldn't he be able to identify a known quantity and contrast it with his "thermite"?

[MIKILLINI]

You will be labeled by the corporate media as soft on mass murder.

Your movement will continue to be associated with failure every time it becomes attached to scam peer review.
You may as well remain in the basement since you continue to ignore easily acknowledged facts.

[R.Mackey]

I didn't notice this in the paper, but maybe I skipped over it, but did Jones ever identify any paint from his dust samples? We know that paint was present at the towers in extremely large quantities, and that some of it must be in the dust, so if he can identify his super magic nano-thermite, than shouldn't he be able to identify a known quantity and contrast it with his "thermite"?

Not so far as I noticed -- in typical Truth Movement fashion, they'd rather forego analysis of the million tons of debris in favor of exactly four flecks of random coating...:rolleyes:

A more thorough (http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2002/110p703-714lioy/abstract.html) dust study reveals quite a bit of paint, enough to impact the overall elemental and chemical populations significantly.

Four specks. Out of all that. Just imagine what they'd be saying if they stumbled across a book of matches in the debris?

[Orphia Nay]

Not so far as I noticed -- in typical Truth Movement fashion, they'd rather forego analysis of the million tons of debris in favor of exactly four flecks of random coating...:rolleyes:

A more thorough (http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2002/110p703-714lioy/abstract.html) dust study reveals quite a bit of paint, enough to impact the overall elemental and chemical populations significantly.

Four specks. Out of all that. Just imagine what they'd be saying if they stumbled across a book of matches in the debris?

I got the impression there were 4 dust samples, each containing a number of chips. From page 9:

For clarification, the dust samples collected and sent to
the authors by Ms. Janette MacKinlay will be sample 1; the
sample collected by Mr. Frank Delassio, or the Delassio/
Breidenbach sample, will be sample 2; the sample collected
by Mr. Jody Intermont will be sample 3; and the sample
collected by Mr. Stephen White will be sample 4. The
red/gray chips are attracted by a magnet, which facilitates
collection and separation of the chips from the bulk of the
dust. A small permanent magnet in its own plastic bag was
used to attract and collect the chips from dust samples. The
chips are typically small but readily discernible by eye due to
their distinctive color. They are of variable size with major
dimensions of roughly 0.2 to 3 mm. Thicknesses vary from
roughly 10 to 100 microns for each layer (red and gray).
Samples of WTC dust from these and other collectors have
been sent directly from collectors to various scientists (including
some not on this research team) who have also found
such red/gray chips in the dust from the World Trade Center
destruction.

Not that it makes any difference to your excellent earlier points, Mr Mackey.


I made a post about this paper at another forum, after reading this thread:

There are a number of flaws with this paper.

Jones et al haven't said what type of paint they compared their samples to. Anti-corrosive paint (Micaceous Iron Oxide) compares perfectly to the gray layer, and the red layer contains Kaolin and iron oxide - more paint.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4589113&postcount=299

Also, they haven't compared the spectra of their samples to superdoopernanothermite, which is what they claim it is. They've only compared it to thermite, which they claim their samples AREN'T.

Thirdly, the paper was published in a vanity journal - pay to print.

And the journal does not peer review its articles.

ETA: Furthermore, all the samples of "thermite" aren't thick enough for even superdoopernanothermite to burn through steel, not to mention the absence of an explanation of how it would be applied and cause a complete severance of the VERTICAL beams.

Some notable absences.

-----

Have I summed it up in layman's terms OK?

[WilliamSeger]

Aren't there still some WTC steel samples lying in a hanger at JFK?

[wowest]

The man wants something more substantial. And I'm new here.

O.K. dtugg. In Post #240 ....

>> You said:

>> 1) Look at a video of tower collapsing.
>> 2) Notice that debris is falling faster than the tower is collapsing.
>> 3) Free fall of WTC towers is conclusively disproved.
>> 4) Face the fact that anybody who says otherwise is either a complete idiot or outright lying.

O.K. I'd say

1) Find some photographs of the towers just before the collapse.
2) Notice that there are "pyroclastic clouds" of debris being shot upward.
3) Consider the possibility that some of the debris started down again before the main bodies of the towers did.
4) Then, those items would be moving sooner, and from a greater height than the towers and would be expected to pass the towers because they would be falling faster than the towers at any point in time. Hmm. It seems I'm "either a complete idiot or outright lying," but I think that would be expected by one of these (I forget which):

1) Hammurabi's Code
2) The Ten Commandments
3) Newton's Laws
4) The Bill of Rights
5) One of Einstein's equations
6) The PATRIOT Act

which says that the acceleration due to gravity, g is a constant vector with an average magnitude of 9.81 m/s².

O.K. I think that proves that something we all believe is still in effect, but, as I confessed, I'm too idiotic or dishonest to determine which. Look, I'm 61 years old, and my kids say I'm senile. I feel more comfortable with expressing g in terms of feet per second per second, rather than meters. Anyway, NIST's final documents admitted that the buildings were in free-fall, although it looks as if they used a piece of spaghetti to draw their curve.

Well, maybe I'm just wrong. I might have proven something, but I'm not sure what, and someone told me, several years ago, that "there is no such thing as evidence," so I expect people to say that I have proven all kinds of disparate things. Go head, gentle readers. What have I proven?

[dtugg]

Yeah, you've pretty much proven my point. And I bet you cannot find any NIST document which says the towers were in free fall. But go ahead and make my day.

[UNLoVedRebel]

1) Find some photographs of the towers just before the collapse.
http://i625.photobucket.com/albums/tt332/JREFImages/InwardBowing.jpg
2) Notice that there are "pyroclastic clouds" of debris being shot upward.
http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/6682/hyenalaughingbr3.jpg
3) Consider the possibility that some of the debris started down again before the main bodies of the towers did.
http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/6682/hyenalaughingbr3.jpg
4) Then, those items would be moving sooner, and from a greater height than the towers and would be expected to pass the towers because they would be falling faster than the towers at any point in time.
http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/6682/hyenalaughingbr3.jpg

[GlennB]

3) Consider the possibility that some of the debris started down again before the main bodies of the towers did.
4) Then, those items would be moving sooner, and from a greater height than the towers and would be expected to pass the towers because they would be falling faster than the towers at any point in time. Hmm. It seems I'm "either a complete idiot or outright lying," but I think that would be expected by one of these (I forget which):


If this circled part got a "head start" on the main body of the building it would have required a huge explosion to detach it. Films and photos would show both the explosion and the section falling in advance. It didn't happen ...

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/WTC1feefall.jpg

[wowest]

It gets better. These explosive ceiling tiles are only detonated by having a jet crash into them.

Needless to say, I am checking out the ceiling tiles at work right now. I am now very reticent about tossing pencils up into them.

I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but on that statement, you're inaccurate. I've noticed that when people make that kind of error, they are usually pretty fast readers. The article hypothesizes that care was taken so that a jet crashing into the building would NOT set them off.

So, now we have this "information explosion" going on. We all have to read faster, with everyone missing a word here or there, on all sides of every argument. I think we all tend to miss the words that contradict our already-existing beliefs, so we're all likely to believe more firmly in whatever position we started out with. We consider the information we think we read to be "supporting evidence." That's just my theory, of course, so it's off topic here, but I'm still considering buying a gun in case someone finds out where I live.

We could hypothesize that Dr. Jones suffers from this affliction as well because when the only theory you have at hand requires nano-thermite, you tend to see nano-thermite everywhere. Or, we could apply it to NIST. A true believer in NIST would say that they didn't find any evidence of explosives at ground zero; end of story. A skeptic would point out that of course they didn't find any, because further down in their report, they admit that they didn't look for any evidence of explosives at ground zero. A cynic would point out that they wouldn't find any because their team had enough nano-thermite experts on board to know exactly what kind of evidence to avoid looking for. A devotee of the (Saint) George Carlin school of physics would point out that Fritz Perls defined "anything that comes after the word 'because'" as "********."

I'm sure Saint George Carlin would just say that Jones found some "red **** in the dust. That's a good enough starting point, with proper scientific terminology and all. Now, was it super thermate or paint? I'd like to play with some thermite -- quite a lot of it, but from a distance, of course. It's usually a lot more interesting than paint, well, except for in the movie Goldfinger, where they killed the naked hottie by painting her to death with gold paint. Hmm. Naked hottie.... O.K. I'll have to see whether I can persuade my wife to come to bed soon. Good night, folks.....:D

[Architect]

A young Shirley Eaton. (sigh)

[wowest]

A young Shirley Eaton. (sigh)

They won't let me post the URL yet, but on IMDB, if you look under
Shirley Eaton, you'll see THAT picture. She had some nice arm
and chest muscles. She worked out, and she was definitely feminine.

She would have been (1964 - 1937 =) 27 years old.
That's old enough. And young enough.
.
O.K. my wife is in the bed now. Good night! :D

[Arus808]

did this thread really need to go for 10 pages, of a claim that was DEBUNKED 3 years ago?

[Architect]

I think that's unfair, mate. The paper is new and hence merits discussion lest the Truth Movement continue to proclaim it as proof from on high.

And, of course, the Brits amongst us can have a Shirley Eaton moment.

[T.A.M.]

<snip>
>> 1) Look at a video of tower collapsing.
>> 2) Notice that debris is falling faster than the tower is collapsing.
>> 3) Free fall of WTC towers is conclusively disproved.
>> 4) Face the fact that anybody who says otherwise is either a complete idiot or outright lying.


So far so good, may be we can save you after all...

uh oh, here it comes....


O.K. I'd say

1) Find some photographs of the towers just before the collapse.

lots of them around, they show inward bowing...oh wait, someone above already showed you...


2) Notice that there are "pyroclastic clouds" of debris being shot upward.

Volcanoes, where? Oh, you mean the debris cloud....been discussed over and over again....use the search function.


3) Consider the possibility that some of the debris started down again before the main bodies of the towers did.

sure, give me a shred of proof that some did, or I will also have to consider leprachauns in the equation.


4) Then, those items would be moving sooner, and from a greater height than the towers and would be expected to pass the towers because they would be falling faster than the towers at any point in time. Hmm. It seems I'm "either a complete idiot or outright lying," but I think that would be expected by one of these (I forget which):

1) Hammurabi's Code
2) The Ten Commandments
3) Newton's Laws
4) The Bill of Rights
5) One of Einstein's equations
6) The PATRIOT Act

which says that the acceleration due to gravity, g is a constant vector with an average magnitude of 9.81 m/s².

ok, now you are just rambling. My woo meter is beeping much faster now.


O.K. I think that proves that something we all believe is still in effect, but, as I confessed, I'm too idiotic or dishonest to determine which. Look, I'm 61 years old, and my kids say I'm senile. I feel more comfortable with expressing g in terms of feet per second per second, rather than meters. Anyway, NIST's final documents admitted that the buildings were in free-fall, although it looks as if they used a piece of spaghetti to draw their curve.

I am a stickler for exacts, and quotes to prove it. Please state the page where NIST declares the buildings were in FREE FALL.


Well, maybe I'm just wrong. I might have proven something, but I'm not sure what, and someone told me, several years ago, that "there is no such thing as evidence," so I expect people to say that I have proven all kinds of disparate things. Go head, gentle readers. What have I proven?

Nothing.

TAM:)

[Dave Rogers]

O.K. I'd say

1) Find some photographs of the towers just before the collapse.
2) Notice that there are "pyroclastic clouds" of debris being shot upward.

First of all, there are no photographs or videos that show significant amounts of dust and debris being ejected upwards, or that show significant amounts of dust at a higher altitude than the original roof lines of the Twin Towers. There are static pictures taken part-way through the collapses that appear to show upwards ejection, but these in fact only show that the roofline of the towers is falling faster than the dust.

Secondly, use of the term "pyroclastic clouds" as a serious description of the dust ejected by the WTC Twin Towers' collapse is a well-known sign of quoting material read but not understood from 9/11 truth movement websites. Use of the term to describe events before the collapse is a sign of having read the websites, tried to repeat them, but got the script wrong.

3) Consider the possibility that some of the debris started down again before the main bodies of the towers did.

3a) Try to reconcile this possibility with the absence of this debris from the photographs from just before the collapse (see (1)).

4) Then, those items would be moving sooner, and from a greater height than the towers and would be expected to pass the towers because they would be falling faster than the towers at any point in time. Hmm. It seems I'm "either a complete idiot or outright lying,"

Since you're discussing the behaviour of objects which clearly didn't exist, and claiming that they did, then I think those are both valid options.

the acceleration due to gravity, g is a constant vector with an average magnitude of 9.81 m/s².

If it's a constant vector, why do you have to average the magnitude?

Go head, gentle readers. What have I proven?

That you can parrot the words from conspiracist websites without considering their meaning.

Dave

[Sunstealer]

For crying out loud - please just report these off-topic posts and leave a mod to move/delete it and go and discuss it elsewhere.

Jones has produced a paper with lots of data in it that can be analysed to explain exactly what his material is. Allowing truthers to derail and dilute the thread simply means that this thread becomes a mess and useless, which is what they want.

Don't let this happen because the information Jones et al have put out in this paper thouroughly debunks their own theory.

[GStan]

Just saw this thread after a weekend off the interwebs. I didn't read past this:
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

pp.7-31 (25)

Authors: Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, <snip>

[Sunstealer]

"'Our observations show that the red material contains substantial amounts of aluminum, iron and oxygen, mixed together very finely. In the sample soaked in MEK, we observed a clear migration and aggregation of the aluminum away from other elements and determined that elemental aluminum and iron oxide must be present.'

"this is after the bath in MEK. does kaolin break apart in MEK to produce elemental aluminum? ... Well I don't understand how they can claim elemental iron oxide - something is either an element or a compound."

Very funny.

Even if someone had given me the paper to proofread (and I've done that kind of work), I doubt that I would have noticed that one. Here: it should have read

"...determined that iron oxide and elemental aluminum must be present."

There. Happy?

Honestly, there are enough people here who don't understand what's going on at all that you shouldn't make a joke like that.This just goes to show the sloppyness. It's important in a paper to get your meaning across. Bearing in mind there were several contributors who are supposed to be versed in scientific subjects one would expect them to get it right. It's not a joke to point out the flaw.

If you haven't got anything to add or any comment about my posts and the material and links they contain then take your discussion to another JREF thread or start a new one.

[ElMondoHummus]

Mother of God... 6 pages since I last checked in? What's been going on? Some people having trouble accepting that Steven Jones misleads and distorts? Hint: Do a "tags" search for "Steven Jones" and read what comes up.

Trying to get mileage out of this paper is the bloody epitome of beating a dead horse.

[ElMondoHummus]

I am looking at the possibility that the material that Jones has is Kaolin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaolinite)or China Clay and Iron Oxide (not sure of the exact type, but I'm coming to the conclusion that it is Fe2O3 commonly known as haematite or red iron oxide). Both of these substances are widely used in the paint industry.

http://www.mineralco.net/kaolin/index.php
http://www.mineralco.net/red-iron-oxide/index.php

If you look at the compositions here http://www.dhirajlal.com/minerals.html you can clearly see that there is a good match for the spectra that Jones comes up with. Notably Fig 7 sample c). You can clearly see that this is slightly different from the other 3 samples because it contains Na, S, K and Ca in addition to the commonality of C, Fe, O, Si, Al.

Looking at the SEM photo Fig 4 - you can clearly see that there are two distinct layers with different morphologies. This rules out thermite - no ifs or buts, it's not thermite. I'll guarantee that there won't be pure Aluminium in the sample either. The bottom or "gray layer" is consistently shown to be iron oxide of some type and is clearly a complete layer and is not in particle form. There is no way that this is going to be able to react with any Aluminium because it doesn't have sufficient enough surface area, it's not a particulate. This indicates that it is not thermite.

Kaolin with added lime (CaO) is also found in concrete and mortar.

The Carbon is the one that is foxing me. Originally I thought it could be from the conductive carbon tape that is used to hold the samples to the stage. It's more likely that this is in the form of Calcium Carbonate which is used in both cement and paint (as an extender) manufacture.

Here is a high quality SEM photo of Kaolin http://www.sem-edx-lab.uni-tuebingen.de/site/typo3temp/pics/d5b352a015.jpg taken from this site (http://www.sem-edx-lab.uni-tuebingen.de/site/index.php?id=7).

Compare and contrast the plate-like structures with Figs 8, a-c). Note also how they say

Page 15 (bottom under fig 9). - Kaolin, Al2Si2O5(OH)4

Compare there Fig 11a) EDS of these plate-like structures with Kaolin

http://www.scielo.org.ar/scielo.php?pid=S0327-07932007000200005&script=sci_arttext (Note: The Au is gold and you can ignore it, because it is the metallisation of the sample - you won't get any Fe or C (and I'm not sure whether the C is from the tape and they aren't too sure about it either), because it's a pure sample, however the Al, Si and O peaks and the characteristic of the spectra are identical. I'm certain that what they are looking at with regard to the plate-like structures is Kaolin Al2Si2O5(OH)4. Thermite does not contain Kaolin.

I'll have to take another look at the bright particles, because these seem to be an iron oxide of some sort. The SEM images need to be labelled with the exact parts where they are taking the EDS from and composition. Grrr it's a bit sloppy.

I'll leave it at that for the moment, but from what I've looked at this definitely isn't thermite.

I've also identified what the grey layer is likely to be. This stuff looks awfully similar and would certainly fit the bill. http://www.cmmp-france.com/ironorgb.html

Look at the SEM photo in that link. Notice the scale? Yep 10 microns. Now look at how thick each piece is. Around 10 microns. Now go back to figures 4 and 5 in the Jones paper. Compare the thickness of the grey layer.

Compare the SEM photographs and look for similar or different characteristics. The Fe2O3 morphology or structure is identical. You can clearly see the similarities. We know from the EDS that this part is only Fe and O.

A quick googling for "Micaceous Iron Oxide" (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&hs=ENF&num=30&q=%22Micaceous+Iron+Oxide%22&btnG=Search&meta=) and it throws up hundreds of sites and low and behold it's primary use is guess what? Yep, protection of structural steel and has been used for more than 100 years.

Jones and the rest of the dolts haven't a clue! This is brilliant. The have got a small piece of plate Fe2O3 anti-corrosion paint (the gray layer) that has obviously flaked away from what ever it was painted on.

What do you think you do after you've applied the anti-corrosion? Come on truthers you can do it. Yep, you paint over it! That is what the red layer is. It contains Kaolin and red iron oxide pigment - paint!

And that is what a materials scientist does. He looks at the evidence, gathers information and then proves what the material is.

Any truthers care to comment?

Nice find, Sunstealer! I figured it'd be good enough to just point out the flaws in methodology and the conclusive leaps made, but you took it that extra step. Excellent!

[ElMondoHummus]

I made a post about this paper at another forum, after reading this thread:

There are a number of flaws with this paper.

Jones et al haven't said what type of paint they compared their samples to. Anti-corrosive paint (Micaceous Iron Oxide) compares perfectly to the gray layer, and the red layer contains Kaolin and iron oxide - more paint.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4589113&postcount=299

Also, they haven't compared the spectra of their samples to superdoopernanothermite, which is what they claim it is. They've only compared it to thermite, which they claim their samples AREN'T.

Thirdly, the paper was published in a vanity journal - pay to print.

And the journal does not peer review its articles.

ETA: Furthermore, all the samples of "thermite" aren't thick enough for even superdoopernanothermite to burn through steel, not to mention the absence of an explanation of how it would be applied and cause a complete severance of the VERTICAL beams.

Some notable absences.

-----

Have I summed it up in layman's terms OK?

As a summary, it reads fine Orphia. Just because of my point of view, I might myself note that their experiments demonstrating more potential energy being available than thermite sort of discards thermite as a candidate, but that's me. It's hardly required, plus it's more an icing on the cake argument than anything else. Really, just pointing out Sunstealer's argument about kaolin plus Ryan's notes about Bentham's "review" process is rebuttal enough.

[Mince]

And Jeff Dahmer, and John Gacy, and Richard Speck, etc etc.

Know what these people all have in common?



None of them has ever been in my kitchen?


Cite please.

[bill smith]

The scientists found thermite. Let's see you and your authorities debunk that. You are unable to think for yourself, and merely rely on what others tell you. That is the mentality at JREF. Your "conspriracy" forum is going down. We have proven that thermite was found.

Argue the evidence or shut up.

Galileo....this is an interview with Kevin Ryan where he goes into more detail
http://cdn2.libsyn.com/visibility911/visibility911_kevinryan0309.mp3?nvb=20090406054629&nva=20090407055629&t=015c933a3fd496cd08dd6

[ElMondoHummus]

Just to add to Sunstealer's info: I found an advertisment/info sheet on a specific MIO primer.
http://www.wassercoatings.com/Files/DataSheet/MC-MioAluminumPrimer8.5x11.pdf

I'm not saying that this was the coating that Jones et. al. tested. Rather, there's some interesting information there that provides some context (albeit very short and quick context) as to how MIO primers are used. This link is for background information, nothing more.

[MIKILLINI]

The man wants something more substantial. And I'm new here.



Well, maybe I'm just wrong. I might have proven something, but I'm not sure what, and someone told me, several years ago, that "there is no such thing as evidence," so I expect people to say that I have proven all kinds of disparate things. Go head, gentle readers. What have I proven?

Welcome to the forum wowest, keep in mind that many in this forum have gone over this material more times than they care to count.
Also keep in mind that there is also educated and experienced people in this forum who are skeptics and have necessary qualifications and ability to correctly analyze the collapsing of the twin towers.

There has been much speculation and disingenuous attempts by the truth movement to bring forth a conspiracy that these buildings couldn't possibly collapse without the aid of explosives.

The movement's conspiracy "evidence" hasn't overshadowed the current evidence most people know. Sure, it sounds compelling when you hear about it for the first time, but that doesn't make it true.

If you can use skeptical common sense and decide that it sounds far-fetched, then having an open mind will allow one to view the evidence with more clarity.

[bill smith]

It's definitely MIO - Micaceous Iron Oxide. Have a look - the data sheets even give 150 and 325 mesh which fits the sort of size flakes that we see in the paper.

http://lamoxindustries.com/products.html
http://www.cmmp-france.com/ironorgb.html

In his december 2007 Boston lecture Dr. Jones said that the grey material was 'very tough'. I wouldn't be surprised if it has hi-tech nano properties itself. The nano material is just as much a give away as the thermite is anyway. Here'a a short video on nanotechnology.
http://www.kqed.org/quest/television/view/189?gclid=CKSqy9mqypgCFQZqswodF1Pb1Q

[WildCat]

2) Notice that there are "pyroclastic clouds" of debris being shot upward.
This is one of the most ignorant truther claims ever.

Do you even know what a pyroclastic flow is?

[JamesB]

Geez, this thing keeps getting more bizarre. It is thermite, but it is not thermite, it is super sekrit magic nano-thermite, which doesn't have most of the properties of thermite, but we willl compare the properties of thermite which are similar and conclude that it is thermite, except it isn't. For example, it ignites at temperatures well below what thermite would (although at the temperature that paint would ignite), so that must be some property of super sekrit magic nano-thermite, but not thermite, which it isn't, except when it is.

There, is that clear?

[MIKILLINI]

"'Our observations show that the red material contains substantial amounts of aluminum, iron and oxygen, mixed together very finely. In the sample soaked in MEK, we observed a clear migration and aggregation of the aluminum away from other elements and determined that elemental aluminum and iron oxide must be present.'

"this is after the bath in MEK. does kaolin break apart in MEK to produce elemental aluminum? ... Well I don't understand how they can claim elemental iron oxide - something is either an element or a compound."

Very funny.

Even if someone had given me the paper to proofread (and I've done that kind of work), I doubt that I would have noticed that one. Here: it should have read

"...determined that iron oxide and elemental aluminum must be present."

There. Happy?

Honestly, there are enough people here who don't understand what's going on at all that you shouldn't make a joke like that.

Let's consider the iron oxide (rust). After nearly 30 years, how much of a chance would there have been rust in the towers? Aluminum is what the outer skin of an airliner consists of, along with other materials within the towers.

ETA; Forgot to mention that once iron oxide dries, it turns red in color.

[Sunstealer]

In his december 2007 Boston lecture Dr. Jones said that the grey material was 'very tough'.How did he come to this conclusion? The samples he has are tiny, the largest is 2mm x 1mm. How are you going to measure toughness on those? What did they do and tough compared to what?


I wouldn't be surprised if it has hi-tech nano properties itself. No, it doesn't. It's iron oxide Fe2O3, micaceous iron oxide, that forms as flakes and is used the world over as an anti-corrosion paint for steel. There are hundreds of companies worldwide selling this stuff. There is absolutely nothing special about it at all, it's painted on the Eiffel Tower and the Fourth Rail Bridge.

Incidentally I'd love to know why Jones doesn't wonder about the two different forms of Fe203. In the paint (red layer) there is conventional crystalline rhombic form less than 1µm in diameter which is quite normal . Then we have the platelet form of MIO. So why would you want to use two types or are they claiming that the "gray layer" is the anti-corrosion and the red layer the thermite?

The nano material is just as much a give away as the thermite is anyway.No it isn't. I've shown you what it is, but because you are bamboozled by the pretty pictures and scale you can't tell adam from eve. Just because something is very small doesn't mean that it has special properties. There are thousands of every day products that contain nano-sized materials, paint being the most obvious one.

There is no thermite in the sample - I've shown that.

Here'a a short video on nanotechnology.
http://www.kqed.org/quest/television/view/189?gclid=CKSqy9mqypgCFQZqswodF1Pb1QYes, we've seen this before and your video which you've touted several times is completely inapplicable in this instance.

Nano is not a buzz word for super special properties, it's a description of scale. There is more to material properties than scale.

[bill smith]

How did he come to this conclusion? The samples he has are tiny, the largest is 2mm x 1mm. How are you going to measure toughness on those? What did they do and tough compared to what?


No, it doesn't. It's iron oxide Fe2O3, micaceous iron oxide, that forms as flakes and is used the world over as an anti-corrosion paint for steel. There are hundreds of companies worldwide selling this stuff. There is absolutely nothing special about it at all, it's painted on the Eiffel Tower and the Fourth Rail Bridge.

Incidentally I'd love to know why Jones doesn't wonder about the two different forms of Fe203. In the paint (red layer) there is conventional crystalline rhombic form less than 1µm in diameter which is quite normal . Then we have the platelet form of MIO. So why would you want to use two types or are they claiming that the "gray layer" is the anti-corrosion and the red layer the thermite?

No it isn't. I've shown you what it is, but because you are bamboozled by the pretty pictures and scale you can't tell adam from eve. Just because something is very small doesn't mean that it has special properties. There are thousands of every day products that contain nano-sized materials, paint being the most obvious one.

There is no thermite in the sample - I've shown that.

Yes, we've seen this before and your video which you've touted several times is completely inapplicable in this instance.

Nano is not a buzz word for super special properties, it's a description of scale. There is more to material properties than scale.

This is Professor Jones's Boston Lecture in december 2007.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1957490867030316250&ei Boston ecture

[boloboffin]

This is Professor Jones's Boston Lecture in december 2007.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1957490867030316250&ei Boston ecture

But this nanothermite goes to eleven.

[alienentity]

I got a comment on my youtube video '9/11 Nano-thermite Dubious Evidence' last night from a character named femr2, with a link to the new Jones paper in Bentham.

He made the comment 'but I'm afraid your little game is rapidly coming to an end.'

I take it that he feels this publication is the death knell for the 'official' theory of WTC collapses, and that the 'truth' movement is poised to triumph.

Actually I think it's the other way around, but these reverse-worlders have a habit of getting things backwards. No surprise then.

I would ask an additional question to truthers posting on this forum. Supposing Jones et al are correct, that these paint chips are from Acme super-duper nanothermite paint, in that case, notwithstanding Mr. Mackey's calculations regarding the amount of energy available per coat, by what method would the 'painters' get access to all that structural steel once the building has been insulated, drywalled, filled with furniture, bookcases, filing cabinets and so on?

I don't get it. Even if this were a Bruce Willis movie I'd still think it was a silly idea. I can only suspend disbelief to a point, y'know!

Sure, this stuff may convince the type of person who already believes in chemtrails, no planes at Pentagon or Shanksville, or whatever. But the rest of us? Not a chance.

Besides, Dr's Judy Wood and James Fetzer have already debunked Jones, and are pushing a far more plausible (snicker) idea for why the towers went 'poof' (that's Judy's term for it). Didn't you know that the towers 'dustified' before ever hitting the ground?

Jones is so not behind the 8 ball. :chihuahua

[ElMondoHummus]

Ouch! Sunstealer, I hate to say this, but I just discovered that the folks over at Sciforums seem to have beat us to the conclusion that the chips are MIO:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2052425

Also, this post by a truther cracks me up:

6:20 Kevin Ryan has ruled out paint using Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy analysis (FTIR)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjAviEG20dg& (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjAviEG20dg&)


I'm not in the mood to watch an 8+ minute video get to that specific point, but I'm sort of at a loss as to how such spectroscopy could positively eliminate the notion that the chips were paint. I may torture myself later and watch it, just to see what they say.

[ElMondoHummus]

I got a comment on my youtube video '9/11 Nano-thermite Dubious Evidence' last night from a character named femr2, with a link to the new Jones paper in Bentham.

He made the comment 'but I'm afraid your little game is rapidly coming to an end.'

I take it that he feels this publication is the death knell for the 'official' theory of WTC collapses, and that the 'truth' movement is poised to triumph.

Actually I think it's the other way around, but these reverse-worlders have a habit of getting things backwards. No surprise then.

I would ask an additional question to truthers posting on this forum. Supposing Jones et al are correct, that these paint chips are from Acme super-duper nanothermite paint, in that case, notwithstanding Mr. Mackey's calculations regarding the amount of energy available per coat, by what method would the 'painters' get access to all that structural steel once the building has been insulated, drywalled, filled with furniture, bookcases, filing cabinets and so on?

I don't get it. Even if this were a Bruce Willis movie I'd still think it was a silly idea. I can only suspend disbelief to a point, y'know!

Sure, this stuff may convince the type of person who already believes in chemtrails, no planes at Pentagon or Shanksville, or whatever. But the rest of us? Not a chance.

Besides, Dr's Judy Wood and James Fetzer have already debunked Jones, and are pushing a far more plausible (snicker) idea for why the towers went 'poof' (that's Judy's term for it). Didn't you know that the towers 'dustified' before ever hitting the ground?

Jones is so not behind the 8 ball. :chihuahua

There's a question that's even more basic: How'd the thermite not leave any signs of its use on the steel columns? Jones or any other conspiracy peddler has yet to answer that one.

[alienentity]

But this nanothermite goes to eleven.

I still can't get over the idea that Jones is now an expert on NORAD, White House communications and everythingelserelatedtothevastconspiracybutwereafr aidtoask TM.

Where did all his training come from?

btw, does Acme SuperDuper Nanothermite Paint cause pools of molten steel?

I'm trying to find some real-world data on that. Any links from the truth movement guys? Help me out here. Surely it's been tested and proven - otherwise the theory just isn't believable.

Just gotta say this: Let the red chips fall where they may, Dr. Jones.

[RedIbis]

Ouch! Sunstealer, I hate to say this, but I just discovered that the folks over at Sciforums seem to have beat us to the conclusion that the chips are MIO:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2052425

Also, this post by a truther cracks me up:


I'm not in the mood to watch an 8+ minute video get to that specific point, but I'm sort of at a loss as to how such spectroscopy could positively eliminate the notion that the chips were paint. I may torture myself later and watch it, just to see what they say.

How would you compare the brisance of paint with the highly energetic material discovered by Harrit, et al.?

[alienentity]

There's a question that's even more basic: How'd the thermite not leave any signs of its use on the steel columns? Jones or any other conspiracy peddler has yet to answer that one.

Very good point. I'm sure they'll get around to it in their next DVD's, Books or lecture series all available for a low low price.

Coming next: The Conspiracy Channel. Add to your cable package for just $2.99 per month!
Endless reruns of all 3 Loose Change editions, Steven Jones and Judy Wood lectures. Sunday mornings Dr. Griffin prays to Jesus for the names of conspirators. Special Guests John Edwards and Sylvia Browne speak to the deceased and each week reveal new conspiracy details.


This stuff is never going to stand up to real scientific scrutiny. It doesn't have to.

[16.5]

How would you compare the brisance of paint with the highly energetic material discovered by Harrit, et al.?

Hold on there a moment, Red, "Highly energetic" compared to what, Red?

I also get a kick out these "scientists" basing a conclusion on what appears to be a single test of single sample.

Look, it asploded!

[RedIbis]

Hold on there a moment, Red, "Highly energetic" compared to what, Red?

I also get a kick out these "scientists" basing a conclusion on what appears to be a single test of single sample.

Look, it asploded!

Compared to paint. I thought that was clear when I said, "how would you compare the brisance of paint [...]" Perhaps it was not clear enough.

ETA: Had you read the paper, you would know it was not a single sample.

[Lenbrazil]

Sunstealer - it would be helpful if you could put you conclusions concerning what the red and gray material is into a single post for scientifically challenged types like me if you can manage the time.

[A W Smith]

How would you compare the brisance of paint with the highly energetic material discovered by Harrit, et al.?

Where were these samples between the time they were allegedly collected immediately after 9/11/01 until Jones started his thermite nonsense in the fall of 2005 red?

[RedIbis]

Where were these samples between the time they were allegedly collected immediately after 9/11/01 until Jones started his thermite nonsense in the fall of 2005 red?

The provenance of the dust samples is discussed starting on pg. 8.

[ElMondoHummus]

How would you compare the brisance of paint with the highly energetic material discovered by Harrit, et al.?

I don't know. I don't have any data on that. I'm not even sure that this characteristic has ever been measured for any paints. And hell, I've never even heard of the term before you mentioned it and I looked it up (for everyone else who's never heard the term "brisance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brisance)" before: It's basically a measure of the rate a given explosive substance reaches the pressure necessary to propogate a shock wave). But given the variety of differing components possible in paint, the notion that a single characteristic applies across the board to any and all paints is a bit broad, I would say. Thermite is simple: Metal oxide, elemental aluminum. Thermate adds some items, but doesn't differ all that significantly. Paint, however? Blaaaaaaaaah... binders, pigments, solvents, the list goes on. I'm certain the range of brisance for dried, cured paints is not limitless, but on the other hand, I don't know whether it encompasses or excludes the figure for any specific explosive. Again, I have no data on that.

But a single characteristic would get my attention only if there was no contradiction to the rest of the established knowledge. To me, what's most relevant is the fact that the potentially available energy per gram that Jones says is in the chips exceeds what would be expected for pure thermite per gram. How this fails to alert people to the fact this isn't thermite completely escapes me; if I take an unknown liquid and discover that it has 21,500 BTU per pound, I don't say I have "super" gasoline (BTU/lb 17,500), I say I probably have butane or propane, and then move onto spectroscopic and other investigative methods that actually help establish the structure of the material. One single characteristic isn't going to cut it, especially when other characteristics contradict a previously proposed candidate, but regardless, I don't try to shoehorn a preconception into the conclusion by adding the word "super" to it and handwaving explanations of where this extra energy came from.

Furthermore, Sunstealers' posts here are compelling. Even if the red component isn't paint, but instead is some other sort of coating, the fact remains that the identification of "thermite" extends from shoddy work and a desire on Jones and everyone else's part to force the data into their preconceived narrative; the notion that Jones is some sort of agenda-free researcher should be obviously bunk to any but the most devoted addict of conspiracy fantasies by now. Sunstealer has identified a compound that not only meets the observations that Jones et. al. themselves have made, but is also fully expected to be a component of the towers. Thermite isn't, not in any form other than an accidental one where some rust comes into contact with some aluminum. Furthermore, MIO and kaolin doesn't carry the additional burden of why the effect of its presence was not noted on a macro scale, whereas thermite does. Again, where are the beams that were severed by it? The ones recovered show signs of mechanical severance at their connection points.

But back to the central question: If people can develop some more information on the brisiance of the material vs. various paints, specifically anticorrosion ones normally associated with steel, and having been available when the towers were built, then I'm willing to listen. It may not convince me that the chip is some sort of new, exotic "super thermite" - that notion's been firmly put to rest outside of any spectroscopic data - but there might still be something to be learned from investigation of this specfic property in regards to the material Jones is looking at.

[16.5]

Compared to paint. I thought that was clear when I said, "how would you compare the brisance of paint [...]" Perhaps it was not clear enough.

ETA: Had you read the paper, you would know it was not a single sample.

Uh, no, you said 'highly energetic material,' and now you are saying it is highly energetic as compared to "paint."

Lets look through the article as see what type of 'paint' they compared it to.... hmm, that seems to be missing. Red, I am going to assume it was kids finger paint that Ryan had sitting around, that OK with you?

And I go back to the article, and there is a long section and photos of the one sample that asploded, but yeah, you are right they tested lots of samples, but only one sample appears to have exploded.... hmmm, Red, any thoughts about that? Like why the hell they keep carrying on about a one shot anomaly? Hey Red, did you notice that the other samples did not explode? They "melted." Hmmm, what happened to the brisance???

That is some pretty slick "science" there, Champ.

[ElMondoHummus]

Also, this post by a truther cracks me up:


6:20 Kevin Ryan has ruled out paint using Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy analysis (FTIR)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjAviEG20dg& (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjAviEG20dg&)



Blaaaaah... maybe I missed it, but I didn't hear where Ryan ruled out paint. If anyone else catches it, mind steering me towards the minutes and seconds where it was said? All I heard was Jones's standard presentation, including the hooks inviting audience applause.

[T.A.M.]

are we still debating this?

IT IS PAINT! EOS.

Now moving on.

TAM:)

[RedIbis]

Uh, no, you said 'highly energetic material,' and now you are saying it is highly energetic as compared to "paint."

Lets look through the article as see what type of 'paint' they compared it to.... hmm, that seems to be missing. Red, I am going to assume it was kids finger paint that Ryan had sitting around, that OK with you?

And I go back to the article, and there is a long section and photos of the one sample that asploded, but yeah, you are right they tested lots of samples, but only one sample appears to have exploded.... hmmm, Red, any thoughts about that? Like why the hell they keep carrying on about a one shot anomaly? Hey Red, did you notice that the other samples did not explode? They "melted." Hmmm, what happened to the brisance???

That is some pretty slick "science" there, Champ.

What makes you think they only ignited one sample? To carry on this discussion I'm going to request that you cite specific references to the paper. A simple page number will do.

[JamesB]

Compared to paint. I thought that was clear when I said, "how would you compare the brisance of paint [...]" Perhaps it was not clear enough.

ETA: Had you read the paper, you would know it was not a single sample.

No, they compared it to thermite, which they claim it isn't, except when they are claiming that it is.

It is striking that some of the red/gray chips release more
energy in kJ/g than does ordinary thermite, as shown in the
blue bar graphs above. The theoretical maximum for thermite
is 3.9 kJ/g [27]. We suggest that the organic material in
evidence in the red/gray chips is also highly energetic, most
likely producing gas to provide explosive pressure. Again,
conventional thermite is regarded as an incendiary whereas
super-thermite, which may include organic ingredients for
rapid gas generation, is considered a pyrotechnic or explosive
[6, 24].

[RedIbis]

are we still debating this?

IT IS PAINT! EOS.

Now moving on.

TAM:)

If you're frustrated don't participate in this discussion. If you really think it's paint, please answer the question I asked a few posts back. Again, How would you compare the brisance of paint with the highly energetic material discovered by Harrit, et al.?

[RedIbis]

No, they compared it to thermite, which they claim it isn't, except when they are claiming that it is.

And in the quote you provided they distinguish between conventional thermite and this super-thermite. Secondly, they do compare it to paint. Keep reading.

[JamesB]

And in the quote you provided they distinguish between conventional thermite and this super-thermite. Secondly, they do compare it to paint. Keep reading.

Then it should be easy for you to paste the part of the paper where they compare the energy release of paint.

[16.5]

What makes you think they only ignited one sample? To carry on this discussion I'm going to request that you cite specific references to the paper. A simple page number will do.

Uhh, WTF?

And I go back to the article, and there is a long section and photos of the one sample that asploded, but yeah, you are right they tested lots of samples, but only one sample appears to have exploded.... hmmm, Red, any thoughts about that? Like why the hell they keep carrying on about a one shot anomaly? Hey Red, did you notice that the other samples did not explode? They "melted." Hmmm, what happened to the brisance???

Do try to keep up Red...

[JamesB]

Also if you look at their energy release graph on page 27, their measurements vary by about 700%. Geez, try and figure out the standard deviation for that experiment.

I love this part (emphasis mine):

Given the small size of the red chip, about 0.5 mm x 0.5
mm, we used two probes and obtained a rough value of approximately
10 ohm-m. This is several orders of magnitude
less than paint coatings we found tabulated which are typically
over 1010 ohm-m [31].

Wow, such scientifically precise measurements. Gee, I wish someone would invent a science that you could use to quantify the precision of an observation....

[ElMondoHummus]

Can we please stop turning this into a Pile-on-Red thread? I'm as aggravated as the next guy here that he tends to want to avoid the obvious, but in this case, he's presenting a legitimate point to discuss, and he's doing it politely.

[leftysergeant]

Secondly, they do compare it to paint. Keep reading.

Have they compared it to the specific paint used in the WTC? If not, "FAIL."

As for the energy derived from igniting it, I have done some welding of structural steel. Primer flakes go "poof" when I hit them with a torch.

Go to your kitchen and heat a cast iron skillet until it starts to glow. Sprinkle some coursely ground black pepper on it. Watch how much energy it releases.

I do not see how Jones and his gang of dunces support that the stuff they call thermite is any more energetic. Do they say anything about the flakes burning holes into their testbeds when they are ignited>

This stuff is dumber than dirt.

[ElMondoHummus]

Also if you look at their energy release graph on page 27, their measurements vary by about 700%. Geez, try and figure out the standard deviation for that experiment.

I love this part (emphasis mine):



Wow, such scientifically precise measurements. Gee, I wish someone would invent a science that you could use to quantify the precision of an observation....

Well, I'm not surprised that there's so much deviation when you're talking such small sample sizes and amounts. That, too, can indicate that there's a range of material being studied. Regardless, it's what they do establish regarding the properties of the chips that contradicts their conclusion.

Informally, I do agree with you; that does crack me up too.

[A W Smith]

The provenance of the dust samples is discussed starting on pg. 8.


So help me understand this, These citizens (not scientists) collected these samples and put them in plastic bags holding on to them for a minimum of six years in an uncontrolled environment? before sending them to an agenda driven "researcher" who by then already concluded publicly the existence of thermite at WTC????

[alienentity]

This thermite talk is all part of the government disinformation campaign to deflect from Directed Energy weapons which dustified the WTC.

These guys clearly are paid shills.

(just borrowing a few tactics from the truth movement, for ironic effect)

I just received a comment
'Johnny Cochran said: "If it does not fit, you must acquit!"
Today: "Thermite dust, then CONVICT you must!"'

Wow. So OJ didn't kill his wife and Goldman, because a sneaky lawyer says he didn't? Ok then. That settles it!

It should read 'If it's just Paint dust, spin a new conspiracy theory you must' props to Yoda.

[T.A.M.]

Paper Review:

Introduction: don't bother, it is irrelevant.
Materials and Methods:

Page 8:

Samples were DONATED by "Citizens" for the public interest. This is a chain of custody NIGHTMARE!!!!

How were the samples collected? What were they placed in upon initial collection? What environment in terms of light, temperature, etc, were they placed in after collection? How long did they stay in that environment?

SO Breidenbach's sample was collected 10 minutes after the fall of the North Tower. Ok, so he scooped it up with his bare hand, then carried it to his friends house, in his hand. They then decided to put it in (I would guess transparent) a plastic bag. What was done with it, and where was it kept, how hot was the area etc...in the SIX YEARS between the collection, and presentation to Jones for Analysis?

Stephen White sample:
Collected the next day, from a "layer of dust" an inch think on some laundry. So he collected it. What did he put it in? How did he put it in? Where did he store it? What was the light conditions, and temperature conditions it stayed in for the SEVEN YEARS between collection time and analysis?

Intermont Sample:
We know nothing about the collection of this alleged WTC dust sample, except that it was collected from his loft 7 years prior to his submission of it to Jones. We do not know how it was stored, or the conditions of storage.

MacKinlay Sample:
Once again, no idea how it was collected, what it was collected in, and the conditions of storage for the years it laid waiting for Jones to analyze.

I think these are important details that Jones should not only know, but should have detailed in his paper.

I will move on as I read more....

TAM:)

[Sunstealer]

Secondly, they do compare it to paint. Keep reading.Could you please quote the section where they detail the type of paint they compare it with along with the page number and paragraph? Thanks.

[Pardalis]

Again, How would you compare the brisance of paint with the highly energetic material discovered by Harrit, et al.?

And yet you completely ignore evidence like the DNA of the passengers found in the Pentagon.

But that chip of red paint, now that's evidence, right Red? :rolleyes:

[T.A.M.]

Chip Size, Isolation, and Examination:

1. Thickness variation is nice, but give me the mean and median for the chip thickness, thank you very much. I mean were 80% of the chips 10 microns, or was it 90% 100 microns?

2. was there any correlation between the "major dimension" size, and the thickness of the sample?

TAM:)

[A W Smith]

And yet you completely ignore evidence like the DNA of the passengers found in the Pentagon.

But that chip of red paint, now that's evidence, right Red? :rolleyes:

Red is committing the classic Special Pleading logical fallacy (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/specplea.html)

[WilliamSeger]

Pardon me for repeating this question, but does anyone know if there are still some steel samples in a hangar at JFK? If so, it should be possible to get a sample of the paint on them and compare.

A question that comes to mind is, how is that Jones did not find any dust from the red paint that all of the WTC color construction photos show? It should be, at the very least, as plentiful as this presumed supernanothermitic material, if not considerably more plentiful -- so why don't we read about what a hard time Jones had separating the supernanothermitic material from the red paint chips?

[Sunstealer]

Look at Fig 31 and their future studies - page 28. It's a laugh a minute. What a total joke. This paper is junk - there are so many things to clear up because they are so wrapped up in their belief of thermite they can't even identify that a part of the steel has been painted several times hence the multiple grey layers of what is most likely a synthetic primer, adhesive, bond coat etc, attached to a rust flake and some red paint. They can't even work out why there is a significant presence of Lead (Pb) FFS.

There are dozens of companies in the US that have the ability to analyse these samples. I'd give a few flakes to one that specializes in paints and coatings and see what they turn up - it wouldn't be super thermite.

This stuff is so obviously layers of paint - how anyone can believe Jones or quote him now just beggars belief. He's shown himself to be a total fool with this paper.

[ElMondoHummus]

Look at Fig 31 and their future studies - page 28. It's a laugh a minute. What a total joke. This paper is junk - there are so many things to clear up because they are so wrapped up in their belief of thermite they can't even identify that a part of the steel has been painted several times hence the multiple grey layers of what is most likely a synthetic primer, adhesive, bond coat etc, attached to a rust flake and some red paint. They can't even work out why there is a significant presence of Lead (Pb) FFS.

There are dozens of companies in the US that have the ability to analyse these samples. I'd give a few flakes to one that specializes in paints and coatings and see what they turn up - it wouldn't be super thermite.

This stuff is so obviously layers of paint - how anyone can believe Jones or quote him now just beggars belief. He's shown himself to be a total fool with this paper.

Lead FFS? What's the "FFS" stand for?

Edit: Oh, wait... nevermind... I was thinking "technical term"... stopped and thought a minute about barnyard aphorisms... :o

[bill smith]

So help me understand this, These citizens (not scientists) collected these samples and put them in plastic bags holding on to them for a minimum of six years in an uncontrolled environment? before sending them to an agenda driven "researcher" who by then already concluded publicly the existence of thermite at WTC????

When will NIST relase the pristine samples that they no doubt have ? It will be super interesting if they turn out to be completely diferent from Jones''s samples.

[Sunstealer]

Sunstealer - it would be helpful if you could put you conclusions concerning what the red and gray material is into a single post for scientifically challenged types like me if you can manage the time.Yes, I will collate the info from all my posts into one. The more I read the paper in detail the sillier it gets. I've still got to answer a few other posters questions so later on this week I'll try.

In the meantime the search enter my nickname into the search function for this thread in chronological order.

[T.A.M.]

Can someone point to me where they mention the type of paint they used as a control for comparison to eliminate the samples as being paint? I do not see any reference to the type, color, brand, etc... of paint used, nor any comment on the chemical make up of the paint they used.

Please, someone direct me.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Look at Fig 31 and their future studies - page 28. It's a laugh a minute. What a total joke. This paper is junk - there are so many things to clear up because they are so wrapped up in their belief of thermite they can't even identify that a part of the steel has been painted several times hence the multiple grey layers of what is most likely a synthetic primer, adhesive, bond coat etc, attached to a rust flake and some red paint. They can't even work out why there is a significant presence of Lead (Pb) FFS.

There are dozens of companies in the US that have the ability to analyse these samples. I'd give a few flakes to one that specializes in paints and coatings and see what they turn up - it wouldn't be super thermite.

This stuff is so obviously layers of paint - how anyone can believe Jones or quote him now just beggars belief. He's shown himself to be a total fool with this paper.

Good luck getting Jones to give up any of his precious samples for independent analysis of the chips...not gonna happen.

TAM:)

[Pardalis]

Please, someone direct me.

OK, a bit more interrogation in your eyes, and a little more emphasis on the word "color".

And please be sure to hit your mark this time.


:D

[ElMondoHummus]

Can someone point to me where they mention the type of paint they used as a control for comparison to eliminate the samples as being paint? I do not see any reference to the type, color, brand, etc... of paint used, nor any comment on the chemical make up of the paint they used.

Please, someone direct me.

TAM:)

They didn't. I looked. They merely made an offhand statement to soaking it in butanone (MEK) and left it at that. They never even identified this control sample.

[A W Smith]

Good luck getting Jones to give up any of his precious samples for independent analysis of the chips...not gonna happen.

TAM:)

Im sure all those "meteorites" at the JFK hangar have some dust samples on them.

[T.A.M.]

perhaps someone, who might know someone, could contact one of the scientists who performed some of the LEGITIMATE analysis of WTC dust. I am sure those samples would have red-grey chips in them, and they could tell us from their analysis, what they were.

TAM:)

[Sunstealer]

Paper Review:

Introduction: don't bother, it is irrelevant.
Materials and Methods:

Page 8:

Samples were DONATED by "Citizens" for the public interest. This is a chain of custody NIGHTMARE!!!!

How were the samples collected? What were they placed in upon initial collection? What environment in terms of light, temperature, etc, were they placed in after collection? How long did they stay in that environment?

SO Breidenbach's sample was collected 10 minutes after the fall of the North Tower. Ok, so he scooped it up with his bare hand, then carried it to his friends house, in his hand. They then decided to put it in (I would guess transparent) a plastic bag. What was done with it, and where was it kept, how hot was the area etc...in the SIX YEARS between the collection, and presentation to Jones for Analysis?

Stephen White sample:
Collected the next day, from a "layer of dust" an inch think on some laundry. So he collected it. What did he put it in? How did he put it in? Where did he store it? What was the light conditions, and temperature conditions it stayed in for the SEVEN YEARS between collection time and analysis?

Intermont Sample:
We know nothing about the collection of this alleged WTC dust sample, except that it was collected from his loft 7 years prior to his submission of it to Jones. We do not know how it was stored, or the conditions of storage.

MacKinlay Sample:
Once again, no idea how it was collected, what it was collected in, and the conditions of storage for the years it laid waiting for Jones to analyze.

I think these are important details that Jones should not only know, but should have detailed in his paper.

I will move on as I read more....

TAM:)Have you also noted how one of the samples was collected very close to the Brooklyn Bridge. Some or all of the paint sample from there could have come from the bridge - I bet that has seen a few coats of various paints in it's lifetime. I also bet alot of it has fallen off.

[T.A.M.]

Have you also noted how one of the samples was collected very close to the Brooklyn Bridge. Some or all of the paint sample from there could have come from the bridge - I bet that has seen a few coats of various paints in it's lifetime. I also bet alot of it has fallen off.

There paper is barely scientific, let alone sufficient to meet the requirements of FORENSIC science, which is what they are promoting it as (proof positive of a crime).

TAM:)

[ElMondoHummus]

The Living Memorials Project in North Dakota has a column recovered from the WTC.

ETA: Whoops. Sorry. Link: http://www.livingmemorialsproject.net/registry_results.asp?myID=323200413347PM_6124

[T.A.M.]

Discussion:

7. Could the Red Chip Material be Ordinary Paint?


1. Well for starters, far from all paint is ordinary, and what exactly do they mean by ordinary? Latex? Acryllic? Spray on versus brushed, rust paint? Primer?

2. Paint Coatings they found tabulated? is that it? what paint coatings? Should we just take your words for it?

3. used a probe to obtain a "rough" value of "approximately" 10 ohm-m? Oh those terms are nice and VAGUE. Science 101, learn about accuracy and precision.

4. MEK caused some unknown ordinary paint they tested to dissolve, but also caused the chips to bubble? interesting? So should the MEK have made thermite bubble but not dissolve? does MEK cause ALL PAINTS regardless of composition and formula, to dissolve, and if so, over what time period? does it vary, and if so, over what time frame? I mean do some paints take weeks to dissolve using MEK versus others taking only minute?

Clearly their desire to prove it was not paint, was minimal at best, as shown by their (lack of) effort.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Here are some journal references to REAL scientific analysis of the dust samples. If anybody has access to the journal articles (through internet accounts or via the library) and wants to see if they found similar chips in their samples, and what they deduced they were, please feel free...


Comparisons of the Dust/Smoke Particulate that Settled Inside the Surrounding Buildings and Outside on the Streets of Southern New York City after the Collapse of the World Trade Center, September 11, 2001
Yiin, Lih-Ming | Millette, James R | Vette, Alan | Ilacqua, Vito | Quan, Chunli | Gorczynski, John | Kendall, Michaels | Chen, Lung Chi | Weisel, Clifford P | Buckley, Brian | Yang, Ill | Lioy, Paul J
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association. Vol. 54, no. 5, pp. 515-528. May 2004

Environ Health Perspect. 2004 Nov;112(15):1564-9.
Induced sputum assessment in New York City firefighters exposed to World Trade Center dust. Fireman EM, Lerman Y, Ganor E, Greif J, Fireman-Shoresh S, Lioy PJ, Banauch GI, Weiden M, Kelly KJ, Prezant DJ.
Institute for Pulmonary and Allergic Diseases, Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel-Aviv, Israel.


for starters...

TAM:)

[boloboffin]

The Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association is at the Dallas Public Library, TAM. I'll go grab a copy this week if I can.

[Senenmut]

sunstealer-

im wondering if this opens the door to new thoughts about "liquid metal" being in rubble pile. sisson did state that the eutectic consisted of iron, sulfur, and oxygen. with the reaction of this material at 430C, that would be low enough for all the active paint or thermite to react (if it didnt already react pre collapse) in the "hot spots" avaris saw. avaris could only "see" only millimeters below the surface so the hottness of the rubble pile is unknown. and jones also states that there were most likely massive amounts of this stuff in the dust.
from the paper:

"The abundant iron-rich spheres are of particular interest
in this study; none were observed in these particular chips
prior to DSC-heating. Spheres rich in iron already demonstrate
the occurrence of very high temperatures, well above
the 700 °C temperature reached in the DSC, in view of the
high melting point of iron and iron oxide [5]. Such high temperatures
indicate that a chemical reaction occurred."


"Thus the fraction of red/gray chips was approximately
0.1% by weight in the separated dust Another sampling
showed 69 small red/gray chips in a 4.9 g sample of separated
dust."

jones goes on to state that "the total mass of red/gray chips in the WTC dust
must be substantial given the fraction observed in these samplings."

so melted iron has a higher melting point than steel. given this new paper, along with all the evidence c7 has been discussing, is this evidence that liuqid steel existed in the pile?

[T.A.M.]

Interesting:


The content and distribution of material was indicative of a complex mixture of building debris and combustion products in the resulting plume. These three samples were composed primarily of construction materials, soot, paint (leaded and unleaded), and glass fibers (mineral wool and fiberglass). Levels of hydrocarbons indicated unburned or partially burned jet fuel, plastic, cellulose, and other materials that were ignited by the fire.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3455517

No mention of thermite, superthermite, etc...but a mention of PAINT as a major component (lead based and non lead based) in the samples.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Interesting:


In addition, it was common practice at the time of the construction of the buildings to use lead-based paint to rustproof steel beams. Investigations being conducted by Paul Lioy, associate director of the Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute at Rutgers and UMDNJ, show that lead particles from paint chips and paint dust can be found in the dust originating from the site.

http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2001/109-11/focus.html

TAM:)

[GregoryUrich]

Interesting:



http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2001/109-11/focus.html

TAM:)

I didn't see Pb (lead) in any of the spectral results.

[metamars]

Yes, I will collate the info from all my posts into one. The more I read the paper in detail the sillier it gets. I've still got to answer a few other posters questions so later on this week I'll try.

In the meantime the search enter my nickname into the search function for this thread in chronological order.

When you're collating, please don't forget to include the following:

The paper states

Given the small size of the red chip, about .5 mm x .5 mm, we used two probes and obtained a rough value of approximately 10 ohm-m. This is several orders of magnitude less than paint coatings we found tabulated which are typically over 10^10 ohm-m [31]

However, this link (http://www.ajol.info/viewarticle.php?id=19212) tells us:

The third layer which is the kaolin has thicknesses ranging from 19 m to 99.5 m and resistivity values range from 105 to 485 ohm-m.

Am looking forward to see you reconcile these numbers.

Also, please comment on a picture of a red-grey chip (http://metamars.i8.com/blank_1.html) included in a document that Jones sent me last September. I find the regularity - in particular, it's "squarish-ness", to be suggestive of something quite other than a paint chip. In your experience, have you ever seen such a regular paint chip? I'm pretty sure that I haven't

In this picture, the "grey" part of the red grey chip looks a lot more metallic than grey. I'd have to re-read the paper to see if Jones, et. al., have determined which part of the chip is magnetically attracted, but this layman has his money on the so-called "grey" part.

[tsig]

Geez, this thing keeps getting more bizarre. It is thermite, but it is not thermite, it is super sekrit magic nano-thermite, which doesn't have most of the properties of thermite, but we willl compare the properties of thermite which are similar and conclude that it is thermite, except it isn't. For example, it ignites at temperatures well below what thermite would (although at the temperature that paint would ignite), so that must be some property of super sekrit magic nano-thermite, but not thermite, which it isn't, except when it is.

There, is that clear?

Thermite is a strange substance that has exactly the properties it needs to have at the right time to fulfill troofers fantasies.

[Macgyver1968]

The Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association is at the Dallas Public Library, TAM. I'll go grab a copy this week if I can.

Cool..you live in Dallas too? We might have to go drink a beer sometime. :)

[Sunstealer]

I didn't see Pb (lead) in any of the spectral results.No, but they do state

We have observed that some chips have additional elementssuch as potassium, lead, barium and copper. Are thesesignificant, and why do such elements appear in some redchips and not others? An example is shown in Fig. (31) which shows significant Pb along with C, O, Fe, and Al and displays multiple red and gray layers.

in "8. What Future Studies are Contemplated?" Paragraph 2, Page 28.

[alienentity]

Does anyone know what the exact language is regarding testing for thermite in NFPA 921?

[Sunstealer]

When you're collating, please don't forget to include the following:

The paper states

However, this link (http://www.ajol.info/viewarticle.php?id=19212) tells us:

Am looking forward to see you reconcile these numbers.Well one is for a paint chip that contains an MIO layer attached to Kaolin and rhomboidal Fe2O3 in a carbon matrix (some sort of binder, the other is for a geological survey investigating a Kaolin deposit. Do you even bother to read the sources you link to. Chalk and cheese. It's ludicrous to suggest that there would be any correlation.

Also, please comment on a picture of a red-grey chip (http://metamars.i8.com/blank_1.html) included in a document that Jones sent me last September. I find the regularity - in particular, it's "squarish-ness", to be suggestive of something quite other than a paint chip. In your experience, have you ever seen such a regular paint chip? I'm pretty sure that I haven'tThat doesn't look out of the ordinary at all and it's not regular. It's clearly two layers. What is the size of it?

In this picture, the "grey" part of the red grey chip looks a lot more metallic than grey. I'd have to re-read the paper to see if Jones, et. al., have determined which part of the chip is magnetically attracted, but this layman has his money on the so-called "grey" part.The gray part is Fe2O3 MIO and the red part contains rhomboidal Fe2O3. The chips are tiny so how they determine which part is magnetic I've no idea.

Fig 2 sample d) clearly shows that the "gray layer" is metallic. gray layer is not my labelling it's labelled like that in the SEM photo Fig 4, hence the reason I refer to it. Compare that layer to MIO and they are identical. The size, thickness and shapes correlate as do the structure. The EDS spectra pull up predominantly Fe and O. It's an iron oxide. MIO is used as anti-corrosion paint. I'd be impressed if anyone else comes up with another source.

P.S. I'll get round to as many questions as possible. Unfortunately some take more than 5-10 minutes to respond.

[ElMondoHummus]

Cool..you live in Dallas too? We might have to go drink a beer sometime. :)

Pfff... "a" beer... as if you all would stop at one...

;):D

[A W Smith]

Also, please comment on a picture of a red-grey chip (http://metamars.i8.com/blank_1.html) included in a document that Jones sent me last September. I find the regularity - in particular, it's "squarish-ness", to be suggestive of something quite other than a paint chip. In your experience, have you ever seen such a regular paint chip? I'm pretty sure that I haven't


Om My Gosh! Paint forming squarish chips! Alert the media! cuz 911 was an inside jobby job!


Or maybe not
http://images.google.com/images?gbv=2&hl=en&safe=off&q=paint+alligatoring&sa=N&start=0&ndsp=20

[9/11-investigator]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones

Jones earned his bachelor’s degree in physics, magna cum laude, from Brigham Young University in 1973, and his Ph.D. in physics from Vanderbilt University in 1978. Jones conducted his Ph.D. research at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (from 1974 to 1977), and post-doctoral research at Cornell University and the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility.

Not really the biography of an incompetent 'moron'. Sounds more like the proper antecedents for somebody to become secretary of the DOE in a first (provisional) Ron Paul government that will likely emerge from the coming chaos.

Yesterday Christopher Bollyn, my main inspirer to write my blog, has published an easy to follow summary of the findings of Jones and co. (with some new interesting info):

http://www.bollyn.com/index.php?id=10095

It is now evident that a super-thermite solution had been applied to large sections of the World Trade Center, including walls, floor sections, and structural beams and columns in the core section. It may have been applied as a thin spray coating applied under the guise of fire-proofing, asbestos abatement, or some other form of building maintenance... Several years ago, I contacted Burton Fried, president of LVI, a demoliton company that reportedly had done extensive "asbestos abatement" work in the twin towers. I considered LVI's work in the twin towers as suspicious because the company is primarily known for preparing structures for demolition and works closely with Controlled Demolition Inc. on large demolition projects. Is this the kind of work LVI did at the World Trade Center?

Furthermore I am happy to announce that Bollyn found a publisher (in Europa) for his upcoming book 'solving 9/11'. Here...

http://www.bollyn.com/index.php?id=11083#article_11089

...an overview of an elaborate fact checking regarding Bollyn's research.

100% right on all accounts.

9/11 sumned up in one picture: http://www.bollyn.com/public/Kaalep.jpg

[tsig]

When you're collating, please don't forget to include the following:

The paper states



However, this link (http://www.ajol.info/viewarticle.php?id=19212) tells us:



Am looking forward to see you reconcile these numbers.

Also, please comment on a picture of a red-grey chip (http://metamars.i8.com/blank_1.html) included in a document that Jones sent me last September. I find the regularity - in particular, it's "squarish-ness", to be suggestive of something quite other than a paint chip. In your experience, have you ever seen such a regular paint chip? I'm pretty sure that I haven't

In this picture, the "grey" part of the red grey chip looks a lot more metallic than grey. I'd have to re-read the paper to see if Jones, et. al., have determined which part of the chip is magnetically attracted, but this layman has his money on the so-called "grey" part.

Looks just like a paint chip. You can see the red primer and the coat of paint.

[Sunstealer]

sunstealer-

im wondering if this opens the door to new thoughts about "liquid metal" being in rubble pile. sisson did state that the eutectic consisted of iron, sulfur, and oxygen. with the reaction of this material at 430C, that would be low enough for all the active paint or thermite to react (if it didnt already react pre collapse) in the "hot spots" avaris saw. avaris could only "see" only millimeters below the surface so the hottness of the rubble pile is unknown. and jones also states that there were most likely massive amounts of this stuff in the dust.
from the paper:This has nothing to do with the Eutectic. Note how little Sulphur is found. Anyone (wrongly) claiming thermite is capable of producing the eutectic now has to contend with thermite that doesn't have any Sulphur content. There was amounts of this stuff in the dust because it's paint! But define massive - is that by volume or weight? What I'd like to know is how can these tiny flakes 100 - 200µm in size possibly concentrate enough in the pile bearing in mind they'd be flung everywhere during the collapse to a) ignite b) cause temperatures hot enough to keep steel liquid.

Sorry not buying it.

"The abundant iron-rich spheres are of particular interest
in this study; none were observed in these particular chips
prior to DSC-heating. Spheres rich in iron already demonstrate
the occurrence of very high temperatures, well above
the 700 °C temperature reached in the DSC, in view of the
high melting point of iron and iron oxide [5]. Such high temperatures
indicate that a chemical reaction occurred."


"Thus the fraction of red/gray chips was approximately
0.1% by weight in the separated dust Another sampling
showed 69 small red/gray chips in a 4.9 g sample of separated
dust."

jones goes on to state that "the total mass of red/gray chips in the WTC dust
must be substantial given the fraction observed in these samplings."

so melted iron has a higher melting point than steel. given this new paper, along with all the evidence c7 has been discussing, is this evidence that liuqid steel existed in the pile? I've yet to examine the DSC data and the subsequent SEM data in detail, because there is a huge amount to do in examining the rest and I can only go so fast with limited time.

There may be an amusing twist with this paper in Jones proving his micro-spheres are actually just a by-product of burnt paint.

[Galileo]

Unexploded Nanothermite Found In WTC Dust

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BE_tuWKsBko

[Galileo]

Here are the three best 9/11 Movies on the WTC (in order of complexity):

September 11 Revisited: Were Explosives Used?

by Dustin Mugford

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4194796183168750014&ei=-2DaSfKDMYH4-wGkkZydBQ&q=September+11+revisited

9/11 Mysteries

by Sophia

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3944047011450313064&ei=z2HaSba4CZzc-gGW0-ygBQ&q=9%2F11+mysteries&emb=1

Improbable Collapse: The Demolition of Our Republic

by Steven Jones, Jim Hoffman, and Kevin Ryan

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4026073566596731782&ei=l2LaSfn0CY6m-QGNy8H8BQ&q=improbable+collapse&emb=1

These films, of course, were made before this new scientific paper was published. The new paper is consistent with these films.

[twinstead]

Galileo you aren't paying attention. If you really want to impress, perhaps you could address the posts of people who actually UNDERSTAND the material contained in this thread and have contributed fairly well-thought out and detailed rebuttals to this whole paint chip thing.

But, it's up to you. Keep spamming YouTube videos if you wish.

[Sunstealer]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones

Jones earned his bachelor’s degree in physics, magna cum laude, from Brigham Young University in 1973, and his Ph.D. in physics from Vanderbilt University in 1978. Jones conducted his Ph.D. research at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (from 1974 to 1977), and post-doctoral research at Cornell University and the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility.

Not really the biography of an incompetent 'moron'. Sounds more like the proper antecedents for somebody to become secretary of the DOE in a first (provisional) Ron Paul government that will likely emerge from the coming chaos.

Yesterday Christopher Bollyn, my main inspirer to write my blog, has published an easy to follow summary of the findings of Jones and co. (with some new interesting info):

http://www.bollyn.com/index.php?id=10095

It is now evident that a super-thermite solution had been applied to large sections of the World Trade Center, including walls, floor sections, and structural beams and columns in the core section. It may have been applied as a thin spray coating applied under the guise of fire-proofing, asbestos abatement, or some other form of building maintenance... Several years ago, I contacted Burton Fried, president of LVI, a demoliton company that reportedly had done extensive "asbestos abatement" work in the twin towers. I considered LVI's work in the twin towers as suspicious because the company is primarily known for preparing structures for demolition and works closely with Controlled Demolition Inc. on large demolition projects. Is this the kind of work LVI did at the World Trade Center?

Furthermore I am happy to announce that Bollyn found a publisher (in Europa) for his upcoming book 'solving 9/11'. Here...

http://www.bollyn.com/index.php?id=11083#article_11089

...an overview of an elaborate fact checking regarding Bollyn's research.

100% right on all accounts.

9/11 sumned up in one picture: http://www.bollyn.com/public/Kaalep.jpgAbsolute dross.

It's very simple - Jones and his team want to find thermite. If he had found a banana in the dust he'd claim it was thermite and do and EDS in a SEM on part of it. The dolt you linked to also desperately clings to thermite and won't know his rear from his elbow when it comes to this paper or it's findings, all he'll do is cherry pic the incorrect conclusions that Jones wanted to find. The evidence says otherwise. It's paint.

Go back and read my posts - use the search function and you'll see I've already identified the materials. If you can't see this then there is no hope for you - I have provided the evidence and it's right there infront of you to read. If you think I'm wrong then argue against my evidence and I'll be glad to listen to your points.

[A W Smith]

Not really the biography of an incompetent 'moron'. Sounds more like the proper antecedents for somebody to become secretary of the DOE in a first (provisional) Ron Paul government that will likely emerge from the coming chaos.

keep dreaming boy blunder

[ElMondoHummus]

These films, of course, were made before this new scientific paper was published. The new paper is consistent with these films.

So? All that establishes is that all of them are wrong. Mutually supporting wrong is still wrong, and all the prior Youtube flicks on the 'net doesn't change what Sunstealer, R.Mackey, or I have been saying. The points refuting the paper still stand.

[Sunstealer]

Unexploded Nanothermite Found In WTC Dust

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BE_tuWKsBkoThat video clearly states that you need finely powdered aluminum and rust for thermite. They do not find aluminium powder - the SEM photos and their own EDS prove this.

Go back and reread my posts very slowly and very carefully. They contain everything you need to know to show that in the worst case scenario there is doubt over what Jones is claiming. There is a clear alternative.

Either read or stop interrupting the threat with youtube videos. Comment on the paper and what people are saying here.

[GregoryUrich]

No, but they do state



in "8. What Future Studies are Contemplated?" Paragraph 2, Page 28.

Hmmm...old paint?

[RedIbis]

Can we please stop turning this into a Pile-on-Red thread? I'm as aggravated as the next guy here that he tends to want to avoid the obvious, but in this case, he's presenting a legitimate point to discuss, and he's doing it politely.

I appreciate that. There may very well be legitimate criticisms of the paper and places where Harrit, et al will have to clarify. So perhaps we'll get lucky and the discussion will more or less head in that direction.

Thanks for helping to keep the discussion productive.

[A W Smith]

How did they manage to slip an "Active Thermitic" compound under a layer of rust inhibiting paint and fireproofing that was applied in the very early 1970"s ????

[RedIbis]

Hmmm...old paint?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the issue that the energy release described happens far quicker than paint? And that the presence of iron spherules after ignition suggest extremely hot temps, characteristics that would be dangerous in commercial paint?

[Kent1]

Forgive me if it has been mentioned, but Red Tnemec paint and primer were used to paint the columns. Plus of course sprayed on fire-resistant material was used.
http://www.tnemec.com/Architectural

NISTNCSTAR1-3C also mentioned the paint, (shows the exposed beams) and may be helpful in showing various paint chips/debris from the columns.

[JamesB]

Yesterday Christopher Bollyn, my main inspirer to write my blog, has published an easy to follow summary of the findings of Jones and co. (with some new interesting info):

http://www.bollyn.com/index.php?id=10095

It is now evident that a super-thermite solution had been applied to large sections of the World Trade Center, including walls, floor sections, and structural beams and columns in the core section. It may have been applied as a thin spray coating applied under the guise of fire-proofing, asbestos abatement, or some other form of building maintenance... Several years ago, I contacted Burton Fried, president of LVI, a demoliton company that reportedly had done extensive "asbestos abatement" work in the twin towers. I considered LVI's work in the twin towers as suspicious because the company is primarily known for preparing structures for demolition and works closely with Controlled Demolition Inc. on large demolition projects. Is this the kind of work LVI did at the World Trade Center?

Furthermore I am happy to announce that Bollyn found a publisher (in Europa) for his upcoming book 'solving 9/11'. Here...

http://www.bollyn.com/index.php?id=11083#article_11089

...an overview of an elaborate fact checking regarding Bollyn's research.

100% right on all accounts.

9/11 sumned up in one picture: http://www.bollyn.com/public/Kaalep.jpg

Were you inspired to assault a cop and go on the run from the law too?

[bill smith]

Unexploded Nanothermite Found In WTC Dust

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BE_tuWKsBko
good clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BE_tuWKsBko Repost

[metamars]

Well one is for a paint chip that contains an MIO layer attached to Kaolin and rhomboidal Fe2O3 in a carbon matrix (some sort of binder, the other is for a geological survey investigating a Kaolin deposit. Do you even bother to read the sources you link to. Chalk and cheese. It's ludicrous to suggest that there would be any correlation.


Speaking of reading things you link to, did you bother reading the Jones paper? The quote I gave is from Section 7, "Could the Red Chip Material be Ordinary Paint?"

We measured the resistivity of the red material (with very litte gray adhering to one side)...

Can't you do a little better than this? E.g. the resistance of Kaolin and rhomboidal Fe2O3 is blah blah, the resistance of Kaolin and rhomboidal Fe2O3 in a common carbon matrix A is blah blah.


That doesn't look out of the ordinary at all and it's not regular. It's clearly two layers. What is the size of it?

So let me get this straight - you don't even see 4 corners, and basically a modestly bent square or rectangle, or you do see this, but see it all the time when stripping paint, e.g.? Which is it?

[Thunder]

so, the truthers now believe that the WTC columns and beams were originally coated with thermite under the original paint?

wowwy wee waa!!!!!

[AZCat]

Does anyone know what the exact language is regarding testing for thermite in NFPA 921?

The most interesting portion of NFPA 921 with regards to thermite (and the only place it is mentioned by name) is in Section 22.4 Exotic Accelerants. The last sentence in that section says "Presence of remains from the oxidizers does not in itself constitute an intentionally set fire."

FYI, the NFPA codes are now available for free browsing online. Just check out the NFPA web site.

[BigAl]

so, the truthers now believe that the WTC columns and beams were originally coated with thermite under the original paint?

wowwy wee waa!!!!!
Did they warn the welders?

[Pardalis]

Let's have some perspective.

RedIbis, are Jones and his collegues what you would call objective researchers?

I don't have to remind you that they are part of an organization that promotes a certain political agenda, they have only one sample of the dust, and everything they find in it, even eight years after the fact, surprise surprise, confirms their suspicions which are at the core of their agenda.

To anyone this should raise a red flag, but not you?

Also, another question for you, what does this prove? Where do you go from this one sample, whatever it is, to "controlled demolition"?

[Sunstealer]

Speaking of reading things you link to, did you bother reading the Jones paper? The quote I gave is from Section 7, "Could the Red Chip Material be Ordinary Paint?"Oh I've read the paper all right, I have it open when ever I'm looking at this thread.

Yes, it's paint and I've shown what the two layers consist of. I don't know what is meant by ordinary paint.

Can't you do a little better than this? E.g. the resistance of Kaolin and rhomboidal Fe2O3 is blah blah, the resistance of Kaolin and rhomboidal Fe2O3 in a common carbon matrix A is blah blah.Sorry I'm not with you. You are asking me to compare properties of an apple with a space rocket. What you linked to is not applicable, because the materials are different. I can't read Reference 31 in Jones' paper because you have to pay for access.

So let me get this straight - you don't even see 4 corners, and basically a modestly bent square or rectangle, or you do see this, but see it all the time when stripping paint, e.g.? Which is it?I wouldn't describe it as regular in shape. Simple as that. Don't forget that I have to be specific and detailed when describing shapes and phenomenon when writing reports. I'd rather measure it on using a graticule if it's that small and describe the dimensions from there.

[Galileo]

Let's have some perspective.

RedIbis, are Jones and his collegues what you would call objective researchers?

I don't have to remind you that they are part of an organization that promotes a certain political agenda, they have only one sample of the dust, and everything they find in it, even eight years after the fact, surprise surprise, confirms their suspicions which are at the core of their agenda.

To anyone this should raise a red flag, but not you?

Also, another question for you, what does this prove? Where do you go from this one sample, whatever it is, to "controlled demolition"?

NIST is not objective. You have a double standard.

[Pardalis]

Don't you have some catching up to do on your astronomy?

[Galileo]

so, the truthers now believe that the WTC columns and beams were originally coated with thermite under the original paint?

wowwy wee waa!!!!!

Are you capable of anything other than the strawman argument?

You know, idiots might be fooled, but not rational people. Even the JREF herd will not be swayed by the strawman.

[Thunder]

NIST is not objective. You have a double standard.

You are right. NIST refuses to consider that the WTC was brought down by gamma rays from space, or a tear in the space-time continuum, or by Martian Jewish Mossad agents.

Clearly they are biased. Biased towards the scientific method, real evidence, facts, and honesty.

Unlike truthers.

[Thunder]

You know, idiots might be fooled, but not rational people.

:p

[RedIbis]

they have only one sample of the dust,

Once again proving you did not bother to read the paper.

[Galileo]

perhaps someone, who might know someone, could contact one of the scientists who performed some of the LEGITIMATE analysis of WTC dust. I am sure those samples would have red-grey chips in them, and they could tell us from their analysis, what they were.

TAM:)

This was a peer reviewed study. The referees have already deternined that it was legitimate.

[Pardalis]

Once again proving you did not bother to read the paper.

Could you address the rest of my post?

[Thunder]

You know, it may be possible for me to get my hands on some GZ dust.

[RedIbis]

Could you address the rest of my post?

You mean your post which is entirely premised on your error? No, I won't.

[Pardalis]

You mean your post which is entirely premised on your error? No, I won't.

They've had the same four samples for eight years, whatever, it doesn't change my point.

Will you address my point now?

[Sunstealer]

Forgive me if it has been mentioned, but Red Tnemec paint and primer were used to paint the columns. Plus of course sprayed on fire-resistant material was used.
http://www.tnemec.com/Architectural

NISTNCSTAR1-3C also mentioned the paint, (shows the exposed beams) and may be helpful in showing various paint chips/debris from the columns.Thank you - most helpful.

On page 17 Fig14 - the paper shows and EDS spectrum of the red surface of a chip selected from batch 2 prior to undergoing immersion in MEK.

Compare the findings with the data sheet for Red 99 Tnemec - under 3. Composition/information on ingredients.

http://www.tnemec.com/resources/product/MSDS/F010.pdf

[RedIbis]

They've had the same four samples for eight years, whatever, it doesn't change my point.

Will you address my point now?

Since you finally got that right, sure, no problem.

I think the bottom line is that upon ignition these chips displayed properties that are not found in commercial paint, but are consistent with nanoenergetics.

I don't think this has anything to do with politics, and in the general thread I said that it appears BYU's attitude towards this study may be thawing since a scientist other than Jones worked on the paper and part of the work was conducted at BYU.

I think this is a tough one for you guys because it's not that easy to refute with the usual ad hom debunking tactics.

[T.A.M.]

I didn't see Pb (lead) in any of the spectral results.

so Jones samples were magically free of lead I guess.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Since you finally got that right, sure, no problem.

I think the bottom line is that upon ignition these chips displayed properties that are not found in commercial paint, but are consistent with nanoenergetics.

I don't think this has anything to do with politics, and in the general thread I said that it appears BYU's attitude towards this study may be thawing since a scientist other than Jones worked on the paper and part of the work was conducted at BYU.

I think this is a tough one for you guys because it's not that easy to refute with the usual ad hom debunking tactics.

actually that is all incorrect (about the samples).

Jones got his first sample in 2006, and the others between 2007 and 2008.

As for debunking it, I have not the expertise in chemistry, paints, or materials science to do so myself, but Sunstealer seems to be doing a damn good job so far.

I would like him to address this issue of energy release upon ignition etc...

So far I am not in the slightest convinced there was thermite within the dust. I am very convinced based on what Sunstealer has said, and on what other independent scientists have said, that there was PAINT in the dust.

TAM:)