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

[Pardalis]

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.

Assuming you're right, which people here have proven you're not, are they only a property of "nanoenergetics"? Could there be other explanations? Why jump to the nanothermite/controlled demolition theory?

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.Jones and his collegues are part of the Truth movement, Jeffrey Farrer (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/09/strange-saga-of-jeffrey-farrer.html) Niels H. Harrits (http://www.911truth.dk/first/en/art_Harrit.htm), Frank M. Legge (http://groups.google.com/group/total_truth_sciences/browse_thread/thread/15bf3a77e85783b6), Gregg Roberts (http://911research.wtc7.net/re911/about.html), and not to mention Kevin Ryan all push theories about the government being behind 9/11, and have been for years. They are already convinced, why don't you question their objectivity?

If you want an independant investigation, at least acknowledge that these guys are not impartial, and are trying to fit whatever they have with their theories.
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.You have some nerve, you're the guy who keeps avoiding the fact that the DNA of the passengers of flight 77 was found in the Pentagon.

[metamars]

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.

You ducked. Now, why would you do that?

[T.A.M.]

You ducked. Now, why would you do that?

how was it a duck?

TAM:)

[metamars]

At http://www.stanfordmaterials.com/nano.html

The morphology for all alumina oxide nano powders is listed as "nearly spherical"
The morphology for all aluminum nano powders is listed as "spherical"

However, googling "multilayer aluminum silicon nano thermite" very quickly gets interesting hits (ito suggesting, to this layman, non-spherical nanoscale aluminotherics), e.g.:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/662267l63l82217q/fulltext.pdf?page=1

Nano energetic materials (nEMs) represent a completely new frontier for
energetic material research and development [1, 2]. Various
ways have been used to realize nEMs such as physical mixing
of nanopowders of fuel and oxidizer [3–5], sol-gel [6],
aero-gel [7], and atomic layer deposition (ALD) [8]. Physical
mixing presents some limitations, such as not homogeneous
distribution of oxidizer and fuel, and poor compatibility
with a microsystem. In sol-gel, the random distribution
of the particles and the inherent organic impurities
result in limited performance. An aero-gel and an ALD
are not currently applicable for mass production. Blobaum
et al. have deposited multilayer foils of oxidizer and fuel
by sputtering [9]. This approach results in enhanced atomic
mixing and reduced impurities. Porous-silicon-based nEMs
were proposed in [10], which can be conveniently integrated
into a silicon-based microsystem.

Meanwhile, this link: http://www.primetprecision.com/index.php?id=10

talks about nano sized silicon platelets:

Primet’s Nanoscission™ technology has been used to synthesize nano-silicon with platelet morphology and primary particle size as small as 20 nm.

[alienentity]

NIST is not objective. You have a double standard.

Err, just a minute there, Mr. Galileo. I've personally endured several videos of Jones' presentations, for the purposes of informing myself of his approach and arguments. He spends a great deal of time making sweeping judgements about such things as NORAD (had plenty of time to shoot planes down etc), explosions in WTC7 prior to tower collapses (quoting Barry Jennings), and for years pronounced that WTC7 fell in '6.5 seconds plus or minus .2 seconds'.
I could add a long, long list of poorly researched, unscientific polemics which he has endorsed publicly.

Worse, he often points his listeners to read the various 'peer reviewed' papers on the Journal of 9/11 Studies (the acronym happens to be JONES), but I haven't yet heard him mention that he is one of the editors, and that many of the published papers are in fact written by 2 of the other editors of the Journal, Frank Legge and Kevin Ryan.
At best he and his crew have been in a conflict of interest for many years, as their very survival depends on continuing and expanding the myth of a vast but silent conspiracy to kill American citizens and turn them into slaves, perhaps even in FEMA concentration camps....but I digress.

Regarding NIST, Jones himself has variously questioned its sincerity when its own scientists are doing the work. But when NIST contracted out work on WTC7 to independent scientists, he complained that it was copping out. Apparently NIST can do no right, either way.

For you to suggest that there is some kind of parity between the efforts of Jones, J.O.N.E.S. and NIST in terms of bias is really sad, not just because it's so transparently false, but because it shows a horrendous disrespect for the scientific community at large, the basic integrity of the work that has been undertaken on behalf of American citizens, and the whole notion of objectivity.

I guess in a world where Fox news is 'fair and balanced' your comment makes sense. But it doesn't make sense in any other context I can think of.

I believe the 9/11 truth movement is really on some kind of witch-hunt, and they want their bloody revenge on the alleged government perps (and their Jewish friends) no matter what.

This kind of pursuit can never end in justice, since the conclusions of 9/11 truthers were reached long before the investigation was ever carried out. It is now simply a process of finding any small scrap of evidence that might justify your convictions.

I hope for America's sake that it doesn't descend any further into this truther madness. It might not recover.

ps, I distinctly remember a point in Jones' lecture where he describes the famous woman waving from the gash in one of the towers. He chuckles oddly about how he'd be lying, not standing - and then mentions almost as an aside that the lady perished. That's a real kneeslapper.

I don't recall any NIST official treating the basic facts with this kind of gamesmanship, to score some cheap laughs from the audience. It makes me cringe.

Jones only has one message: Thermite... or thermate. WYSIWYG.

[alienentity]

At http://www.stanfordmaterials.com/nano.html

The morphology for all alumina oxide nano powders is listed as "nearly spherical"
The morphology for all aluminum nano powders is listed as "spherical"

However, googling "multilayer aluminum silicon nano thermite" very quickly gets interesting hits (ito suggesting, to this layman, non-spherical nanoscale aluminotherics), e.g.:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/662267l63l82217q/fulltext.pdf?page=1
Meanwhile, this link: http://www.primetprecision.com/index.php?id=10

talks about nano sized silicon platelets:

Yes, if they eventually perfect this technology, by say 2015, it could be sent it back in time to 1997 or so where it can be applied to the steel. But first they'll need a time machine.

[Lenbrazil]

Hate to give truthers ideas but much of the fire proofing including IIRC all of that on the impact floors had been upgraded this is discussed in one of the NIST base reports and IIRC there is something about it (with links) in Wikipedia. But then of course Mackey has shown that even based on Harrit et als best numbers the material wasn't energetic enough to do any damage.

Someone said Greening came up w/similar numbers, where exactly did he report this?

[metamars]

how was it a duck?

TAM:)

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?


Sometimes I wish I was a bouzouki player, even if in a British cheese shop. (added mostly because the forum program complained about my message needing to be 2 characters longer.)

[metamars]

Hate to give truthers ideas but much of the fire proofing including IIRC all of that on the impact floors had been upgraded this is discussed in one of the NIST base reports and IIRC there is something about it (with links) in Wikipedia. But then of course Mackey has shown that even based on Harrit et als best numbers the material wasn't energetic enough to do any damage.

Someone said Greening came up w/similar numbers, where exactly did he report this?

the911forum.freeforums.org

[T.A.M.]

so it was useless, ineffective nanothermite.

okie.

TAM:)

[metamars]

Yes, if they eventually perfect this technology, by say 2015, it could be sent it back in time to 1997 or so where it can be applied to the steel. But first they'll need a time machine.

Maybe you should write for Sarah Connor Chronicles (http://www.fox.com/terminator/). They use thermite to destroy assassin robots sent from the future. Maybe they should just horribly burn them, but keep their chip intact. Then, send them back to the future, to "send a message".

Hey, it's a concept.

[RedIbis]

so it was useless, ineffective nanothermite.

okie.

TAM:)

Quite the opposite, it was highly energetic even all these years later.

[Pardalis]

Hate to give truthers ideas but much of the fire proofing including IIRC all of that on the impact floors had been upgraded this is discussed in one of the NIST base reports and IIRC there is something about it (with links) in Wikipedia. But then of course Mackey has shown that even based on Harrit et als best numbers the material wasn't energetic enough to do any damage.

Someone said Greening came up w/similar numbers, where exactly did he report this?

They even predicted that the second plane would hit a few stories lower, imagine that!

Precise these bastards.

[Pardalis]

Red, you're back, will you admit that these guys who wrote the report are not objective, and are already convinced and part of the Truth movement?

[metamars]

so it was useless, ineffective nanothermite.

okie.

TAM:)

Let me guess - it's debunker abortive thought process time, again. I now put the question to you.


Do you not even see 4 corners, and basically a modestly bent square or rectangle?

or

Do you see this, but see it all the time when stripping paint, e.g.? (I suppose "often" or even "at times" is better than "all the time". Consider the question with these substitutions.)

[Pardalis]

Quite the opposite, it was highly energetic even all these years later.

How did it manage to stay that way?

[T.A.M.]

Quite the opposite, it was highly energetic even all these years later.

So Greening and Mackey are both wrong? Is that your stance, and if so, what is it based upon?

TAM:)

[alienentity]

Once again proving you did not bother to read the paper.

Assuming that this now represents the Jones hypothesis to be considered, isn't it time to test the theory before jumping to any further conclusions?

I mean, Jones has been saying for years that the thermite crowd doesn't have to show HOW the buildings were brought down per se, as those are apparently trivial details which only bother a few skeptics here and there. Now they are claiming that the material was painted onto the steel, they need to show that it actually can work.

I'll look forward to those tests. Or do you think we should just skip the tests and go straight into the witch hunt? Firing squad, lethal injection or electric chair for Larry Silverstein?

Where is this going? Have you thought it through at least a little? You guys are revving your engines and doing burnouts while facing down a dead-end street. It's just a matter of time before you collide hard with reality.

[T.A.M.]

Let me guess - it's debunker abortive thought process time, again. I now put the question to you.


Do you not even see 4 corners, and basically a modestly bent square or rectangle?

or

Do you see this, but see it all the time when stripping paint, e.g.? (I suppose "often" or even "at times" is better than "all the time". Consider the question with these substitutions.)

what are you going on about? I am talking about the conclusions from Mackey and Greening, that even by the most generous of approaches, the amount of energy that would be released from the "chip thermite" would be useless.

Do you agree or disagree with Mackey and Greening, and if so, based on what?

TAM:)

[RedIbis]

So Greening and Mackey are both wrong? Is that your stance, and if so, what is it based upon?

TAM:)

What are Greening's and Mackey's position on this?

[Sunstealer]

At http://www.stanfordmaterials.com/nano.html

The morphology for all alumina oxide nano powders is listed as "nearly spherical"
The morphology for all aluminum nano powders is listed as "spherical"

However, googling "multilayer aluminum silicon nano thermite" very quickly gets interesting hits (ito suggesting, to this layman, non-spherical nanoscale aluminotherics), e.g.:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/662267l63l82217q/fulltext.pdf?page=1



Meanwhile, this link: http://www.primetprecision.com/index.php?id=10

talks about nano sized silicon platelets:What is your point? Are you saying that one of the two layers seen in the chip sample could have been deposited on the other by sputtering?

You do realise that the platelets in the red layer also contained (confirmed by EDS - see Fig 11a), aluminium and oxygen (as well as silicon) and therefore will contain Al203 and SiO2. Looking at the size shape and structure this matches Kaolin which will be in the form Al203.2Si02.2H20 (anhydrous Aluminium Silicate)

You seem to be desperately googling terms and then jumping upon any paper without understanding how that paper relates to the paper we are discussing or anyone else's arguments.

[Sunstealer]

You ducked. Now, why would you do that?I'm sorry but I haven't got a clue what you are on about. Rephrase the question or clearly explain what you want me to comment on. I gave a full answer so I'm a bit perplexed.

[A W Smith]

Hate to give truthers ideas but much of the fire proofing including IIRC all of that on the impact floors had been upgraded this is discussed in one of the NIST base reports and IIRC there is something about it (with links) in Wikipedia. But then of course Mackey has shown that even based on Harrit et als best numbers the material wasn't energetic enough to do any damage.

Someone said Greening came up w/similar numbers, where exactly did he report this?


It was upgraded in that a additional coat was applied. was not stripped to bare metal. And only on floors undergoing renovation.

[metamars]

what are you going on about? I am talking about the conclusions from Mackey and Greening, that even by the most generous of approaches, the amount of energy that would be released from the "chip thermite" would be useless.

Do you agree or disagree with Mackey and Greening, and if so, based on what?

TAM:)

I'm not convinced by the Jones, et. al. paper that they do, indeed, have an nanothermite. However, I'm not convinced by Mackey, either. I don't think Greening has come to a conclusion.

I really don't have the expertise to have an opinion that matters. But I expect that material scientists do have the expertise to evaluate the Jones, et. al. claims.

I suspect that when they do, they will still consider them indeterminate, and require more proof.

The nice thing about this particular issue is that I believe a conclusion can eventually be reached (one way or another) that is beyond doubt by domain experts ( = material scientists) . I certainly don't consider NIST's modeling to be in this category. Nor do I consider Jones' work on the microspheres in this category, as it is probably impossible to eliminate fly ash as a possible source.

That's why, imo, 911 Truthers are fools if they just try to appeal to the usual suspects - media and government - with this paper, at this stage of the game. They should, instead, be sending it to individual material scientists (as in 100's and 1000's of them) to get them interested. If the material scientists who look at this carefully are mostly agreed that it's a demolition agent, then they might get some traction with those other two corrupt institutions previously mentioned.

[metamars]

I'm sorry but I haven't got a clue what you are on about. Rephrase the question or clearly explain what you want me to comment on. I gave a full answer so I'm a bit perplexed.

I should have been clearer. I was referring to only the red part of the "chip".

I see basically a bent, red square. A square is a shape with 4 corners, with 4 sides of equal length. (OK, maybe it's a rectangle, but close to square.)

If you don't see a red shape, with 4 corners, and sides approximately the same length, then just say so.

OTOH, if you do see this, (as I do), why do you not find it exceptional? Is it because you see such shapes all the time when stripping paint, or examining some paint chips that peeled off of a piece of metal, of their own accord?

Another possibility (which I should have mentioned) is that you see a square in the picture, but rarely or never see one in real life, but simply consider this one to be an anomaly.

[Sunstealer]

I really don't have the expertise to have an opinion that matters. But I expect that material scientists do have the expertise to evaluate the Jones, et. al. claims.Yes we damn well do. That's what i've been trying to tell you a) I'm a materials scientist and b) I can evaluate Jones's paper c) I've shown that the material that he has is NOT thermite it's a layer of MIO (which is widely used in anti-corrosion paint) with a layer of red paint more than likely to be kaolin, Fe2O3 rhomboidal crystals and some sort of Carbon based binder (eg: urethane or epoxy etc)

I suspect that when they do, they will still consider them indeterminate, and require more proof.We aren't some sort of mono-bloc. If Jones wants to be taken seriously then he should submit his paper to a Materials Science Journal.

The nice thing about this particular issue is that I believe a conclusion can eventually be reached (one way or another) that is beyond doubt by domain experts ( = material scientists) . I certainly don't consider NIST's modeling to be in this category. Nor do I consider Jones' work on the microspheres in this category, as it is probably impossible to eliminate fly ash as a possible source.I agree about a proper conclusion with regard to the paper. Whilst we can't rule out fly ash it may look like burning paint is the source.

That's why, imo, 911 Truthers are fools if they just try to appeal to the usual suspects - media and government - with this paper, at this stage of the game. They should, instead, be sending it to individual material scientists (as in 100's and 1000's of them) to get them interested. If the material scientists who look at this carefully are mostly agreed that it's a demolition agent, then they might get some traction with those other two corrupt institutions previously mentioned.And Jones could put everyone out of their misery by simply sending a few of his paint chips to an independent materials laboratory and ask them to do a full analysis.

Hell, for 40 bucks he can get an XRD done and get the results in less than a week. That will give him all the compounds present (not just elements) and their quantities.

[boloboffin]

Hell, for 40 bucks he can get an XRD done and get the results in less than a week. That will give him all the compounds present (not just elements) and their quantities.

So that's the game, is it? I'm sure that someone in that august gathering of 9/11 Truth scientists knows this. So why do they keep using the spectra when they could have more complete information on the makeup of these chips? Because that would give the game away.

[metamars]

What is your point? Are you saying that one of the two layers seen in the chip sample could have been deposited on the other by sputtering?

You do realise that the platelets in the red layer also contained (confirmed by EDS - see Fig 11a), aluminium and oxygen (as well as silicon) and therefore will contain Al203 and SiO2. Looking at the size shape and structure this matches Kaolin which will be in the form Al203.2Si02.2H20 (anhydrous Aluminium Silicate)

You seem to be desperately googling terms and then jumping upon any paper without understanding how that paper relates to the paper we are discussing or anyone else's arguments.

This post was a copy from an email to Professor Jones, and post at 911blogger.com. I am basically prodding Professor Jones, and anybody who has more time and inclination (and hopefully expertise) than I do, to check out resources that might possibly relate to this issue, and thus to see if it's possible to support his claim of platelet structures that contain Al in elemental form, as well as Si. (Or cast doubt on it, as the case may be.)

I haven't even read the papers I quoted, and don't expect I'd understand most of them, if I did.

Regarding your specific question, no I hadn't realized that, but I know you can't have Al exposed to air and not have it react. It needs an oxide protective layer at it's surface. Thus, if the platelets' Al content is, say, 99% Aluminum, I still expect there to be some Al oxide.

I have no idea if a similar tendency exists for Si. I'm not a chemist. In the case of Si and SiO2, though, I don't think it matters that much. If the Al is not mostly in elemental form, the stuff is not thermite. If it is, I don't think it matters if the Si is bonded to Oxygen, or not. Why would it, in terms of a thermite chemical reaction?

I know next to nothing about chemistry, having studied it long, long ago, so feel free to enlighten me about any mistaken notions I have.

[A W Smith]

And Jones could put everyone out of their misery by simply sending a few of his paint chips to an independent materials laboratory and ask them to do a full analysis.

Hell, for 40 bucks he can get an XRD done and get the results in less than a week. That will give him all the compounds present (not just elements) and their quantities.

Which is what I thought he said he would do over a year ago. Apparently the results he got back from the "independent lab" were not to his liking and into the circular file it goes. Never to see the light of day.

[boloboffin]

Which is what I thought he said he would do over a year ago. Apparently the results he got back from the "independent lab" were not to his liking and into the circular file it goes. Never to see the light of day.

Mr. Smith, do you have a link for this claim, pleasepleasepleaseplease? :D

[metamars]

Yes we damn well do. That's what i've been trying to tell you a) I'm a materials scientist and b) I can evaluate Jones's paper c) I've shown that the material that he has is NOT thermite it's a layer of MIO (which is widely used in anti-corrosion paint) with a layer of red paint more than likely to be kaolin, Fe2O3 rhomboidal crystals and some sort of Carbon based binder (eg: urethane or epoxy etc)


I'm sort of a student of scientific controversies, and from what I've learned, it's not wise to automatically trust even a large group of scientists. That's sort of my nature, anyway. E.g., I was shocked to learn that many (most?) men don't like asking for directions. I typically ask multiple people, to make sure I don't take directions from a joker or somebody that just makes a mistake. I'm a guy...


And Jones could put everyone out of their misery by simply sending a few of his paint chips to an independent materials laboratory and ask them to do a full analysis.

Hell, for 40 bucks he can get an XRD done and get the results in less than a week. That will give him all the compounds present (not just elements) and their quantities.

I just emailed him this, verbatim. If he replies, he has already given me permission to post his replies in forums.

[T.A.M.]

Well metamars, at least you have the courage and honesty to call it as you see it.

I wholeheartedly agree that EXPERTS in this area, material scientists (Sunstealer is one), and others could settle it.

By all means, assemble the experts, because you know Jones et al will not.

TAM:)

[Pardalis]

Experts who are not engaged in 9/11 truth activism, please.

[A W Smith]

Mr. Smith, do you have a link for this claim, pleasepleasepleaseplease? :D

Ill have to do an archive.org search using the old urls. It may have been two years ago. He was waiting for the independent lab to get back to him. I seem to recall an exchange with greening. And there was a thread here about it that i think crazychainsaw participated in re: iron sphericals.



still looking. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=iron+sphericals+red+chips+site%3Aforums.randi.or g&btnG=Search)
the thread i was thinking of was "thermite on a chip"
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=101863

this is interesting. from December 07

http://911blogger.com/node/13090
I've sent chips to yet another lab, yesterday.

and on the next page
http://911blogger.com/node/13090?page=1
Again, the evidence I have presented needs further, independent quantitative corroboration

And this post sort of jumps out at you. Given the recent Betham follies,
Publishing a paper typically takes several months, from submission through peer-review and responses, and then waiting for final publication. I'm co-author on two papers currently in this process, with mainstream technical journals.
Given the reality of slow-publishing in mainstream scientific and engineering journals (granted this is important to do, to reach the scientific community better, for example), I/we are exploring other avenues -- open for suggestions.

And that was twenty seven months ago

[ozeco41]

What is the point or purpose of debating whether or not thermate/thermite residues were present?

There is no way that either version of thermxte was the cause of the molten aluminium (aka "Steel") which cascaded from a single point source at 80 or so storeys height. Plenty of claims that the molten material was steel; plenty of claims it was from thermxte; also some claims mostly innuendo that the molten stuff came from thermxte cutting of columns as part of a demolition.

Zero explanation of about a dozen steps of logic. Nearly all of them fatal to the implicit "hypothesis by innuendo".

And only one tentative hypothesis as to how it could have been done - mine - when I postulated a team of fireproof suited suicide heroes who put all the required provisions in place after the aircraft crash and before the first molten flow appeared. Brave souls all.

Alternatively we could be thinking about thermate being used to melt the stuff in the rubble. Why? With simple alternative explanations.

So the only valid reason for pursuing this debate seems to be general interest in an unexplained phenomenon......which is probably based on false claims.....

I suppose it helps pass the time. ;):confused:

[thewholesoul]

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?

have you ever demonstrated that CLAIM? could you cite me examples when this CLAIM has been tested and verified.

the fact is the red chips exhibited highly energetic reactions the question is can you SHOW how paint will exhibit the SAME behaviour under the same conditions.

peace

[thewholesoul]

ITS TIME FOR DEBUNKERS TO GET EMPIRICAL

Assuming sunstealer is right and that he has identified what kind of "paint" the red chips actually are.

DO EXPERIMENTS - test the paint to determine whether or not it exhibits highly energetic behaviour when ignited. [as do the red chip Jones et al tested]

If it fails on the first attempt, try again, or try another brand of paint just like incy-wincy spider.

Until debunkers are willing to get EMPIRICAL and DEMONSTRATE how paint when ignited will behave energetically their aguments are ultimately TOOTHLESS.

PEACE

[A W Smith]

Given the tiny thimble sized red "thermite on a chip" torch demonstration in jones video. One has to wonder why no one witnessed bright white explosive reaction on 9/11? did I mention this coating was under a layer of fireproofing?

[ElMondoHummus]

What is the point or purpose of debating whether or not thermate/thermite residues were present?

There is no way that either version of thermxte was the cause of the molten aluminium (aka "Steel") which cascaded from a single point source at 80 or so storeys height. Plenty of claims that the molten material was steel; plenty of claims it was from thermxte; also some claims mostly innuendo that the molten stuff came from thermxte cutting of columns as part of a demolition.

Zero explanation of about a dozen steps of logic. Nearly all of them fatal to the implicit "hypothesis by innuendo".

And only one tentative hypothesis as to how it could have been done - mine - when I postulated a team of fireproof suited suicide heroes who put all the required provisions in place after the aircraft crash and before the first molten flow appeared. Brave souls all.

Alternatively we could be thinking about thermate being used to melt the stuff in the rubble. Why? With simple alternative explanations.

So the only valid reason for pursuing this debate seems to be general interest in an unexplained phenomenon......which is probably based on false claims.....

I suppose it helps pass the time. ;):confused:

Correct on all points. Most especially your last sentence. ;):D

[thewholesoul]

Mackey - the journal is rubbish

TAM - chain of custody is a nightmere

911files - show me the control spectra

Sunstealer - its paint

All the above adhere to the hypothesis that the red chips are "paint" yet none of the above have ever tested their hypothesis in order to demonstrate how paint will exhibit highly energetic behaviour when ignited.

Is the empirical method to debunkers like garlic to a vampire?

The following video link is some affiliates of NIST actually trying to prove their own claim, namely that molten aluminium mixed with organics will glow orange!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQdkyaO56OY

peace

[Thunder]

Why do I get the feeling that the truthers are desperate for confirmation from JREF?

Why do I get the feeling that they want us to do the work for them?

[mark4mark]

have you ever demonstrated that CLAIM? could you cite me examples when this CLAIM has been tested and verified.

the fact is the red chips exhibited highly energetic reactions the question is can you SHOW how paint will exhibit the SAME behaviour under the same conditions.

peace

How such an "explosive" substance survived this "demolition" you imagine begs the question,
"Just how explosive could this substance be?"

[thewholesoul]

Given the tiny thimble sized red "thermite on a chip" torch demonstration in jones video. One has to wonder why no one witnessed bright white explosive reaction on 9/11? did I mention this coating was under a layer of fireproofing?

you believe paint exhibits explosive properties when ignited. prove it.

the cores were inside the building. assuming nanothermite was used to take out the core this would have been kinda hard to see dont ya think?

although that said, there are some reports of white flashes being seen.

peace

[thewholesoul]

How such an "explosive" substance survived this "demolition" you imagine begs the question,
"Just how explosive could this substance be?"

assuming that the red chips are unreacted explosives then the question of "how they survived" is rather moot.

as for your second question "how explosive" are they, I suggest actually read Jones's paper because it addresses that question.

peace

[Mr.D]

upon ignition these chips displayed properties that ... are consistent with nanoenergetics..

Really?

[thewholesoul]

Why do I get the feeling that the truthers are desperate for confirmation from JREF?

Why do I get the feeling that they want us to do the work for them?

Debunkers are desperate to prove Jones paper false - yet they are unprepared to DO ANY EXPERIMENTS TO PROVE IT FALSE?

are debunkers a bunch of - ARMCHAIR SCIENTISTS?

peace

[A W Smith]

you believe paint exhibits explosive properties when ignited. prove it.

the cores were inside the building. assuming nanothermite was used to take out the core this would have been kinda hard to see dont ya think?

although that said, there are some reports of white flashes being seen.

peace

You believe a substance the thickness of paint can take out core columns? good luck with your fantasy there. And Sorry. Its a little late in the evening to do torch work especially with samples Jones wont share with those who don't agree with conclusions he has formed over two years ago. And we aren't as experienced at faking demonstrations like Jones is. He already has a track record given his doctored photos.

[A W Smith]

Debunkers are desperate to prove Jones paper false - yet they are unprepared to DO ANY EXPERIMENTS TO PROVE IT FALSE?

are debunkers a bunch of - ARMCHAIR SCIENTISTS?

peace

Theres no need to prove jones paper false. It is incomplete given the lack of control samples of the superdupernanonanothermite he alleges exists. All his evidence points to

****drum roll*****

PAINT


edit to add
And did I mention this coating was under a layer of fireproofing?????? any comment on how it got there thesolehole?

[Grizzly Bear]

you believe paint exhibits explosive properties when ignited. prove it.

As far as I'm concerned if these paint chips are supposed to represent unreacted thermite "painted" or layered on a column then I find it difficult to believe it would be in enough quantity over any given point on the column to melt completely through it. If the reaction runs out of steam too quickly it will not succeed

the cores were inside the building. assuming nanothermite was used to take out the core this would have been kinda hard to see dont ya think?
This speculation is extremely dubious considering that the core was the last section of the buildings to collapse. This claim is made even less convincing given that the collapse began in the same areas where the planes hit and the fires burned unrestrained. I'm afraid this speculation on your part is weak.

[A W Smith]

Ill have to do an archive.org search using the old urls. It may have been two years ago. He was waiting for the independent lab to get back to him. I seem to recall an exchange with greening. And there was a thread here about it that i think crazychainsaw participated in re: iron sphericals.



still looking. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=iron+sphericals+red+chips+site%3Aforums.randi.or g&btnG=Search)
the thread i was thinking of was "thermite on a chip"
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=101863

this is interesting. from December 07

http://911blogger.com/node/13090
I've sent chips to yet another lab, yesterday.


and on the next page
http://911blogger.com/node/13090?page=1
Again, the evidence I have presented needs further, independent quantitative corroboration


And this post sort of jumps out at you. Given the recent Betham follies,
Publishing a paper typically takes several months, from submission through peer-review and responses, and then waiting for final publication. I'm co-author on two papers currently in this process, with mainstream technical journals.
Given the reality of slow-publishing in mainstream scientific and engineering journals (granted this is important to do, to reach the scientific community better, for example), I/we are exploring other avenues -- open for suggestions.

And that was twenty seven months ago

Sorry that should read 15 months ago. NOT 27

[alienentity]

you believe paint exhibits explosive properties when ignited. prove it.

...
peace

Dude, that's the thing: the Jones boys need to do a full-scale test of their Acme Super Duper Nanothermite Paint on structural steel to DEMONSTRATE that it in fact can do what they say it can.

Until then it's all just a lab show with little chips. That is not proof of anything. Get busy Mr. Jones!

Come to think of it, did he ever get out of the lab stage with his fancy cold-fusion? Nope. Deja Vu all over again, init?

[dtugg]

Dude, that's the thing: the Jones boys need to do a full-scale test of their Acme Super Duper Nanothermite Paint on structural steel to DEMONSTRATE that it in fact can do what they say it can.

Until then it's all just a lab show with little chips. That is not proof of anything. Get busy Mr. Jones!

Come to think of it, did he ever get out of the lab stage with his fancy cold-fusion? Nope. Deja Vu all over again, init?

Seriously. Hey twoofers, can you think of any reasons that your heroes have never even attempted to prove that their super-duper-nano-therm*te can do what they claim? Until then, their "theory" is nothing more than a totally unfounded fantasy. About as stupid as giant lasers from outer space doing it.

[metamars]

Seriously. Hey twoofers, can you think of any reasons that your heroes have never even attempted to prove that their super-duper-nano-therm*te can do what they claim? Until then, their "theory" is nothing more than a totally unfounded fantasy. About as stupid as giant lasers from outer space doing it.

The test I'd like to see is as follows:

Construct 2 mini-buildings with, say 10 poles set in concrete. Take a motorcycle which can do 140 mph, attach a side carriage, load it up with canisters of kerosene fuel, and also attach a couple of superheated chunks of metal. (I don't know what the temperature of jet engines is, but the idea is to try and emulate that.) Crash it into your 10 pole building, and film it.

Next, treat the 10 columns of the second 'building' with nano-thermite. Crash an identical vehicle into it, and film the results.

Do you get a fireball with B, but not A?

This test will be flawed because of the fact that 140 mph is much slower than the 911 WTC jets were going.

I expect much less of an aerosolizing effect at this speed. This is the problem when you don't work for the NWO - budget constraints!!


(I'm probably using the word aerosolizing incorrectly. My intent is basically to say that small droplets of fuel get formed during the first instances of impact.)

[Orphia Nay]

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.

Thanks very much. I'll keep your point in mind.


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:)

Good suggestion.

Interesting:



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:)

Interesting:



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

TAM:)

A few days ago, someone in this subforum posted a link to an abstract (neither of those) about the contents of the WTC dust which contained paint, and now I can't find the post for the life of me. I thought it was Mr Mackey's post, but searching the forum and my history failed to find it.

It was an abstract with the full article available in either html or pdf at the bottom of the page, and the 10 or so authors were mainly from New Jersey. I've been thinking they would be worth contacting to find out how they determined that the dust was paint, and also what they think of Jones et al's paper. Does this paper ring any bells with anyone?


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

I'd love to hear more about this, you two.


Another thought: Which layer of the chips does Jones think is supercalifragilisticthermite? The red, or the grey, or is it both? :con2:

[T.A.M.]

ITS TIME FOR DEBUNKERS TO GET EMPIRICAL

Assuming sunstealer is right and that he has identified what kind of "paint" the red chips actually are.

DO EXPERIMENTS - test the paint to determine whether or not it exhibits highly energetic behaviour when ignited. [as do the red chip Jones et al tested]

If it fails on the first attempt, try again, or try another brand of paint just like incy-wincy spider.

Until debunkers are willing to get EMPIRICAL and DEMONSTRATE how paint when ignited will behave energetically their aguments are ultimately TOOTHLESS.

PEACE

Feeble attempt to shift burden of proof. Jones has yet to prove that the red/grey chips are thermite. He has yet to prove they are WTC paint, due to his lack of control experiment.

TRUTHERS, GET YOUR FEARLESS LEADER STEVEN JONES TO TEST THE SAME PAINT THAT WAS USED IN THE WTC AND EITHER RULE IT IN OR OUT!!!

TAM:)

[moorea34]

NISTNCSTAR1-3C
appendix D p442
Figure D-4...

Chips ?

See also table D-1... p438 Iron oxyde ?

[Julio]

NISTNCSTAR1-3C
appendix D p442
Figure D-4...

Chips ?

See also table D-1... p438 Iron oxyde ?

From page 434:

Beyond approximately 650ºC (...), a black scale formed between the steel and the paint,Fig. D-3. This scale layer had very poor adherence to the steel, and the paint was seen to flake off with slight pressure. Above approximately 800ºC, the kinetics of the scale formation were very fast, and after short exposures to this temperature a thick scale formed and spalled off the steel, carrying away the paint.
:)

ETA:As for the "energetic reaction" (page 435)
Figure D-5 shows two superimposed DTA scans. The initial heating scan at 20K/Min exhibits a broad exothermic poeak centered at 400ºC

Just before, it is explained how metastable phases can be formed when the metal is cooling, that can be detected using DTA. Upon heating, theses metastable phases can transform,being detectable as exothermic spikes.

So, there it is:the whole of Jones investigation explained.

[twinstead]

Feeble attempt to shift burden of proof.

Yup. I find it telling that thewholesoul decided to use a simple debate tactic instead of actually arguing the evidence.

[A W Smith]

The test I'd like to see is as follows:

Construct 2 mini-buildings with, say 10 poles set in concrete. Take a motorcycle which can do 140 mph, attach a side carriage, load it up with canisters of kerosene fuel, and also attach a couple of superheated chunks of metal. (I don't know what the temperature of jet engines is, but the idea is to try and emulate that.) Crash it into your 10 pole building, and film it.

Next, treat the 10 columns of the second 'building' with nano-thermite. Crash an identical vehicle into it, and film the results.

Do you get a fireball with B, but not A?

This test will be flawed because of the fact that 140 mph is much slower than the 911 WTC jets were going.

I expect much less of an aerosolizing effect at this speed. This is the problem when you don't work for the NWO - budget constraints!!


(I'm probably using the word aerosolizing incorrectly. My intent is basically to say that small droplets of fuel get formed during the first instances of impact.)

Then theres the matter of the scaling argument
4189284798395760590&ei

[J. Edward Tremlett]

Construct 2 mini-buildings with, say 10 poles set in concrete. Take a motorcycle which can do 140 mph, attach a side carriage, load it up with canisters of kerosene fuel, and also attach a couple of superheated chunks of metal. (I don't know what the temperature of jet engines is, but the idea is to try and emulate that.) Crash it into your 10 pole building, and film it.

Can we exhume the body of Evil Knievel and hog-tie him to the motorcycle, too?

I mean, if we're gonna go all out... : D

[thewholesoul]

You believe a substance the thickness of paint can take out core columns? good luck with your fantasy there.

p21 of 25 outlines the energy release by mass for the red chips found in the WTC dust. two out of four red chips samples exhibted greater energy release by mass than HMX, TNT, etc.

however i would like to see more large scale experiments.

And Sorry. Its a little late in the evening to do torch work especially with samples Jones wont share with those who don't agree with conclusions he has formed over two years ago. And we aren't as experienced at faking demonstrations like Jones is. He already has a track record given his doctored photos.

stop making excuses. you KNOW what the red chips are, they are paint.

so why do you go and do some EXPERIMENTS just like Jones did. And demonstrate how red paint when ignited will an energy release per mass greater than TNT. :D

"Several paint samples were also tested and in each case, the paint sample was immediately reduced to fragile ashes by the hot flame"

peace

[Julio]

p21 of 25 outlines the energy release by mass for the red chips found in the WTC dust. two out of four red chips samples exhibted greater energy release by mass than HMX, TNT, etc.

So?

Thermite releases 3.9 KJ per gram of thermite.
TNT releases 4 KJ per gram of TNT

Coal releases about 30 KJ per gram of coal.(source: wikipedia)

[ElMondoHummus]

Feeble attempt to shift burden of proof. Jones has yet to prove that the red/grey chips are thermite. He has yet to prove they are WTC paint, due to his lack of control experiment.

TRUTHERS, GET YOUR FEARLESS LEADER STEVEN JONES TO TEST THE SAME PAINT THAT WAS USED IN THE WTC AND EITHER RULE IT IN OR OUT!!!

TAM:)

TWS said what??:confused:

The whole point of everyone's posts here (Sunstealer's, Ryan's, mine, and others) were to demonstrate how Jones et. al is incorrectly interpreting his own findings! Christ... once again, exceeding the potential energy per gram of thermite means it's not thermite, just the same as exceeding 8 oz of liquid doesn't mean it's a "supercup"! On top of that, Sunstealer's work properly identifies what Jones and the rest of the researchers elect to miss, and that's what the material of the chip really is!

There is no need for "us" to test this thesis ourselves; the work in question fails on the weight of its own internal errors. That's what we're pointing out. Furthermore, there's no need to further establish that thermite wasn't used, because the main effect - molten steel - is missing! The recovered steel shows zero signs of anything other than a mechanical severing. No solidified pools were discovered. No lightshow was seen. There is zero reason to look any further. Even if Jones were somehow miraculously correct in identifying deliberately planted super incendiaries, all he's proven is that it failed to work, because all the other evidence is missing.

How advocates of this most recent paper fail to comprehend the entire picture is beyond me...

[bill smith]

Kevin Ryan interviewed on KPEK radio 6 april 2009
http://archive.kpfk.org/parchive/mp3/kpfk_090406_150223indymed.mp3

[thewholesoul]

Theres no need to prove jones paper false. It is incomplete given the lack of control samples of the super-nonanothermite he alleges exists. All his evidence points to PAINT

Jones paper essentially demonstrates that the red chip were NOT paint. can debunkers through experimentation prove this finding false?

if the red chips are not paint then the only substance in the REAL WORLD that they resemble is nano thermite due to there energy release upon ignition.

Jones does not allege it exists, it exists! go ask the U.S. military!!

How would YOU suggest Jones (anti-govt scientist) obtains samples of nanothermite? Or can he just walk into a Wall Mart and buy some?

And did I mention this coating was under a layer of fireproofing?????? any comment on how it got there thesolehole?

sure. fireproofing is not an immovable substance. you are aware that some weeks prior to the demolition of the WTC towers there was a fireproofing upgrade? this would presumably involve the removal of the old fireproofing before the new fireproofing could be applied.

peace

[thewholesoul]

As far as I'm concerned if these paint chips are supposed to represent unreacted thermite "painted" or layered on a column then I find it difficult to believe it would be in enough quantity over any given point on the column to melt completely through it. If the reaction runs out of steam too quickly it will not succeed

first you have to prove that its not nanothermite. you have to demonstrate that red paint will exhibit an energy release by mass greater than TNT when ignited. the question of how much nanothermite is required to cut through or weaken a core columns is valid but in reality its secondary to the question of whether or not the red paint is nanothermite.

This speculation is extremely dubious considering that the core was the last section of the buildings to collapse.

we've been through this before. the weaker inner coloumns of the core was indeed the last to collapse however the stronger outer columns that should have remained did not. your problem is that your assuming the nanothermite was placed on all columns of the core, not just the outer core columns.

This claim is made even less convincing given that the collapse began in the same areas where the planes hit and the fires burned unrestrained. I'm afraid this speculation on your part is weak.

not true. the attena in the north tower was the first part to collapse.

[dtugg]

Jones paper essentially demonstrates that the red chip were NOT paint.

No, twoofer. It demonstrates that it wasn't the specific paint that they tested for. Which they didn't even identify. They are many different types of paint.


can debunkers through experimentation prove this finding false?

We don't need to.


if the red chips are not paint then the only substance in the REAL WORLD that they resemble is nano thermite due to there energy release upon ignition.

How do you know? They didn't prove it wasn't paint anyway.


Jones does not allege it exists, it exists! go ask the U.S. military!!

Sure, but does it have the same chemical composition as their samples? And is it able to cut through steel columns as necessarily for your fantasy?


How would YOU suggest Jones (anti-govt scientist) obtains samples of nanothermite? Or can he just walk into a Wall Mart and buy some?

You are aware that nanothermite is just ultra fine thermite correct? And that thermite is just rust and aluminum, right, twoofer?


sure. fireproofing is not an immovable substance. you are aware that some weeks prior to the demolition of the WTC towers there was a fireproofing upgrade? this would presumably involve the removal of the old fireproofing before the new fireproofing could be applied.

Citation?

[tfk]

you believe paint exhibits explosive properties when ignited. prove it.

the cores were inside the building. assuming nanothermite was used to take out the core this would have been kinda hard to see dont ya think?

although that said, there are some reports of white flashes being seen.

peace

Wholesoul,

No, I don't believe that it would have been hard to see in the slightest. You could still see it. In the photos of the rubble of the buildings.

This is why I am completely unmoved by the search for thermite or any other such destructive compound. If any were used, you'd see column segements that have been severed at places OTHER than at their ends (3 stories high). In other words, you'd have lots and lots and lots (i.e., the majority) of 1 or 2 story tall columns. All of them with characteristic "burned or detonated" ends. Not machined ends. On examination of the hi-res photos of the debris, I found none.

NO form of demolition is tenable against this evidence. Evidence that is still available today.

tom

[thewholesoul]

Dude, that's the thing: the Jones boys need to do a full-scale test of their Acme Super Duper Nanothermite Paint on structural steel to DEMONSTRATE that it in fact can do what they say it can.

How do YOU suggest Jones will obtain nanothermite? And are you willing to fund his independent research that will address your concerns?

it is difficult if not IMPOSSIBLE to do "full scale tests" using tiny red chips.

Jones demonstrated that red paint turns to ash when exposed to a flame. so why dont you buy some red paint and a torch and PROVE him wrong.

[QUOTE=alienentity;4593999] Until then it's all just a lab show with little chips. That is not proof of anything.

Like I said the red paint he tested turns to ash when exposed to a flame. He proved that the red chips ARE NOT PAINT. so what else could they be? what else has an energy release by mass GREATER than TNT when ignited? Are you going to respond to that question dude?

peace

[ElMondoHummus]

So?

Thermite releases 3.9 KJ per gram of thermite.
TNT releases 4 KJ per gram of TNT

Coal releases about 30 KJ per gram of coal.(source: wikipedia)

Correct. You're on the right track with your thinking. Gasoline has about 9.5 KJ/g, and while it makes for a fine explosive, nobody tends to think about it in the same terms they do TNT or other items specifically and purposefully created to be an explosive. Hell, if you really want to drive the point home, paper's got on the order of 16KJ/g. The energy density of a material is not what makes it an explosive. Rate of reaction counts, hence RedIbis's question of brisance earlier. There are probably other factors involved too that are outside my education. At any rate, it's utterly silly to latch onto the issue of heat capacity and use it to declare the substance "super" thermite. Jones and his gang have to know this, which is why I don't see this as something innocently foolish and naive, but something deliberately conducted in order to be deceitful. At any rate, you're on the right track here in pointing this out. The latching onto the energy density of the chip is absurd.

BTW, if no one else has done it yet: Welcome to the forum!

[dtugg]

How do YOU suggest Jones will obtain nanothermite? And are you willing to fund his independent research that will address your concerns?

He could makes some. It's not like it's a secret what the stuff is made of or that it is difficult to make or anything. But I guarantee he will never do this and attempt to prove his lies.

[ElMondoHummus]

Just for fun - well, let me be honest, this is schadenfreude I'm experiencing - I found the latest forum where someone's pitching this paper:

Sufur Magazine (http://forum.surfermag.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1573766&Main=1573254)

Really... the link is to the forum. This is sad.

[Dave Rogers]

What else has an energy release by mass GREATER than TNT when ignited?

Well, not thermite, for a start. Most fuels that require external oxygen sources, however, have far greater energy densities by mass. Look up "energy density" on Wikipedia; TNT contains about 4.6MJ/kg, thermite 4.0MJ/kg. Diesel fuel has about ten times that, as does polystyrene. TNT doesn't really contain that much energy, it just releases it very quickly. Higher energy density is evidence against thermite.

ETA: Hadn't been following the thread, so I didn't realise just how many times this question had been answered. TheWholeSoul, someone should point this out to you: what you're asking is a stupid question, and it's been pointed out to you repeatedly that it's a stupid question. If you ask it a dozen more times, it won't magically turn into an intelligent question.

Dave

[JamesB]

Heh, now Jones is arguing that you can't criticize his paper unless you spend $800 and get it published in Pakistan too.

http://911blogger.com/node/19761?page=3

Since the days of Sir Isaac Newton, Science has proceeded through the publication of peer-reviewed papers. Peer-review means a thorough reading and commentary by "peers", that is, other PhD's and professors. This paper was thoroughly peer-reviewed with several pages of tough comments that required of our team MONTHS of additional experiments and studies. It was the toughest peer-review I've ever had, including THREE papers for which I was first author in NATURE. (Please note that Prof. Harrit is first author on this paper.) We sought an established journal that would allow us a LONG paper (this paper is 25 pages long) with MANY COLOR IMAGES AND GRAPHS. Such a scientific journal is not easy to find. Page charges are common for scientific journals these days, and are typically paid by the University of the first or second author (as is the case with this paper) or by an external grant.

A peer-reviewed journal is also called a "refereed" journal. Peer-reviewers are almost always anonymous for scientific publications like this -- that is standard in the scientific world. While authors commonly recommend potential peer-reviewers, editors usually pick at least one or two reviewers that the authors did NOT mention -- and that is the case with this paper.

Debunkers may raise all sorts of objections on forums, such as "Oh, it's just paint" or "the aluminum is bound up in kaolin." We have answered those questions in the paper, and shown them to be nonsense, but you have to read to find the answers. I may also provide answers here and in emails, often quoting from the paper to show that the answers are already in it.

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

So how do you, as a non-scientist, discern whether the arguments are valid or not? You should first ask, "is the objection PUBLISHED in an ESTABLISHED PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL?" If not, you can and should say -- "I will wait to see this formally published in a refereed scientific journal. Until then, the published peer-reviewed work by Harrit et al. stands. "

BTW, there also has been no PUBLISHED REFEREED paper yet that counters either the "Fourteen Points" paper or the "Environmental Anomalies" papers we published last year.

IF it is so easy to publish in Bentham Scientific journals, or if these are "vanity publications" (note: there is no factual basis for these charges) -- then why don't the objectors write up their objections and get them peer-reviewed and published?? The fact is, it is not easy, as serious objectors will find out.
Our results have passed the gauntlet of peer-review (including in this case, review at BYU consistent with the fact that there are two authors from BYU).

We say that this paper has the "imprimatur of peer-review". That is a significant breakthrough. You cannot say that of big-foot or Elvis sightings... We are now in a different world from such things, the world of the published scientific community. CAN YOU APPRECIATE THE DIFFERENCE? I hope so. And this is what has our opponents so worried IMO...

[bill smith]

In this audio clip Kevin Ryan explains how they ruled out the paint as a candidate for the red/grey chips. What now ?
http://archive.kpfk.org/parchive/mp3/kpfk_090406_150223indymed.mp3

[bill smith]

Well, not thermite, for a start. Most fuels that require external oxygen sources, however, have far greater energy densities by mass. Look up "energy density" on Wikipedia; TNT contains about 4.6MJ/kg, thermite 4.0MJ/kg. Diesel fuel has about ten times that, as does polystyrene. TNT doesn't really contain that much energy, it just releases it very quickly. Higher energy density is evidence against thermite.

Dave

NANO-Thermite Dave.....not he same animal at all.

[boloboffin]

NANO-Thermite Dave.....not he same animal at all.

Can you provide a spectra for nanothermite that shows the differences between it and regular thermite?

[BigAl]

NANO-Thermite Dave.....not he same animal at all.

Nano-themite explodes just like conventional explosives. Nobody heard demolition explosions at WTC.

For example:



A lot of work has been accomplished recently
with nanopowders in energetic materials. For
example, it has been proven that because of their
large surface area, the nanopowders can increase the
burn rate in some types of propellants1,3,8-10. There
were also significant developments made in the
“super thermite” area with mixes of nanometric
aluminum and metal oxides11. Those compounds are
said to react at rates approaching (and under
particular conditions even equivalent to) those of
high explosives.



http://www.intdetsymp.org/detsymp2002/PaperSubmit/FinalManuscript/pdf/Brousseau-193.pdf

[ElMondoHummus]

Well, not thermite, for a start. Most fuels that require external oxygen sources, however, have far greater energy densities by mass. Look up "energy density" on Wikipedia; TNT contains about 4.6MJ/kg, thermite 4.0MJ/kg. Diesel fuel has about ten times that, as does polystyrene. TNT doesn't really contain that much energy, it just releases it very quickly. Higher energy density is evidence against thermite.

ETA: Hadn't been following the thread, so I didn't realise just how many times this question had been answered. TheWholeSoul, someone should point this out to you: what you're asking is a stupid question, and it's been pointed out to you repeatedly that it's a stupid question. If you ask it a dozen more times, it won't magically turn into an intelligent question.

Dave

Yes, correct. This must be emphasized. It's a red herring of a characteristic. As Mackey pointed out, paper exceeds thermite's thermal capacity. If you look it up, you'll see it does so by about a 4 to 1 ratio (thermite: 3.9 KJ per gram (thank you Julio!), paper around 16 KJ/g).

Again, it's a red herring argument. Highlighting thermal capacity does take in those who don't know it's irrelevance, but once the information is given that provides context, it's foolish to maintain its significance.

[dtugg]

\In this audio clip Kevin Ryan explains how they ruled out the paint as a candidate for the red/grey chips. What now ?
http://archive.kpfk.org/parchive/mp3/kpfk_090406_150223indymed.mp3

I am going to assume this is the same explanation that they have in their fraudulent paper. If not, it makes them even bigger frauds.

They tested one kind of paint. They didn't even identify what paint it was. There are many kinds of paint, twoofer, and not all of them have the same properties. I swear, you twoofers will swallow absolutely anything.

[Sunstealer]

Which layer of the chips does Jones think is supercalifragilisticthermite? The red, or the grey, or is it both? :con2:This is another thing I was going to comment on with regards to TAM's (I think it was TAM - I can't find the specific post) question about the DSC measurements. So I may aswell do it now.

I've got next to no experience with calorimeters because it's not something that I've ever had to employ as a tool in the profession. They are far more likely to be used by chemists, so I can't comment specifically about whether the DSC findings are typical of paint or thermite or "super nano-thermite".

However, there are a couple of things I'd like to question because they are odd and also tie in with orphia nay's question. Page 19 - 3. Thermal Analysis using Differential Scanning Calorimetry, clearly states

The gray layer was found to consist mostly of iron oxide so that it probably does not contribute to the exotherm, and yet this layer varies greatly in mass from chip to chip.This is interesting because they clearly state in their paper the thermite reaction:

2Al + Fe2O3 —> Al2O3 + 2Fe (molten iron), deltaH = - 853.5 kJ/mole.

This iron oxide is not rust; Fe3O4 because it doesn't have the structural characteristics of rust which can be clearly seen in the SEM nor is it red in colour. It's also not synthetic Fe3O4

pirox 200 99% Magnetite http://www.piroxllc.com/MSDS_specsheets.html#100

See Figs 1 & 2. http://www.lmbe.seu.edu.cn/nano/en/research%20area/Molecular%20Assembly.htm

FeO is thermodynamically unstable below 575°C and and undergoes the following

4FeO → Fe + Fe3O4

So it has to be Fe2O3 in a different form. The only form that can be is MIO (Micaceous iron oxide) which fits all of the observed criteria.

So they have a substance that is one of the substances that forms thermite, but they say that it "probably does not contribute to the exotherm" - that is astounding because the whole point of Fe2O3 is to provide the source of Oxygen for the reaction!

So they are dismissing the "gray layer". This also throws up a number of conclusions and therefore questions:

Firstly it reduces the amount of material they say is thermite by approximately half (that's based upon the relevant thickness's of the two layers and removes a large proportion of the available Oxygen for the reaction. This means all of the iron oxide for the reaction is in the red layer and we can clearly see the form of sub-micron rhomboidal iron oxide in the SEM photos.

Secondly, what is this "gray layer" for then? If it doesn't aid the reaction why is it inherently part of the thermite?

Thirdly, if it doesn't aid the reaction then it is a barrier to the steel and thermal efficiency because the "red layer's thermic reaction"not only has to heat the alumina and the iron (and the silica and in other samples, see fig 14 - additional ZnO, Cr2O3, CaO) from the reaction, but must now also lose energy (that could be used to heat the target steel) heating the gray layer before it even starts to heat the steel.


Also on page 21, first paragraph they claim after DSC,

A conventional quantitative analysis routine was used to estimate the elemental contents......Spheroids were
observed with Fe:O ratios up to approximately 4:1.This is misleading unless they show how they have calculated this figure.

EDS is qualitative not quantitative because it does not give you compounds and their % in the sample unless you use the EDS software package to produce this - nowhere do they state this is done, all they do is estimate peak heights, which gives you an inclination, but it's not conclusive.

The more I read and examine the paper the more mistakes I'm finding. They keep indicating thermite and making baseless statements and assumptions as the paper progresses. The worst is the conclusions which are utter nonsense.

eg: Conclusion 10.

The carbon content of the red material indicates that an organic substance is present. This would be expected for super-thermite formulations in order to produce high gas pressures upon ignition and thus make them explosive.Bollocks! Excuse my French but that is drivel. The carbon content of the red material is indeed an organic substance and during the SEM analysis the paper clearly states on page 15:

It 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.
(which actually sounds like it came from a materials engineer because that's the way we describe this sort of thing - most likely the SEM operator and the nicked it cos it sounded good!)

So it's obviously some sort of binder that binds the particles together.

The nature of the organic material in these chips merits further exploration.If you want to. I suggest you start by looking at different binders and organics in paint.

I was loathed to jump in and criticise this paper or jump on any bandwagon because they do provide alot of data, but the further you read the paper and the closer you examine it the more you come to the conclusion that this is a dog's breakfast and the authors are clearly not objective.

It's like wading through ever deepening excrement. I'm not sure if I want to continue have it reach my mouth and nose.

[bill smith]

Can you provide a spectra for nanothermite that shows the differences between it and regular thermite?

I would like to take this opportunity to refer you to the 'Journal for 9/1 studies' where there is at least one scientific paper on the subject.

[boloboffin]

I would like to take this opportunity to refer you to the 'Journal for 9/1 studies' where there is at least one scientific paper on the subject.

I would like to take this opportunity to say "Go find it and bring back the link to support your own claim."

[Sunstealer]

NISTNCSTAR1-3C
appendix D p442
Figure D-4...

Chips ?

See also table D-1... p438 Iron oxyde ?Could you link to that please. I know I sound lazy but I can't find that particular part but I'm interested. Thanks.

It would also help if people put the page number and paragraph when quoting from the Jones paper

[16.5]

Heh, now Jones is arguing that you can't criticize his paper unless you spend $800 and get it published in Pakistan too.

http://911blogger.com/node/19761?page=3

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

Dr. Jones, welcome to the 21st Century where a few posters on an internet web page can dismantle your paper over a long weekend. Newton would have been amazed.

Say, what happened in those independent tests from a few years ago? How come those tests were not mentioned in your "paper."

Care to share with us the identity of your tough "peer" reviewers? You might be aware that certain contributors here who have frequently published in peer reviewed journals have found Bentham's peer review process to be a sham. We must assume that YOU provided the names of your reviewers.

eta: Also, please feel free to join in the discussion here, I promise we won't bite.

[bill smith]

I am going to assume this is the same explanation that they have in their fraudulent paper. If not, it makes them even bigger frauds.

They tested one kind of paint. They didn't even identify what paint it was. There are many kinds of paint, twoofer, and not all of them have the same properties. I swear, you twoofers will swallow absolutely anything.

They found that the paint dissolved in a chemical solution and that the red/grey chips did not. You might as well accept it- it ain't lookin' good for the paint. Do you have another possibility that can explain all the disparate details like the iron microspherules and the explosive/incendiary nature if the red layer ?, Should we crack the champagne just yet ?

[T.A.M.]

Jones paper essentially demonstrates that the red chip were NOT paint. can debunkers through experimentation prove this finding false?

if the red chips are not paint then the only substance in the REAL WORLD that they resemble is nano thermite due to there energy release upon ignition.

Jones does not allege it exists, it exists! go ask the U.S. military!!

How would YOU suggest Jones (anti-govt scientist) obtains samples of nanothermite? Or can he just walk into a Wall Mart and buy some?



sure. fireproofing is not an immovable substance. you are aware that some weeks prior to the demolition of the WTC towers there was a fireproofing upgrade? this would presumably involve the removal of the old fireproofing before the new fireproofing could be applied.

peace

No, Jones paper in a feeble, unscientific attempt, compared the results of his chips to one kind of UN-NAMED PAINT, without describing the type of paint, or its components. He did not test multiple paints, he did not attempt to locate the paint type(s) used in the WTC or on the beams and test them, he did nothing that a REAL scientist without an agenda would do.

That type of science would fail at college entry level, let alone what is expected from a PhD.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

first you have to prove that its not nanothermite. you have to demonstrate that red paint will exhibit an energy release by mass greater than TNT when ignited. the question of how much nanothermite is required to cut through or weaken a core columns is valid but in reality its secondary to the question of whether or not the red paint is nanothermite.



we've been through this before. the weaker inner coloumns of the core was indeed the last to collapse however the stronger outer columns that should have remained did not. your problem is that your assuming the nanothermite was placed on all columns of the core, not just the outer core columns.



not true. the attena in the north tower was the first part to collapse.

Jones has not proven his chips are nanothermite. He is the one suggesting they are, but he has not proven it. THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS TO PROVE BEYOND ALL DOUBT THAT IT IS THERMITE, AND COULD ONLY BE THERMITE!!

[Dave Rogers]

NANO-Thermite Dave.....not he same animal at all.

Not an intelligent comment, sorry. Nano-thermite is simply thermite ground up smaller. The chemical energy content is exactly the same.

Dave

[Sunstealer]

Jones paper essentially demonstrates that the red chip were NOT paint.Oh no he bloody well doesn't. You have not once been able to counter my argument or the evidence that I have used to that has lead me to my conclusion. You can forget all the DSC data until you can show that this stuff isn't a material from the layer of anti-corrosion paint that's widely used the world over in the construction industry and a layer consisting of fine particles of Fe2O3 and platelets and EDS data that match a form of Kaolin all of which are found the world over in red paint.

Jones has to demonstrate that his samples are not paint. He has failed to do so and ironically by publishing this paper confirms that the samples are what i have described above.

I'm sorry but you have to realise that I never set out to debunk Jones' paper I set out to read it out of personal and professional interest. If I had seen data consistent with thermite I would be doing exactly the same thing on this thread, namely showing that the data in the paper supports that the material is thermite and backing it up with external sources.

You and other truthers are going to have to admit that Jones and his chips are not thermite. This will be your own internal battle and conscience and that is not going to be easy

[bill smith]

Jones has not proven his chips are nanothermite. He is the one suggesting they are, but he has not proven it. THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS TO PROVE BEYOND ALL DOUBT THAT IT IS THERMITE, AND COULD ONLY BE THERMITE!!

As far as I know hey have proven that the stuff is a nano-compound TAM. Nothing 'nano' had any business being in the WTC dust in 2001. It has all the chemical signatures of the components of thermite and it behaves like thermite under physical experimentation. What's left ?- a label ?

[Sunstealer]

In this audio clip Kevin Ryan explains how they ruled out the paint as a candidate for the red/grey chips. What now ?
http://archive.kpfk.org/parchive/mp3/kpfk_090406_150223indymed.mp3As much as I like Radiohead I would have preferred to actually hear what you are on about. Then a moment of serendipity occurred and this line (from Radioheads Bodysnatchers) was sung

"I have no idea what I am talking about"

Indeed.

P.S. - stop linking to videos without explanation - care to comment on the steadily increasing evidence that this material is paint?

[T.A.M.]

As far as I know hey have proven that the stuff is a nano-compound TAM. Nothing 'nano' had any business being in the WTC dust in 2001. It has all the chemical signatures of the components of thermite and it behaves like thermite under physical experimentation. What's left ?- a label ?

(A) please state what your definition of a "nano-compound" is?
(B) Please explain why "Nothing nano" had any business being in the WTC dust?
(C) It has the chemical signature of a number of elements that one would EASILY find in any debris pile from a collapsed building.
(D) In what way does it behave like thermite, and only like thermite?

Thanks

TAM:)

[Shalamar]

Ok. The truthers have a working, testable hypothesis: Nano-Thermaite was found in the wreckage of the towers.

Their next step, is to take a steel beam, similar to that used in the towers, and paint it with this nano-thermite. They must then detonate this substance (Must be the same thickness of the paint used in the buildings) and show that it can cause a catastrophic failure of the support structure.

This nano-thermite used MUST display the same spectra of properties seen in the paper. It should also be verified by a secondary non-biased source.

If these things are not done, then all they have is an unverified hypothesis. More work is needed to provide proof.

[Pardalis]

And again, that are jumping to their controlled demolition theory. That's all Ryan (in the interview) and company are talking about, this shows they are not being honest and objective, they are working backwards, they have a conclusion and are trying to fit the facts.

These guys need to prove and test what they have found (or what they think they have found), and even then there are many other steps before they can even come close to the conclusion of controlled demolition.

[AZCat]

Could you link to that please. I know I sound lazy but I can't find that particular part but I'm interested. Thanks.

It would also help if people put the page number and paragraph when quoting from the Jones paper

NCSTAR 1-3C Appendices (http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-3C%20Appxs.pdf) (pdf)

[bill smith]

As much as I like Radiohead I would have preferred to actually hear what you are on about. Then a moment of serendipity occurred and this line (from Radioheads Bodysnatchers) was sung

"I have no idea what I am talking about"

Indeed.

P.S. - stop linking to videos without explanation - care to comment on the steadily increasing evidence that this material is paint?

Mainly that I am enjoying watching you build your case. I suspect that it wil come to nothing in the end though.

[boloboffin]

Now that we know that the WTC was a nano-free zone...

Hey, bill, the "at least one scientific paper" you're referring me to at JONES, was it published in a refereed scientific journal?

[bill smith]

Ok. The truthers have a working, testable hypothesis: Nano-Thermaite was found in the wreckage of the towers.

Their next step, is to take a steel beam, similar to that used in the towers, and paint it with this nano-thermite. They must then detonate this substance (Must be the same thickness of the paint used in the buildings) and show that it can cause a catastrophic failure of the support structure.

This nano-thermite used MUST display the same spectra of properties seen in the paper. It should also be verified by a secondary non-biased source.

If these things are not done, then all they have is an unverified hypothesis. More work is needed to provide proof.

Hey....hat might work. Take a sample of the chips under controlled circumstances and analyse them with some monitors to keep everybody honest. Then synthesise a larger batch with the same exact properties and melt a large steel column on TV. That would do it for sure. Very entertaining TV too. The whole Nation could follow it closely.

[Sunstealer]

How do YOU suggest Jones will obtain nanothermite?Easy, buy some Aluminium powder of a specific size. This stuff is 2µm.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/GERMAN-DARK-Aluminium-Powder-Eckhart-5481-Super-H-200g_W0QQitemZ120401719765QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUK_Co llectables_InputDevices_RL?hash=item120401719765&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=72%3A1688|66%3A2|65%3A12|39%3A1|240%3A13 18

Buy some Fe2O3 http://www.reade.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=178&Itemid=10

various powder granulations custom size reduced down to ~ 1 micron

Mix the two together - and that's thermite. If he want to bind it then any commercial binder like urethane will do.

Jones demonstrated that red paint turns to ash when exposed to a flame. What paint did he use?

Sorry I hate using bigger fonts but this is critical.

Jones does NOT state in his paper what type of paint he uses. TWS - acknowledge this and also acknowledge that there are hundreds of different types of paint.


Like I said the red paint he tested turns to ash when exposed to a flame. He proved that the red chips ARE NOT PAINT. so what else could they be? what else has an energy release by mass GREATER than TNT when ignited? Are you going to respond to that question dude?[/QUOTE]No he didn't. He took an unspecified material that he claims is paint and exposed it to a flame. That does NOT prove anything. We don't even know what paint he used because he does not say. Show where in the paper he indicates what paint he used.

Secondly the fact that this material releases more energy than thermite proves it's NOT thermite!The total energy released is not going to change just because you use smaller particles. The energy is released quicker but there isn't greater energy released.

/sigh.

[ElMondoHummus]

Not an intelligent comment, sorry. Nano-thermite is simply thermite ground up smaller. The chemical energy content is exactly the same.

Dave

Dave is correct, and this point must be emphasized. Lurkers, and others: What Dave (and Sunstealer and Ryan Mackey before him) is saying is that the energy release in a ferrous oxide-aluminum "redox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redox)" reaction - a thermite reaction - is dicated by the reactants themselves i.e. the iron oxide and the aluminum. Processing the materials so that the particles are finer does not change the energy density of the material; all such processing does is affect the rate of reaction. Joules released (or calories, or whatever unit you want to use) remains the same; it just releases faster. The point is that anyone trying to use the energy density of the chips as a debate point doesn't know what they're talking about.

[Shalamar]

Hey....hat might work. Take a sample of the chips under controlled circumstances and analyse them with some monitors to keep everybody honest. Then synthesise a larger batch with the same exact properties and melt a large steel column on TV. That would do it for sure. Very entertaining TV too. The whole Nation could follow it closely.

However, I will not be holding my breath for any of the truthers to attempt to do this.

[JamesB]

I am probably piling on, but something else occured to me. If you recall, we have been pointing out for years that controlled demolition would have been impractical, since they would have been set off almost immediately, and in an uncontrolled manner by the plane crashes and resulting fires. Jones response in his first paper was to argue that thermite has a very high ignition point, and would have been more resistant to fires. Of course this does not address the issue of what is used as a detonator, but that is a different issue...

But in this paper, alas, guess what, his super-magic-nano-thermite has an ignition point of around 400C, or well below the temperatures of a normal office fire. So how did these thermite coated beams keep from immediately cooking off when the plane hit them?

BTW I e-mailed the good professor asking him if they bothered to identify paint fragments from their debris samples and if so what they had learned from their characteristics. He replied back, completely missing the point of the question, stating that they had determined that their energetic material was not paint. I am still trying to get an actual answer to my question.

[ElMondoHummus]

Ok, I've seen more than once someone defend the paper by saying that Jones et. al. eliminated paint as a possibility. I read how they did it. Now it's your turn. Explain in your own words how that team determined that the chips weren't paint. Yes, like I said, I did read it, I'm asking for you all to explain it. Let's see if you can figure out what the flaws are in the approach yourselves.

[Dave Rogers]

Take a sample of the chips under controlled circumstances and analyse them with some monitors to keep everybody honest. Then synthesise a larger batch with the same exact properties and melt a large steel column on TV. That would do it for sure. Very entertaining TV too.

If somebody took the material Jones analysed, painted it on a steel column made from 1" plate, set fire to it, and waited for the column to melt, I think the resulting TV program might only be of interest to 9/11 conspiracy theory debunkers. For anyone else, it would be about as interesting as watching paint burn dry.

Dave

[JamesB]

Not an intelligent comment, sorry. Nano-thermite is simply thermite ground up smaller. The chemical energy content is exactly the same.

Dave

But David Ray Griffin says nano-thermite is 10 times as powerful as regular thermite! He has a PhD, he must know. :D

With regard to planting explosives, a new technology has developed, known as nano-technology and it has completely changed the nature of discussion about explosives. So thermate, thermite is a very common incendiary, than you had sulfur to it, and it is called thermate because the sulfur added to it greatly lowers the temperature at which steel melts.

But if they used ultra-fine-grained particles then it increases the strength of this many many times, super-thermate is, uhh I don't know 10 times more powerful, something like that. Compared to ordinary thermate. (grumbling in crowd).

[tfk]

Wholesoul,

Debunkers are desperate to prove Jones paper false - yet they are unprepared to DO ANY EXPERIMENTS TO PROVE IT FALSE?

are debunkers a bunch of - ARMCHAIR SCIENTISTS?

peace

There are two "stories" here.

One is a technical story. What happened to the planes, the fuel, the steel & the buildings. This story was put together by NIST.
The other is a crime story. Who did what, when, why & how. It was assembled by the 9-11 Commission.
In this post, I am talking only about the technical story. NIST's story about why the buildings fell down.

When it comes to technical stories, I don't think that you know how this whole science thing works. Let's set aside the 9-11 story for a moment, because it's got so much emotional baggage.

Let's use a different story: "Why did the Tacoma Narrows bridge collapse?"

This collapse has also been well & truly studied by lots of engineers over the years, and they have provided their orthodox answer.

The point is that there is a certain amount of trust in the work of other scientists and engineer that gets built into the system. It is not built in blindly. Youngsters and other people of a conspiratorial inclination consider that trust to be a giant flaw. They see it as unreasonable, credulous, sheepish, etc. it is not.

The truth is that the trust is an earned result of the strengths of the system. It is based on history & experience. And how well the system works, and how it is self policed. The reason that the guys at NIST, in academia & industry do their work so well is that they're aware of, and protective of, their reputations. If they screw up, there will be no hiding it. It will come out.

Look at a counter-example, cold fusion. The boat rocked for a very short period of time within the professions. (MUCH longer in the press.) And then the system kicked in and the boat righted itself.

Someone may come up with one a brand new answer to why the Tacoma bridge fell down. It is that person's job to lay out a convincing case. To cross all the t's & dot the i's. It is not the orthodox world's job to prove him wrong. There are too many questions, and not enough time or money out there.

If he has done his work carefully, rigorously, then he gets a hearing in front of credible experts. With support at each step, he'd move to bigger & bigger audiences. However, if he comes in sloppy, he gets shown the door.

It isn't laziness. It's priorities. And a keen eye to a strong case. You can bet that, if all of Jones' duck were lined up, a bunch of engineers would jump all over the opportunity to be the first to solve the puzzle. If only for the competitive nature that we all have.

Tom

[Sunstealer]

Heh, now Jones is arguing that you can't criticize his paper unless you spend $800 and get it published in Pakistan too.

http://911blogger.com/node/19761?page=3

I like this bit Debunkers may raise all sorts of objections on forums, such as "Oh, it's just paint" or "the aluminum is bound up in kaolin." We have answered those questions in the paper, and shown them to be nonsense, but you have to read to find the answersI wonder where he got that from ;)

Secondly It's hard to digest excrement but I'm slowly working my way through it and I can certainly say I've read the paper. Infact it's taken me 2 hours to just read through the SEM and EDS data along with the text let alone actually doing any analysis. It's painful going because there is so much wrong with it. And no he hasn't made the answers in the paper, his paper throws up dozens more questions and a far more obvious answer that is easily backed with sources.

[Sunstealer]

They found that the paint dissolved in a chemical solution and that the red/grey chips did not. You might as well accept it- it ain't lookin' good for the paint. Do you have another possibility that can explain all the disparate details like the iron microspherules and the explosive/incendiary nature if the red layer ?, Should we crack the champagne just yet ?As has been posted by several posters numerous times.

Please point out in Jones' paper where they tell you what type of paint they used and the specification.

This is the problem with truthers they never read anything including papers from their own side.

[Sunstealer]

As far as I know hey have proven that the stuff is a nano-compound TAM. Nothing 'nano' had any business being in the WTC dust in 2001. It has all the chemical signatures of the components of thermite and it behaves like thermite under physical experimentation. What's left ?- a label ?Total crap - you know absolutely nothing about what you are talking about, as usual.

Go and do some basic research on oxide powders and the paint industry and you'll see that nano sized particles are common in paint.

I really wish this thread was heavily moderated in order to stop dross like this being posted (by the usual miscreants).

[Sunstealer]

Mainly that I am enjoying watching you build your case. I suspect that it wil come to nothing in the end though.You don't understand a word of my case - you haven't commented on a single aspect of it. Infact I don't think you've read any of my posts that are more than a line or two or looked at the links.

Go and do some research on MIO - Micaceous Iron Oxide and it's uses, specifically as an component in structural steel anti-corrosion paint. Then look at the role of Fe2O3 and the type of sizes used in paint. Then do some research on Kaolin and it's varieties. Now compare that with the EDS and SEM data in Jones' paper.

That will take you at least 40 hours work (primarily because it will take you longer to get the information). I'd be interested in the conclusions you make.

Run along now Billy.

[Sunstealer]

Dave is correct, and this point must be emphasized. Lurkers, and others: What Dave (and Sunstealer and Ryan Mackey before him) is saying is that the energy release in a ferrous oxide-aluminum "redox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redox)" reaction - a thermite reaction - is dicated by the reactants themselves i.e. the iron oxide and the aluminum. Processing the materials so that the particles are finer does not change the energy density of the material; all such processing does is affect the rate of reaction. Joules released (or calories, or whatever unit you want to use) remains the same; it just releases faster. The point is that anyone trying to use the energy density of the chips as a debate point doesn't know what they're talking about.Bolded for emphasis and repetition. Truthers - please read and understand this. It is basic chemistry.

[Sunstealer]

BTW I e-mailed the good professor asking him if they bothered to identify paint fragments from their debris samples and if so what they had learned from their characteristics.This is an excellent point. If Jones et al thinks that unreacted thermite is in the dust then it stands to reason that there are paint chips in the dust. Is Jones saying that there are no paint chips or flakes in any of the samples that have been collected? If so then how is that possible.

I'd like to see a direct comparison between a paint chip from the WTC and Jones' samples.

Infact I wouldn't bother with DSC etc until I'd ruled paint out of the equation totally. Simple microscopy on a number of samples likely to be present at the WTC site would do this. Has Jones ever contacted Tnemec and asked for samples or sought their advice?

[JamesB]

I don't know, he avoided answering the question.

I have a quick question regarding your recent paper. You argue that your red and grey chip samples are "super-nano-themite" and not paint. Given that we know for a fact that there were large quantities of paint in the towers in general, and on the structural steel in specific, and that it would be a virtual impossibility for some of it not to flake off during the collapse, especially under the additional effect of explosives, what method did you use to separate your "thermite" samples from actual paint flakes in the dust? Also what characteristics did you identify of the actual paint flakes in the dust, and how did those characteristics distinguish these samples from those of thermite?

thanks,

James

James, you wrote: "You argue that your red and grey chip samples
are "super-nano-themite" -- not quite right, and I invite you to read
the paper more carefully.

Regarding your other questions:
A number of critical tests are described in the paper, including
characterizations using SEM examination, XEDS analysis and ignition in
a Differential Scanning Calorimeter. These tests sufficed to
distinguish the highly-energetic thermitic red chips from other chips
observed in the dust.

To merit consideration, any assertion that a prosaic sub-
stance such as ordinary paint could match the characteristics we have
described would have to be accompanied by empirical dem-
onstration using a sample of the proposed material, including
SEM/XEDS and DSC analyses.
Steven Jones

I responded, explaining that he had misunderstood my question, but have yet to receive another response.

[T.A.M.]

Yes it is quite telling that all of the other analysis of dust samples (that I have read, or read abstracts on) mention paint as one of the components, yet for some reason, Jones makes no mention of paint chips being found in his samples. No mention of them, let alone any Spectral analysis of them, etc...

Hmmmm

TAM;)

[T.A.M.]

I don't know, he avoided answering the question.





I responded, explaining that he had misunderstood my question, but have yet to receive another response.

So the question, which i think is valid, is,

are there paints available that would produce similar results, in terms of energetics, to what Jones observed with his chip samples?

If the answer is yes, then which paints, and could they have been found in the debris?

TAM:)

[twinstead]

Yes, one would think that Jones would have submitted a spectral analysis of a regular paint chip and a thermitic paint chip for comparison. What, he only managed to collect thermitc paint chips?

[Pardalis]

I got a theory, 'they' painted over the thermite in order to conceal it.

There. :D

[Julio]

EDS is qualitative not quantitative because it does not give you compounds and their % in the sample unless you use the EDS software package to produce this - nowhere do they state this is done, all they do is estimate peak heights, which gives you an inclination, but it's not conclusive.

Hi, I have some experience with EDS. You can do some quantitative analisys to check about oxigen containing compounds, but you need reference samples to do that. There's also software to do some standarless quatification, but in my experience, it is not really accurate, and only works to know about elemental abundance in the sample, not for knowing how they are binded.

I have made spectra of very simple GaAs, so quantification should yield 50% in atomic for both. Real life tells me I have to ignore Carbon and Oxigen peaks, because if not, they would have a few %at., which would be impossible.

[bill smith]

I don't know, he avoided answering the question.





I responded, explaining that he had misunderstood my question, but have yet to receive another response.

I think you will find that they extracted the red/grey chips with a magnet. This may have distinguished them from the probably non-magnetic paint chips. Between that and the fact that the paint dissolved in a chemical soluton while the r/g chips did not would probably be enough to establish what was what in the dust.

[Senenmut]

Could you link to that please. I know I sound lazy but I can't find that particular part but I'm interested. Thanks.

It would also help if people put the page number and paragraph when quoting from the Jones paper


ive been looking at the same thing. on page 435, they are talking about weld metal, not paint. the images of the primer are interesting. and on page 438, it shows the compostion of the primer paint. maybe all the carbon in jones sample is coming from linsead oil?
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-3C%20Appxs.pdf

[alienentity]

Jones paper essentially demonstrates that the red chip were NOT paint. can debunkers through experimentation prove this finding false?

Not true. So far he has only shown results against an unknown paint sample. He hasn't eliminated the original paints used in WTC towers.

if the red chips are not paint then the only substance in the REAL WORLD that they resemble is nano thermite due to there energy release upon ignition.

Really? Since no one has yet engineered (in a lab or outside one) liquid, paintable nanothermite, how would you know what it would actually look like?



Jones does not allege it exists, it exists!
Prove it.The burden of proof is yours.

How would YOU suggest Jones (anti-govt scientist) obtains samples of nanothermite?
Oh, I see. So Jones' paper is all the proof needed to continue harassing people with these crackpot theories, accusing probably innocent people of mass murder. This is worse than I thought - it really is a witch hunt for the 21st century.


fireproofing is not an immovable substance. you are aware that some weeks prior to the demolition of the WTC towers there was a fireproofing upgrade? this would presumably involve the removal of the old fireproofing before the new fireproofing could be applied.

Prove it. Otherwise you're just handwaving and prevaricating. If you're going to make accusations of mass murder you'd better have real, irrefutable evidence. So far the 9/11 conspiracy cult looks like any other malicious mob. The events of 9/11 are now being exploited to raise fear, superstition and pseudo-science above reason and justice. Nice work.

[Senenmut]

would the end all tell all be aluminum oxide? when they did the calorimeter test and when the sample reacted at 430C, should they have somehow tested for aluminum oxide? i think alot of this debate revolves around elemental aluminum.

[alienentity]

Folks, let's not forget for a single moment that we're not debating some abstract nuances here. The 'truth' movement is specifically and categorically attempting to build a case that your own government and many others DELIBERATELY and SYSTEMATICALLY planned and executed mass murder on 9/11.

This is a very, very serious charge, about as serious as it gets.

To a paranoid cult leader like Steven Jones and his obedient followers, the truth was already known many years ago. The conclusions were firm before any real burden of proof was reached. This new 'proof' is simply a justification for their belief system, no matter how flimsy the science actually is.

It needs to be fought with no hesitation or remorse. You know what happens when lies are elevated above the truth.

[alienentity]

FYI, I chose to hang in the youtube arena because I know that's where a lot of these myths are spread.

I keep my identity private for several reasons. As of yesterday, and this latest onslaught of pseudo-scientific malice, youtubers are speculating about the type of executions which should be meted out to, not just the alleged perps of the conspiracy, but the defenders of the 'official' 9/11 story.

Since many weak-minded individuals have now been tricked into thinking that there is real 'proof' that thermite was used to bring the towers down, they need only contemplate retribution. People like yourselves are very easy targets for such blind hatred.

You see how this goes, I think.

[roundhead]

Folks, let's not forget for a single moment that we're not debating some abstract nuances here. The 'truth' movement is specifically and categorically attempting to build a case that your own government and many others DELIBERATELY and SYSTEMATICALLY planned and executed mass murder on 9/11.

This is a very, very serious charge, about as serious as it gets.

To a paranoid cult leader like Steven Jones and his obedient followers, the truth was already known many years ago. The conclusions were firm before any real burden of proof was reached. This new 'proof' is simply a justification for their belief system, no matter how flimsy the science actually is.

It needs to be fought with no hesitation or remorse. You know what happens when lies are elevated above the truth.


What is so wierd to think our Govt would lie to us. They have before, as have many other Govts, and will continue to. The truth is way more important than defending a known liar.
And i am a vet saying this with zero remorse.

You know they lied about air quality at GZ, know they lied about Iraq, which has gotten thousands killed for absolutely nothing, why doubt they dont do it quite often.

[T.A.M.]

Well here are paraphrased summaries of the papers conclusions...

---------
1. The Red Layer is composed of Aluminum, Iron, Oxygen, Silicon, and Carbon, and in some cases small amounts of potassium, sulfur, lead, barium, and copper

2. In the Red Layer, the presence of Al, Fe, O, Si, and C, occurs in particles at the scale of tens to hundreds of nanometers, with intimate mixing.

3. The Red Layer, on treatment with MEK, produced a segregation of components, such that the elemental aluminum concentrated, and was identified in the pre-ignition material.

4. Within the Red Layer, Iron Oxide particles are 100nm grains, and this qualifies the material as nano-thermite or super-thermite.

5. Pre-ignition, Iron Oxide was found in all 4 samples, and Elemental iron was not.

6. Because the Red Layer had elemental aluminum and iron oxide in it, they conclude that the layer contains the ingredients of thermite.

7. The Red Layer ignites and reacts vigorously at 430C, with a narrow exotherm, both of which match "closely" to a "known" sample of "superthermite". The tests prove that the material is not standard "thermite" which ignites/reacts at 900C or more.

8. Through ignition testing up to 700C, the presence or iron rich spherules was noted, containing elemental iron (based on the changed ratio between the iron and oxygen pre and post ignition). For the sphere to have been formed, an extremely high temp chemical reaction must have occured, to make the iron molten. The chem reaction proposed is a reduction-oxidation reaction...a thermite reaction.

9. The spheroids are without the pre-ignition amounts of both Carbon and Aluminum, which "strikingly" matches spheroids produced after known thermite reactions.

10. The Carbon content, along with the amount of energy release, indicates that it would not be classic thermite, but perhaps superthermite.

------------

Now, given the above,

(A) could our resident experts or people who understand all this stuff, please address the above, as best they can, indicating where Jones is right, wrong, and where it is really irrelevant.

(B) Which of the above could occur from any form of paint chip.

(C) Is it possible that the chips are not thermite, not simply paint, but a melded version of paint and other chemicals?

Thanks to those who answer

TAM:)

[Senenmut]

this is from nist, i dont think u guys have posted this yet:

composition of primer paint

pigment:
iron oxide 35.9%
zinc yellow 20.3%
tnemec pigment 33.7%
(proprietary compostion)
diatomaceous silica 10.1%

vehicle:
soya alkyd resin solids 16.5%
hard resin 2.8%
raw linseed oil 35.1 %
bodied linseed oil 6.4%
suspension agents 2.2%
driers and anti skin 4.8%
thinners 32.3%

source sramek 1967
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-3C%20Appxs.pdf

page 438

[bill smith]

Folks, let's not forget for a single moment that we're not debating some abstract nuances here. The 'truth' movement is specifically and categorically attempting to build a case that your own government and many others DELIBERATELY and SYSTEMATICALLY planned and executed mass murder on 9/11.

This is a very, very serious charge, about as serious as it gets.

To a paranoid cult leader like Steven Jones and his obedient followers, the truth was already known many years ago. The conclusions were firm before any real burden of proof was reached. This new 'proof' is simply a justification for their belief system, no matter how flimsy the science actually is.

It needs to be fought with no hesitation or remorse. You know what happens when lies are elevated above the truth.

It may have been a rogue element within the government at best. At worst it came all the way down from the top. I personally opt for this last. So yes....in a nutshell those are the aaccusations.

[Sunstealer]

ive been looking at the same thing. on page 435, they are talking about weld metal, not paint. the images of the primer are interesting. and on page 438, it shows the compostion of the primer paint. maybe all the carbon in jones sample is coming from linsead oil?
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-3C%20Appxs.pdfI've had a look at the relevant sections - thanks to all who posted the links.

Page 433 - D.2.1 Condition of Paint. - Paragraph 2.

That's an important paragraph and deserves attention and gives the corresponding Table D-1 Composition of primer paint, Page 438.

But what really grabbed my attention and I'd wish I'd seen this before is is the photo on Page 442, Fig D-4, that was alluded to by a poster above.

That is striking and cannot be ignored. Compare Fig D-4 with Jones' paper Fig 2 a-d)

[JamesB]

What is so wierd to think our Govt would lie to us. They have before, as have many other Govts, and will continue to. The truth is way more important than defending a known liar.
And i am a vet saying this with zero remorse.

You know they lied about air quality at GZ, know they lied about Iraq, which has gotten thousands killed for absolutely nothing, why doubt they dont do it quite often.

Some fruits are oranges.
An apple is a fruit.
Therefore an apple is an orange.

[Pardalis]

You know they lied about air quality at GZ, know they lied about Iraq[..]

These "they" are not the same people.

[T.A.M.]

tnemec pigment 33.7%

didn't Sunstealer mention something about tnemec.

TAM:)

[ElMondoHummus]

Folks, let's not forget for a single moment that we're not debating some abstract nuances here. The 'truth' movement is specifically and categorically attempting to build a case that your own government and many others DELIBERATELY and SYSTEMATICALLY planned and executed mass murder on 9/11.

This is a very, very serious charge, about as serious as it gets.

To a paranoid cult leader like Steven Jones and his obedient followers, the truth was already known many years ago. The conclusions were firm before any real burden of proof was reached. This new 'proof' is simply a justification for their belief system, no matter how flimsy the science actually is.

It needs to be fought with no hesitation or remorse. You know what happens when lies are elevated above the truth.

I agree with you in direction, but it's possible to get too strident about things. Let's remember that professionals in the field who do see these lunatic proposals (if you need an example, think about the ones interviewed (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=9) for the Popular Mechanics work (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html)) pretty much dismiss them out of hand. Even field experts who the conspiracy peddlers try to push as believers - take James Quintierre or Dr. Astaneh-Asl as examples here - have directly addressed the notion of conspiratorial proposals (they're on record as dismissing them).

The fact of the matter is that the 9/11 "Truth" (scare quotes) movement has about as much traction as a greased dolphin on a sheet of ice. Advocates of the fantasies have to either resort to evangelization on obscure and off-topic forums (again, I point to the "Surfer" forum I linked earlier) or interviews with marginal media sources. With just a minimum of thought and research, a commonly educated person can see through the BS. It may take some work, and maybe a reference to Gravy's site, or Mike W's, or here, but they can see though it. I share with you the thought that the charge is serious, but the manner it's presented in and of itself keeps it from being taken seriously (I mean, c'mon, yelling at random public figures (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk7-XfE7KcU) is hardly a productive way to forward a view). Simple analysis of the claims convinces the rest. It's a bare minimum who actually ascribe to these theses, and most of those people waste their time here trying to convince us, rather than try to actually accomplish anything.

It's a dead movement. Ask yourself when you have ever in person seen a truther rally, or an ad for a truther presentation. I've seen exactly two, one merely being a bumper sticker, the other being a talk, and I live in a university town. I think even the hangers-on at Ground Zero have severely reduced in number (someone in NY correct me if I'm wrong). You're right, but you don't have to generate that much energy for that small a "movement". It's 99.999% an internet phenomenon, little more.

[BCR]

What is so wierd to think our Govt would lie to us. They have before, as have many other Govts, and will continue to. The truth is way more important than defending a known liar.
And i am a vet saying this with zero remorse.

You know they lied about air quality at GZ, know they lied about Iraq, which has gotten thousands killed for absolutely nothing, why doubt they dont do it quite often.

Please don't confuse apples and oranges. I could write a book (and may yet) regarding the lies I have run into in regards to 9/11. Most of it is just a matter of an agency covering its a** or incompetence. But there is a huge difference between the government lying to cover up something and its active invlovement in the murder of American citizens. The later I have found absolutely no evidence of.

[T.A.M.]

I've had a look at the relevant sections - thanks to all who posted the links.

Page 433 - D.2.1 Condition of Paint. - Paragraph 2.

That's an important paragraph and deserves attention and gives the corresponding Table D-1 Composition of primer paint, Page 438.

But what really grabbed my attention and I'd wish I'd seen this before is is the photo on Page 442, Fig D-4, that was alluded to by a poster above.

That is striking and cannot be ignored. Compare Fig D-4 with Jones' paper Fig 2 a-d)

2c especially. The similarity, to quote Jones himself, is "Striking".

TAM;)

[alienentity]

What is so wierd to think our Govt would lie to us. They have before, as have many other Govts, and will continue to. The truth is way more important than defending a known liar.
And i am a vet saying this with zero remorse.

You know they lied about air quality at GZ, know they lied about Iraq, which has gotten thousands killed for absolutely nothing, why doubt they dont do it quite often.


The government is not a monolith. At GZ you're referring to the EPA, and you actually know what happened because of the freedoms that you have. You're free to criticize them for that.

With Iraq, While the rest of the world virtually begged you guys not to invade, Americans chose hysteria and retribution. AMericans not only supported Bush (high approval ratings) at the time, but they seemed uninterested that the evidence was very sketchy. They bought into it when it suited. Where was your skepticism back in the fall of 2001 or early 2002?

I was at anti-war rallies. We saw this coming.

Recently Senator Hilary Clinton signed on to a strong anti-Iran stance, including a bill to declare Iran's military a terrorist organization. Were you outraged by such open warmongering? I was.
Hilary is now Sec State. What do you expect?

Yes, there is a pattern here: hysterical warmongering and a rush to start shooting, then ask questions later. That seems to be America's MO lately. It needs to stop.

[16.5]

What is so wierd to think our Govt would lie to us. They have before, as have many other Govts, and will continue to. The truth is way more important than defending a known liar.
And i am a vet saying this with zero remorse.

You know they lied about air quality at GZ, know they lied about Iraq, which has gotten thousands killed for absolutely nothing, why doubt they dont do it quite often.

Huh, aren't you from Canada? Or am i thinking of some other PFFT/CIT shill?

Nothing wrong with being from Cananda, of course.

[moorea34]

But what really grabbed my attention and I'd wish I'd seen this before is is the photo on Page 442, Fig D-4, that was alluded to by a poster above.

That is striking and cannot be ignored. Compare Fig D-4 with Jones' paper Fig 2 a-d)

It was me :D:D:D:D:D:D

[alienentity]

ElMondoHummus - perhaps you're right. But I'm going to continue producing youtube videos to counter the anti-knowledge being peddled until further notice.

As I mentioned in my previous post, your elected leaders are still looking for the next war to embark upon. Pres. Obama is determined to escalate in Afghanistan, in spite of the warning signs seen there and in Pakistan.

Canada is about to get out of A'stan for good reasons (we don't have the money, for one).

I see a pattern of violent irrationality in America which shows little sign of abating. One can only hope.

[roundhead]

Please don't confuse apples and oranges. I could write a book (and may yet) regarding the lies I have run into in regards to 9/11. Most of it is just a matter of an agency covering its a** or incompetence. But there is a huge difference between the government lying to cover up something and its active invlovement in the murder of American citizens. The later I have found absolutely no evidence of.

USS Liberty, and out and out lie to cover up for another Govt, and allow US servicemen to die simply for serving our country.

That they were hung out to dry isnt debatable.

[Julio]

2. In the Red Layer, the presence of Al, Fe, O, Si, and C, occurs in particles at the scale of tens to hundreds of nanometers, with intimate mixing.

Maybe I missed it, but I think I didn't read any explanation about the silicon. If the layer is nano-thermite... what is silicon doing there? It is not part of the reaction


7. The Red Layer ignites and reacts vigorously at 430C, with a narrow exotherm, both of which match "closely" to a "known" sample of "superthermite". The tests prove that the material is not standard "thermite" which ignites/reacts at 900C or more.

8. Through ignition testing up to 700C, the presence or iron rich spherules was noted, containing elemental iron (based on the changed ratio between the iron and oxygen pre and post ignition). For the sphere to have been formed, an extremely high temp chemical reaction must have occured, to make the iron molten. The chem reaction proposed is a reduction-oxidation reaction...a thermite reaction.


The word "ignited" is very, very misleading. If I understodd it right, in DSC they just measure how much heat it is absorbed or released from the sample when changing its temperature. There's some release of heat when the sample reaches 400ºC. That's different than saying "ignition"

NIST did the same (NCSTAR 1-3C, appendix D), and guess what, they also had some release of heat at 400ºC. They say it's due to the release fo heat in a phase change.



10. The Carbon content, along with the amount of energy release, indicates that it would not be classic thermite, but perhaps superthermite.

Carbon is probably due to contamination. Jones said they didn't clean the samples.

[boloboffin]

I've had a look at the relevant sections - thanks to all who posted the links.

Page 433 - D.2.1 Condition of Paint. - Paragraph 2.

That's an important paragraph and deserves attention and gives the corresponding Table D-1 Composition of primer paint, Page 438.

But what really grabbed my attention and I'd wish I'd seen this before is is the photo on Page 442, Fig D-4, that was alluded to by a poster above.

That is striking and cannot be ignored. Compare Fig D-4 with Jones' paper Fig 2 a-d)

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g171/boloboffin2/911/Separated-At-Birth.jpg

[bill smith]

Did everyone see this video about Jones's latest revelation ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BE_tuWKsBko

[BCR]

I see a pattern of violent irrationality in America which shows little sign of abating. One can only hope.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2909849db9e190121b.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=15954)

Yep, that violent irrationality in America is widespread. I took my niece to the range last night to fire off a 9mm automatic. She said it was "the best day of her life". We rednecks are the problem me thinks. Nothing like the aroma of gunpowder in the evening to make the day complete.

[T.A.M.]

ElMondoHummus - perhaps you're right. But I'm going to continue producing youtube videos to counter the anti-knowledge being peddled until further notice.

As I mentioned in my previous post, your elected leaders are still looking for the next war to embark upon. Pres. Obama is determined to escalate in Afghanistan, in spite of the warning signs seen there and in Pakistan.

Canada is about to get out of A'stan for good reasons (we don't have the money, for one).

I see a pattern of violent irrationality in America which shows little sign of abating. One can only hope.

This discussion is probably best placed in the dreaded "politics" forum.

TAM:)

[Pardalis]

Did everyone see this video about Jones's latest revelation ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BE_tuWKsBko

Got nothing better to do than to spam the same video?

you posted that already here.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4592891#post4592891

[Sunstealer]

didn't Sunstealer mention something about tnemec.

TAM:)And the Tnemec connection was pointed out to me by another JREF member earlier in the thread - I think he was a new one as well.

[bill smith]

Got nothing better to do than to spam the same video?

you posted that already here.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4592891#post4592891

Just can't get enough of this good stuff,lol

[Pardalis]

Just can't get enough of this good stuff,lol

Nevermind 17 pages of thread discussing this non-issue with facts and data, you just like to go back to your Youtube Bible for reassurance?

[boloboffin]

Just can't get enough of this good stuff,lol

It is very nice of you to keep pointing out the path to ignorance that Jones has laid for us.

[BCR]

USS Liberty, and out and out lie to cover up for another Govt, and allow US servicemen to die simply for serving our country.

That they were hung out to dry isnt debatable.

But the government DID NOT plan or execute the attack on the Liberty, so again, don't mix apples with oranges.

[ozeco41]

Hey....hat might work. Take a sample of the chips under controlled circumstances and analyse them with some monitors to keep everybody honest. Then synthesise a larger batch with the same exact properties and melt a large steel column on TV. That would do it for sure. Very entertaining TV too. The whole Nation could follow it closely.

If somebody took the material Jones analysed, painted it on a steel column made from 1" plate, set fire to it, and waited for the column to melt, I think the resulting TV program might only be of interest to 9/11 conspiracy theory debunkers. For anyone else, it would be about as interesting as watching paint burn dry.

Dave

..Well I agree that Bill Smith is way off target of what happened so I agree with the thrust of your position Dave Rogers.

HOWEVER I don't think the results would be of any interest to SERIOUS debunkers???

Why? Because there is no sustainable case for any main columns being cut by thermxte so why even give the slightest bit of credibility to that aspect of the "truther" nonsense and charlatans like Jones.

Structural analysis of the "collapse that actually happened" at WTC 1 & 2 did not involve cutting of columns by thermxte so there is no benefit in testing it and giving pseudo credibility to the conspiracy clowns.

The only possible place where thermate could have been used in the "collapse that actually happened" was on the lower chords of the floor joists in the impact zone. From a structural perspective it could make sense as part of a demolition scenario however there are obvious non-structural reasons why that did not happen. (Unless you allow the hypothesis of fire suited suicide workers fitting it in the minutes after the plane crash. ;) )

So we return to the point I have now made several times on this forum.

The only logically possible reason to discus thermite/thermate in connection with WTC 1 or 2 is for interest ONLY. All the evidence supports that it was neither used nor needed to cause or assist the "collapse that actually happened".

Those who suggest it could or was involved are discussing some other possible collapse. Which by definition is not the "COLLAPSE WHICH ACTUALLY HAPPENED".

A hypothetical fantasy of their imagination.

And hypothetical fantasies do not cause demolition OR collapses.

So why give the "truthers" credibity by falling for their trap and debating their impossible hypothesis????

If the Bill Smiths agree that they are not proposing use of thermxte in demolition then by all means discuss the "evidence" for interest.

But while ever "they" continue to explicitly OR by implication pursue thermxte as if it could be involved in demolition why debate it - the overwhelming weight of other considerations shows that the assumption of thermxte assited demolition is utter nonsense.

Certainly the Bill Smith's could not give a coherent total explanation of how thermxte could be used to produce or assist the "collapse that actually happened". And remember that the burden of proof lies with them to show how, not with the opponents to prove the "global negative" of "could not".


PS1. Apologies to Bill Smith for singling him out - I don't know who is who on this forum yet and he was most recent so I picked his posts as the example.

PS2. I specifically stated WTC 1 & 2 because the bold assertions of no thermxte in the "collapse that happened" is easiest to support/demonstrate on those two - it is more complicated for WTC 7.

[bill smith]

But the government DID NOT plan or execute the attack on the Liberty, so again, don't mix apples with oranges.

Was it McNamara or Johnston who said 'recall the wings'....'I want that ship on the bottom' ?

[Galileo]

Dr. Stevens Jones is the Next Galileo

Traces of explosives in 9/11 dust, scientists say

By Elaine Jarvik

April 6, 2009

Deseret News

Tiny red and gray chips found in the dust from the collapse of the World Trade Center contain highly explosive materials -- proof, according to a former BYU professor, that 9/11 is still a sinister mystery.

Physicist Steven E. Jones, who retired from Brigham Young University in 2006 after the school recoiled from the controversy surrounding his 9/11 theories, is one of nine authors on a paper published last week in the online, peer-reviewed Open Chemical Physics Journal. Also listed as authors are BYU physics professor Jeffrey Farrer and a professor of nanochemistry at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark.

For several years, Jones has theorized that pre-positioned explosives, not fires from jet fuel, caused the rapid, symmetrical collapse of the two World Trade Center buildings, plus the collapse of a third building, WTC-7.

The newest research, according to the journal authors, shows that dust from the collapsing towers contained a "nano-thermite" material that is highly explosive. Although the article draws no conclusions about the source and purpose of the explosives, Jones has previously supported a theory that the collapse of the WTC towers was part of a government conspiracy to ignore warnings about the 9/11 terrorists so that the attack would propel America to wage war against Afghanistan and Iraq.

....

He likens himself to Galileo and Newton, who stood by their consciences. "I would like to think I could stand up for the truth," he says.

....

READ THE REST - GALILEO WAS RIGHT ALL ALONG!

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/0,5143,705295677,00.html

[BCR]

Was it McNamara or Johnston who said 'recall the wings'....'I want that ship on the bottom' ?

This is starting to sound like a derail effort. There is evidence FDR knew Pearl Harbor was coming, LBJ "faked" the Gulf of Tonkin, but again, apples and oranges. Churchill also allowed an attack on civilans to go ahead without warning in order to keep the Enigma secret. But again, apples and oranges and I don't see any evidence, including Dr. Jones little "pay to play" paper that indicates the government was involved in the WTC attack in any way what-so-ever.

[Pardalis]

Physicist Steven E. Jones, who retired from Brigham Young University in 2006

He didn't retire, he was asked to leave.

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

Although the article draws no conclusions about the source and purpose of the explosives, Jones has previously supported a theory that the collapse of the WTC towers was part of a government conspiracyAgain, this should raise some red flags about his objectivity, the same goes for his co-authors, who also are 9/11 truth activists.

[bill smith]

Dr. Stevens Jones in the Next Galileo

Traces of explosives in 9/11 dust, scientists say

By Elaine Jarvik

April 6, 2009

Deseret News

Tiny red and gray chips found in the dust from the collapse of the World Trade Center contain highly explosive materials -- proof, according to a former BYU professor, that 9/11 is still a sinister mystery.

Physicist Steven E. Jones, who retired from Brigham Young University in 2006 after the school recoiled from the controversy surrounding his 9/11 theories, is one of nine authors on a paper published last week in the online, peer-reviewed Open Chemical Physics Journal. Also listed as authors are BYU physics professor Jeffrey Farrer and a professor of nanochemistry at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark.

For several years, Jones has theorized that pre-positioned explosives, not fires from jet fuel, caused the rapid, symmetrical collapse of the two World Trade Center buildings, plus the collapse of a third building, WTC-7.

The newest research, according to the journal authors, shows that dust from the collapsing towers contained a "nano-thermite" material that is highly explosive. Although the article draws no conclusions about the source and purpose of the explosives, Jones has previously supported a theory that the collapse of the WTC towers was part of a government conspiracy to ignore warnings about the 9/11 terrorists so that the attack would propel America to wage war against Afghanistan and Iraq.

....

He likens himself to Galileo and Newton, who stood by their consciences. "I would like to think I could stand up for the truth," he says.

....

READ THE REST - GALILEO WAS RIGHT ALL ALONG!

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/0,5143,705295677,00.html


Fantastic

[bill smith]

This is starting to sound like a derail effort. There is evidence FDR knew Pearl Harbor was coming, LBJ "faked" the Gulf of Tonkin, but again, apples and oranges. Churchill also allowed an attack on civilans to go ahead without warning in order to keep the Enigma secret. But again, apples and oranges and I don't see any evidence, including Dr. Jones little "pay to play" paper that indicates the government was involved in the WTC attack in any way what-so-ever.

Well unlke many of your fellow debunkers you accept that it would not be that surprising if 9/11 WAS an inside job.

[Pardalis]

Fantastic

Fantastic isn't it? It's as though nothing has been said the past 17 pages. We're back at the start.


:rolleyes:

[bill smith]

Fantastic isn't it? It's as though nothing has been said the past 17 pages. We're back at the start.


:rolleyes:

I dd not find the paint argument iin any way compelling. I am completely unmoved.

[thewholesoul]

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g171/boloboffin2/911/Separated-At-Birth.jpg

great post Boloboffin.

honestly i am fast becoming browned off defending Jones's paper. i cant believe he never even tested the actual paint that was used on the WTC core columns (indeed that was the only thing he was probably testing?).

he should have isolated a WTC paint sample and then run it through the same trials as the red chips.

if it turns out to be paint that is surely going to damage the truth movement.

peace

[Sunstealer]

Well here are paraphrased summaries of the papers conclusions...I've crossed some parts out because the language is either odd [and added my own] or it's unsubstantiated.

---------
1. The Red Layer is composed [contains] of Aluminum, Iron, Oxygen, Silicon, and Carbon, and in some cases small amounts of potassium, sulfur, lead, barium, and copperCorrect. Occurs in paint chip.

2. In the Red Layer, the presence of Al, Fe, O, Si, and C, occurs in particles at the scale of tens to hundreds of nanometers, with intimate mixing.Correct. "intimate mixing" is a misnomer - no metallurgist would ever describe anything as "intimate mixing". Occurs in paint chip.


3. The Red Layer, on treatment with MEK, produced a segregation of componentsmaterial, such that the elemental aluminum concentrated, and was identified in the pre-ignition material.[in the sample prior to the DSC test]Ok, but the elemental Aluminium concentrated looks dubious, their method vibrates the sample and I there is no optical or SEM photo detailing where the exact analysis was performed - I've still got to look into that further because there is no indication of the point at which they performed EDS analysis. "Pre-ignition material" is another misnomer. No idea about MEK dissolving paint but you'd have to get a range of paints to compare. Possibly occurs in a paint chip.

4. Within the Red Layer, Iron Oxide particles are 100nm grains, and this qualifies the material as nano-thermite or super-thermite.Correct. But that does not qualify the material as "nano-thermite". Plenty of ordinary materials contain iron oxide powders with particle sizes of this order of magnitude. Pigments and Paint certainly do. Occurs in paint chip.

5. Pre-ignitionIron Oxide was found in all 4 samples[prior to the DSC test], and Elemental iron was not.Very hard to quantify elemental with EDS bearing in mind the sample, but essentially correct. Nothing odd about this. Occurs in paint chip.

6. Because the Red Layer had elemental aluminum and iron oxide in it, they conclude that the layer contains the ingredients of thermite.I don't see any proof of elemental Aluminium in SEM photos and corresponding EDS. Their separation method is odd and they don't show any of the elemental Aluminium even though they do and EDS. iron oxide in paint - yes. Elemental Aluminium - possible and would depend on the paint.

7. The Red Layer ignites and reacts vigorously at 430C, with a narrow exotherm, both of which match "closely" to a "known" sample of "superthermite". The tests prove that the material is not standard "thermite" which ignites/reacts at 900C or more.What about the "gray layer"? Proves it's not thermite - Correct. Their additional data doesn't confirm.

8. Through ignition testing up to 700C, the presence or iron rich spherules was noted, containing elemental iron (based on the changed ratio between the iron and oxygen pre and post ignition). For the sphere to have been formed, an extremely high temp chemical reaction must have occured, to make the iron molten. The chem reaction proposed is a reduction-oxidation reaction...a thermite reaction.Don't know - only skim-read that part of the paper that contains data on the post DSC test analysis. Takes time to read and understand data. That's a subtle hint for some people btw.


9. The spheroids are without the pre-ignition amounts of both Carbon and Aluminum, which "strikingly" matches spheroids produced after known thermite reactions.Don't know - haven't read the part of the paper that contains data on the post DSC test analysis. Takes time to read and understand data. That's a subtle hint for some people btw.


10. The Carbon content, along with the amount of energy release, indicates that it would not be classic thermite, but perhaps superthermite.[/B]Presence of Carbon in the "red layer" indicates the presence of Carbon. :D There is no way to determine how much Carbon is present nor what the compound it's present in is. Thermite nano or not is Aluminium and Iron Oxide powder. That's it. The paper clearly states.

It 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. Therefore Carbon is more likely to be an indicator of some form of (organic) binder. Binders are found in paint. Occurs in paint chip.

------------

Now, given the above,

(A) could our resident experts or people who understand all this stuff, please address the above, as best they can, indicating where Jones is right, wrong, and where it is really irrelevant.

(B) Which of the above could occur from any form of paint chip.Yes, sure. Added comments above under each question.

(C) Is it possible that the chips are not thermite, not simply paint, but a melded version of paint and other chemicals?It's possible that the paint has absorbed or reacted with other chemicals, but usually paints are made to not do this, because it degrades them. It might occur at higher than their specified operational temperatures.

[thewholesoul]

And the Tnemec connection was pointed out to me by another JREF member earlier in the thread - I think he was a new one as well.

hey sunstealer,

below is Jones's response to your position.

"In the section of MEK results in the paper, we state:" Focusing the electron beam on a region rich in silicon, located in Fig. (15e), we find silicon and oxygen and very little else (Fig. 16). Evidently the solvent has disrupted the matrix holding the various particles, allowing some migra-tion and separation of the components. This is a significant result for it means that the aluminum and silicon are not bound chemically."In kaolin and other substances which incorporate Al and Si, the Al and Si are bound chemically -- that is, they will NOT separate under the action of a solvent such as MEK. That is why these MEK tests are so significant! WE thought of the possibility of an alumino-silicate early on of course, but then we did the MEK tests and were observed a separation of Al from other elements with this solvent - and this test RULES OUT strictly the notion that the aluminum which migrated is bound in an aluminosilicate.

From the paper: " Thus, while some of the aluminum may be oxidized, there is insufficient oxygen present to account for all of the aluminum; some of the aluminum must therefore exist in elemental form in the red material. This is an important result." This result also rules out the possibility that the aluminum is present as kaolin. Again, this is why we did the experiment -- to determine whether elemental (not chemically bound) aluminum was present, and it was.

whats your counter? (and if you already posted one i apologise for reguratating old arguments)

a final point i would like to add is whether nano sized particles were being used in primer paint back in 1971 when the towers were constructed?

peace

[thewholesoul]

Well, not thermite, for a start. Most fuels that require external oxygen sources, however, have far greater energy densities by mass. Look up "energy density" on Wikipedia; TNT contains about 4.6MJ/kg, thermite 4.0MJ/kg. Diesel fuel has about ten times that, as does polystyrene. TNT doesn't really contain that much energy, it just releases it very quickly. Higher energy density is evidence against thermite.

ETA: Hadn't been following the thread, so I didn't realise just how many times this question had been answered. TheWholeSoul, someone should point this out to you: what you're asking is a stupid question, and it's been pointed out to you repeatedly that it's a stupid question. If you ask it a dozen more times, it won't magically turn into an intelligent question.

Dave

no need to be rude Dave. its a valid question. the red chips release a lot of energy for their mass. they also produce iron spehericles. can the primer paint on the WTC also do that? if so then the game is up for Jones.

higher energy density may be against thermite but not against super thermite.

peace and please try to remain polite in future exchanges.

[Sunstealer]

He's never heard of dissolution in Kaolin then and the fact that the rate of dissolution is it's affected by stirring. Alumina is only weakly bonded to Silica in Kaolins. Again he uses only a spot beam on his separated aluminium particles but doesn't give a SEM photo as to where they are.

I'm not going to conduct an argument via proxy with him over the internet. It is going to take a few weeks to look into the claims - it's hard work and takes hours, not a casual glance at the pretty pictures and the conclusions. He is more than welcome to join JREF and post here.

There is nothing special about the word nano. It is beginning to annoy me just like the buzzword "titanium" is used in Golf Clubs and shaving razors. Oxide pigments have been used for thousands of years by human beings (cave paintings), their industrial processing is going to give greater consistency of product. Note how MIO has been used for 100 years including on the Eiffel Tower. That product is made of nano sized particles and is pre-1971. I see no reason why similar sized particles wouldn't be used in paints or primers.

Edited to add. The paper is quite large with lots and lots of data across a number of areas. It would take some one who knows what they are on about roughly 2 hours to read and understand the paper in it's entirety let alone looking specifically at the data and claims. It also has some odd terminology which is hard to decipher as to the exact meaning. It would have been easier if it was broken down into the SEM analysis and a consequent discussion and then a DSC analysis and consequent discussion

[alienentity]

Sorry for the previous OT.

Regarding the low ignition temp, is there any evidence that real therm*te can ignite at such temps?
If not, wouldn't it immediately falsify this material as therm*te, as suggested?

Is the fat lady singing yet?

[BCR]

Well unlke many of your fellow debunkers you accept that it would not be that surprising if 9/11 WAS an inside job.

First, I am not a debunker, I am a truther. Second, I would be very shocked to learn that since there is no evidence for it.

[thewholesoul]

(apologise in advance for brief misdirection on thread topic)

There is no way that either version of thermxte was the cause of the molten aluminium (aka "Steel") which cascaded from a single point source at 80 or so storeys height.

it is a fact that thermite reactions produce molten iron.

Now NIST claimed that the molten flow was "molten aluminium mixed with organics"

this claim has been debunked - that is proven empirically to be false in a labratory.

unless that is you can "produce a bright orange glow, as seen flowing from the south tower, from molten aluminium mixed with organics in daylight using temperatures no greater than expected from a hydrocarbon jet fuel fire.”

as for the citation for the fireproofing upgrade
http://www.911blogger.com/node/13272

peace

[alienentity]

(apologise in advance for brief misdirection on thread topic)



it is a fact that thermite reactions produce molten iron.

Now NIST claimed that the molten flow was "molten aluminium mixed with organics"

this claim has been debunked - that is proven empirically to be false in a labratory.



Here's your glowing Aluminum:



http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_3047049dbb48f59539.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=15955)

Since the color of the molten metal in the tower indicated something around 1000 C, this automatically eliminates steel anyway. Steel isn't molten at that temp.

What else do you suggest it was, except something like molten Al?

[bill smith]

First, I am not a debunker, I am a truther. Second, I would be very shocked to learn that since there is no evidence for it.

Your philosophy places you outside the ranks of the tradtional 9/11 Truther who unfailingly believes that 9/11 WAS an inside job. You may however be a Truther of sorts by your own definition.

[Senenmut]

thewholesoul states-
"In kaolin and other substances which incorporate Al and Si, the Al and Si are bound chemically -- that is, they will NOT separate under the action of a solvent such as MEK. That is why these MEK tests are so significant! WE thought of the possibility of an alumino-silicate early on of course, but then we did the MEK tests and were observed a separation of Al from other elements with this solvent - and this test RULES OUT strictly the notion that the aluminum which migrated is bound in an aluminosilicate."

that is exactly what i was wondering pages back!! elemental aluminum. why do u think jones didnt check for aluminum oxide when the reaction occured...

[16.5]

hey sunstealer,

below is Jones's response to your position.



whats your counter? (and if you already posted one i apologise for reguratating old arguments)

a final point i would like to add is whether nano sized particles were being used in primer paint back in 1971 when the towers were constructed?

peace

Say, why don't you get the answer about why he did not disclose the results of the two earlier tests in his article?

By the way, why doesn't he join here?

Take those back to him, will ya?

KTHXBYE

[alienentity]

thewholesoul - I checked the link you gave, thanks.

Have you followed all the links? I can't find any meaningful answers, just more questions about it. It appears to be yet another 'what if?' that deadends immediately. It's not proof of anything that I can see.

I haven't seen this much speculation since the housing bubble. :)

[bill smith]

Here's your glowing Aluminum:



http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_3047049dbb48f59539.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=15955)

Since the color of the molten metal in the tower indicated something around 1000 C, this automatically eliminates steel anyway. Steel isn't molten at that temp.

What else do you suggest it was, except something like molten Al?
Steel with a good dose of thermite or thermite with added sulphur (thermate) may well be molten at 1.000 degrees C. Does metal that is silver when molten glow orange ?

[alienentity]

I take it the 9/11 truth movement will reserve judgment on these findings until they can be independently verified. NOT!

[Galileo]

But the government DID NOT plan or execute the attack on the Liberty, so again, don't mix apples with oranges.

LBJ worked with Israel on the USS Liberty. He sent the Liberty to a specific location, and then recalled the help.

You are mixing red herrings with unicorns.

[Galileo]

I take it the 9/11 truth movement will reserve judgment on these findings until they can be independently verified. NOT!

Dr. Jones made these discoveries a few years ago. Now they have been independently verified by a new team of scientists and confirmed by tough referees.

Galileo also confirms the findings as well.

[alienentity]

Steel with a good dose of thermite or thermite with added sulphur (thermate) may well be molten at 1.000 degrees C. Does metal that is silver when molten glow orange ?

Wow, that would take a huge amount of therm*te to accomplish pools of molten steel.
They must've painted it on real thick, at least a couple mm.

You do realize that the two claims contradict one another don't you bill?

And the answer to the Aluminum question is in the picture I supplied of glowing Al. Didn't you see it?

[bill smith]

I take it the 9/11 truth movement will reserve judgment on these findings until they can be independently verified. NOT!

You can't keep a dog from his dinner. lol

[alienentity]

Dr. Jones made these discoveries a few years ago. Now they have been independently verified by a new team of scientists and confirmed by tough referees.

Galileo also conforms the findings as well.


Excuse me for asking the obvious, but if Jones is one of the authors of this paper, how is it independent of him?

Isn't...that...a bit....contradictory? Warp speed Mr. Sulu!

[bill smith]

Wow, that would take a huge amount of therm*te to accomplish pools of molten steel.
They must've painted it on real thick, at least a couple mm.

You do realize that the two claims contradict one another don't you bill?

And the answer to the Aluminum question is in the picture I supplied of glowing Al. Didn't you see it?

With the best will in the world I would like to see the pic without the orange filter next time. Are you saying that you personally believe that metal that is a flat silver colour when molten glows orange ?

[alienentity]

Here you go bill, another pic of glowing molten aluminum. 'If it glows, your theory blows'

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_3047049dbba3bd9ab0.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=15958)

[Galileo]

Excuse me for asking the obvious, but if Jones is one of the authors of this paper, how is it independent of him?

Isn't...that...a bit....contradictory? Warp speed Mr. Sulu!

err, you think it's a conspiracy, or you think the other 8 scientists and the referees can think independently themsleves?

[alienentity]

bill asked 'Are you saying that you personally believe that metal that is a flat silver colour when molten glows orange ? '

I just look at the evidence. It's not about what I believe. It's about what IS.

[bill smith]

bill asked 'Are you saying that you personally believe that metal that is a flat silver colour when molten glows orange ? '

I just look at the evidence. It's not about what I believe. It's about what IS.

You either believe it or you don't. When you are so evasive I think we all get the message loud and clear.

[alienentity]

err, you think it's a conspiracy, or you think the other 8 scientists and the referees can think independently themsleves?

I have good evidence of a conspiracy ;)

Do you actually consider the other 'scientists' (are Kevin Ryan and Gregg Roberts scientists?) independent? If so, maybe you need a better dictionary.

[ozeco41]

With the best will in the world I would like to see the pic without the orange filter next time. Are you saying that you personally believe that metal that is a flat silver colour when molten glows orange ?

No that is not what was being said Bill.

The question is how do you make such a large poole of molten steel at that one location in part of a building which is seriously on fire?

How do you get the steel to that point?

Before melting - if so who fires all the thermite to do the meltinjh etc etc....

After melting if you have just cut tens of columns with it? How do you get it to one point?
------ Channels for it to flow - who put the channels in place after the aircraft had bulldozed debris through the space?

------ Manual - suicide workers in fireproof suits who carry all the little bits from each of the cut columns and walk across the fire lor to pour each bnit into one pool?

Whichwever of those two you suggwest how do you keep it molten?

AND where do you hide the tons of molten aluminium so it doesn't fall out the same place and give evidence for your opponents???

Other than that there could be something in your claims. :D:):p

[alienentity]

You either believe it or you don't. When you are so evasive I think we all get the mssage loud and clear.

I already gave my opinion that the molten material is more likely to be Aluminum. You don't believe it glows orange, I provided evidence that it does.

What else do you want me to say? Are you always this resistant to the learning experience?

[JamesB]

I have good evidence of a conspiracy ;)

Do you actually consider the other 'scientists' (are Kevin Ryan and Gregg Roberts scientists?) independent? If so, maybe you need a better dictionary.

Isn't Gourley a lawyer?

[alienentity]

Isn't Gourley a lawyer?

He's now an independent scientist (wink)

[Sunstealer]

Steel with a good dose of thermite or thermite with added sulphur (thermate) may well be molten at 1.000 degrees C.How do you figure that Billy. Every metallurgist, materials engineer and Chemist on the planet will be extremely interested to know. Here is a diagram to help you. Explain using the diagram how that's possible or STFU and stop derailing the thread.

http://www.calphad.com/graphs/Metastable%20Fe-C%20Phase%20Diagram.gif

[bill smith]

I already gave my opinion that the molten material is more likely to be Aluminum. You don't believe it glows orange, I provided evidence that it does.

What else do you want me to say? Are you always this resistant to the learning experience?
No sweat. At least you have been clear now. You think that molten aluminium which is a flat silver colour glows orange.

[bill smith]

How do you figure that Billy. Every metallurgist, materials engineer and Chemist on the planet will be extremely interested to know. Here is a diagram to help you. Explain using the diagram how that's possible or STFU and stop derailing the thread.

http://www.calphad.com/graphs/Metastable%20Fe-C%20Phase%20Diagram.gif

What would I do with an irrelevent chart like that ????

[Wolrab]

I tried to read this thread from the start but couldn't stomach it anymore. On the Hindenburg episode of Mythbusters, they applied a thermite "paint" to their model and ignited it. Pretty GD cool, BTW. Why can't Jones paint some structural steel with any type of thermite he wants and actually demonstrate what he claims. Other than smoke and bright light, what the hell is going to happen to the steel? Will it warm up a little (somewhere back in the early pages 27 degrees C was mentioned, IIRC) or will it melt?
My bet is on the slightly warm up.
Where is Crazychainsaw when I need him!

[Galileo]

I have good evidence of a conspiracy ;)

Do you actually consider the other 'scientists' (are Kevin Ryan and Gregg Roberts scientists?) independent? If so, maybe you need a better dictionary.

Like in the independent 9/11 Commission?

[alienentity]

bill, here's one more example of molten aluminum. Note the color of the splashes dribbling onto the ground. They don't look silvery to me?
How 'bout you?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_3047049dbc1b59f9e0.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=15959)

[Julio]

I already gave my opinion that the molten material is more likely to be Aluminum. You don't believe it glows orange, I provided evidence that it does.

What else do you want me to say? Are you always this resistant to the learning experience?

This italian guy got response from NIST, saying that there was a Uninterruptible Power Supply on floor 81st. It could be related to the glowing fountain that NIST first said could be molten aluminium.

11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/02/ups-on-81st-floor-of-wtc2.html

[GlennB]

What would I do with an irrelevent chart like that ????

You'd appreciate how ignorant you are of scientific facts.

[Sunstealer]

What would I do with an irrelevent chart like that ????Well now I know you are just trolling bearing in mind that is the most relevant chart anyone will ever come across with regards to steel.

Onto ignore you go - I'd also encourage others to do the same and not feed the troll(s).

[DGM]

Hey:
Why hasn't the Jones' boys staged a demonstration on a mock-up column? I offered a while back to supply the column to any "truther" that wanted to "cut it with therm?te" but got no takers. I'll still do it (except you have to pay shipping, it's been a little slow) to any "truther" willing to try (you fail you pay for the stock and fabrication, I'll give you a quote).
So how many orders should I get together?

[bill smith]

bill, here's one more example of molten aluminum. Note the color of the splashes dribbling onto the ground. They don't look silvery to me?
How 'bout you?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_3047049dbc1b59f9e0.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=15959)

It's actually funny that you use the word 'silvery'. That is exactly how Shyam Sunder of NIST described the molten stream pouring out of WTC2...'' it was 'silvery' he said. You are evidently of the opposite opinion.

I have messed about with molten alumnium before and it remained unfailingly silver. So me and Shyam are in lockstep and you are out of step with us ? lol

[alienentity]

It's actually funny that you use the word 'silvery'. That is exactly how Shyam Sunder of NIST described the molten stream pouring out of WTC2...'' it was 'silvery' he said. You are evidently of the opposite opinion.

I have messed about with molten alumnium before and it remained unfailingly silver. So me and Shyam are in lockstep and you are out of step with us ? lol


Now look who's not answering the question....LOL

Does it look silvery to you in that picture or not? Just your opinion, or are you afraid to look at the pic?

[BCR]

Your philosophy places you outside the ranks of the tradtional 9/11 Truther who unfailingly believes that 9/11 WAS an inside job. You may however be a Truther of sorts by your own definition.

No, you are confusing truther with "twoofer". Anyone starting with a conclusion already is not seeking "truth", but is attempting to support an intitial hypothesis (which is a** backwards).

[ElMondoHummus]

Well now I know you are just trolling bearing in mind that is the most relevant chart anyone will ever come across with regards to steel.

Onto ignore you go - I'd also encourage others to do the same and not feed the troll(s).

LOL... I only have a bachelors, and even I recognize a phase diagram.

I'm not terribly competent in using it :o, but at least I recognize it.


1130oC is the lowest temperature you can have molten iron, correct? And that presumes 4% carbon content. Did I read that right? It's been since the (*GASP*) early 90's :eek: since I've read a phase diagram.

[bill smith]

No, you are confusing truther with "twoofer". Anyone starting with a conclusion already is not seeking "truth", but is attempting to support an intitial hypothesis (which is a** backwards).
'twoofer' is just an unclever name made up by somebody with no wit or imagination to mislabel the true Stalwart 9/11 Truthers. I was relieved that the name was so clueless. With a little application they could have come up with something much better. Too late now though. You are stuck with 'twoofer' which is just fine by us.

[bill smith]

Now look who's not answering the question....LOL

Does it look silvery to you in that picture or not? Just your opinion, or are you afraid to look at the pic?

I feel like I'm looking at it through rose-tinted glasses though. In this case Ido not believe what I am seeing. Or was it orange-tinted ?

[BCR]

'twoofer' is just an unclever name made up by somebody with no wit or imagination to mislabel the true Stalwart 9/11 Truthers. I was relieved that the name was so clueless. With a little application they could have come up with something much better. Too late now though. You are stuck with 'twoofer' which is just fine by us.

Call me whatever you want, but at least I present evidence, not paint chips.

[bill smith]

Now look who's not answering the question....LOL

Does it look silvery to you in that picture or not? Just your opinion, or are you afraid to look at the pic?

Mind you the incidence of molten aluminium we are talking about took place in the open saylight. this much darker rpresentation may not be representative. Would molten aluminium in daylight glow orange too ? Or is that only in much darker places ?

[leftysergeant]

In more distant shots of the stuff pouring out, which catch it at a lower level, it does appear less red, which would be consistant with its cooling back to a silvery appearance.

Problem is that colors do not always remain stable in digital photography because cameras adjust to surroundings.

Bear in mind, too, that lead can be heated to a red glow before it evaporates. I do not have the referrences at hand to back this up, but I believe it will glow at lower temperatures than aluminum.

I am still betting that the stream is lead from the UPS. It was certainly in the right location.

[T.A.M.]

dr. Jones made these discoveries a few years ago. Now they have been independently verified by a new team of scientists and confirmed by tough referees.

galileo also confirms the findings as well.

roflmao

[Galileo]

No, you are confusing truther with "twoofer". Anyone starting with a conclusion already is not seeking "truth", but is attempting to support an intitial hypothesis (which is a** backwards).

Most 9/11 Truth seekers started out believing the official version, but have been swayed by the evidence.

It is the JREF archie debunkers who start out with the conclusion.

[A W Smith]

Mind you the incidence of molten aluminium we are talking about took place in the open saylight. this much darker rpresentation may not be representative. Would molten aluminium in daylight glow orange too ? Or is that only in much darker places ?

That part of the tower was in the shade.


I need to ask, If this "active thermitic" substance was found in all those samples sent to jones 6 years after 9/11, samples I might add that were found in various locations as far away as the Brooklyn bridge. within a three inch thick layer of dust all over the southern tip of Manhattan. Why wasn't it ignited by all the fires around ground zero?

[BCR]

Most 9/11 Truth seekers started out believing the official version, but have been swayed by the evidence.

It is the JREF archie debunkers who start out with the conclusion.

No, they have been swayed by distortions of the evidence and disinformation because they don't take the time to critically analyze what they are fed by their gurus. The Dr. Jones paper is a fine example of that.

[T.A.M.]

No, they have been swayed by distortions of the evidence and disinformation because they don't take the time to critically analyze what they are fed by their gurus. The Dr. Jones paper is a fine example of that.

Amen!

TAM:)

[Galileo]

No, they have been swayed by distortions of the evidence and disinformation because they don't take the time to critically analyze what they are fed by their gurus. The Dr. Jones paper is a fine example of that.

You changed what you said first then. You said Truthers start with a conclusion. Now you say they don't start with a conclusion, but are swayed by bad evidence.

You are basically full of it, you don't know what you are talking about.

[bill smith]

That part of the tower was in the shade.


I need to ask, If this "active thermitic" substance was found in all those samples sent to jones 6 years after 9/11, samples I might add that were found in various locations as far away as the Brooklyn bridge. within a three inch thick layer of dust all over the southern tip of Manhattan. Why wasn't it ignited by all the fires around ground zero?

I don't know if the distribution was even or not. That will come out later. It's gettng time for NIST to produce heir samples of dust for comparison. I just hope they didn't get sent to 'China' too.

[DGM]

You changed what you said first then. You said Truthers start with a conclusion. Now you say they don't start with a conclusion, but are swayed by bad evidence.

You are basically full of it, you don't know what you are talking about.
Actually "truthers" start with nothing.

Doesn't it bother you that they can't support (with demonstration) what they claim to have been used (therm?te)?

[Galileo]

Actually "truthers" start with nothing.

Doesn't it bother you that they can't support (with demonstration) what they claim to have been used (therm?te)?

Starting with nothing, i.e., no conclusion is a good way to be objective.

JREFers always start with the conclusion, then use warped pseudo-science and anecdotal coincidences to justify whatever they are spouting that particular day.

[DGM]

Starting with nothing, i.e., no conclusion is a good way to be objective.

JREFers always start with the conclusion, then use warped pseudo-science and anecdotal coincidences to justify whatever they are spouting that particular day.
True, starting with nothing is a good way to be objective.

Care to deal with the second part of my post?

[leftysergeant]

Excuse me for asking the obvious, but if Jones is one of the authors of this paper, how is it independent of him?

Isn't...that...a bit....contradictory? Warp speed Mr. Sulu!

And, on top of that, Farrer was just Jones' lab manager.

[BCR]

You changed what you said first then. You said Truthers start with a conclusion. Now you say they don't start with a conclusion, but are swayed by bad evidence.

You are basically full of it, you don't know what you are talking about.

They do start with a conclusion...911 was an inside job!

[DGM]

They do start with a conclusion...911 was an inside job!
Yeah but. it's so obvious it couldn't possibly be considered a bias. :D :duck:

[leftysergeant]

JREFers always start with the conclusion, then use warped pseudo-science and anecdotal coincidences to justify whatever they are spouting that particular day.

Twoofers start with utter shock and horror at what they saw, then get exposed to the nattering of an idiiot who thinks he has also proven that Jesus Christ visited Yucatan (on the basis of his total lack of understanding of European and Mayan iconography and the methods of crucifiction,) the lies of a French intle officer who was dishonorably discharged for treason, who also poses as a fire fighting expert, but misidentifies P-23 Oshkosh fire trucks as "tankers for medium sized fires, Nazi dirt bags like Chris Bollyn and a whole bunch of obvious lunatics like Judy Woo-woo, then come to the obviously flawed conclusion that an actual scientist like Shyam Sunder is feeding them BS.

[T.A.M.]

You changed what you said first then. You said Truthers start with a conclusion. Now you say they don't start with a conclusion, but are swayed by bad evidence.

You are basically full of it, you don't know what you are talking about.

ditto!

TAM:)

[GregoryUrich]

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?

Wow, this thread moves quickly. If the paint had that chemical composition, then it would have those energy release characteristics.

Since steel is a great heat sink, the steel would probably have to approach 430 C for ignition to occur. In that case, the building is already in trouble. Also, even if it does ignite, the thickness of the layers is such that not a whole lot of heat can be transferred to the steel. As Mackey has noted, the energy density is less than paper.

That's my take on it anyway.

[Fjolle]

Hi.
I found a picture of molten aluminium:
eecue.com/img/images_pic-original-25230-hot_aluminum.jpg (sorry, can't post links)

Also i skimmed one of the articles that they refer to, and they find that making the thermite "nano" lowers the ignition temperature to 630 degrees, but that is still 200 degrees higher than what Harrit et al claims to have found...

[T.A.M.]

www.eecue.com/img/images_pic-original-25230-hot_aluminum.jpg

Welcome to the forum.

TAM:)

[Sunstealer]

Starting with nothing, i.e., no conclusion is a good way to be objective.

JREFers always start with the conclusion, then use warped pseudo-science and anecdotal coincidences to justify whatever they are spouting that particular day.If that is the case then please show me where I have gone wrong in my analysis. I am more than capable of admitting that I am wrong on every issue with regard to the OP and Jones' paper.

I never started with a conclusion, infact I was surprised by the OP and the fact that Jones has put out a paper. Upon reading it I was struck by some of the "chip" characteristics particularly under SEM analysis, which instantly reminded me of other materials I have seen. If they had looked like thermite I'd be backing Jones to the hilt but the samples don't.

When I also find out about the NIST reports specific experiments to determine at what temperature the paint starts to craze and find this - edit: with the help of members who've contributed to this thread

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g171/boloboffin2/911/Separated-At-Birth.jpg

then even more alarm bells start ringing. You can see bright metallic debris still attached to the peeling paint which is far smaller than the darker, larger flakes which NIST describe as "black scale". This scale is also lifting from the steel's surface. Is it part of the steel that's been oxidised and is spalling or is it part of the paint or something else?

Come on truthers - comment on this comparison.

[bill smith]

Hi.
I found a picture of molten aluminium:
eecue.com/img/images_pic-original-25230-hot_aluminum.jpg (sorry, can't post links)

Also i skimmed one of the articles that they refer to, and they find that making the thermite "nano" lowers the ignition temperature to 630 degrees, but that is still 200 degrees higher than what Harrit et al claims to have found...

Just go to the address bar that starts with http' left-click on it once till the whole line goes blue. Then right-click on it and press 'copy'. Go to your post , right-click and press ''paste'. Job done.

[DGM]

Excuse me, please my natural language is Italian, with some latin and greek, and just a small amount of exposure to middle English.
I'm still waiting (not really expecting) a reply to the second part of my post you dodged before.

Why don't you expect your "truther" heroes' to support their "theories"?

[Fjolle]

Just go to the address bar that starts with http' left-click on it once till the whole line goes blue. Then right-click on it and press 'copy'. Go to your post , right-click and press ''paste'. Job done.

Duh. It's because i have to have 15 posts here before the forum wants to parse them.
Do you have any comments on the picture? :)

[alienentity]

'A typical JREFers sits in their underwear of their mom's basement'

Holy sh*t! Where's the hidden camera!

btw that may be the most accurate statement by a truther today!

[bill smith]

Duh. It's because i have to have 15 posts here before the forum wants to parse them.
Do you have any comments on the picture? :)

It's not in the open daylight for one nd the container is red hot whch may be reflecting in the silver patina of the molten aluminium.
I thought yoou meant that you couldn't post a link...sorry.

[Fjolle]

It's not in the open daylight for one nd the container is red hot whch may be reflecting in the silver patina of the molten aluminium.
I thought yoou meant that you couldn't post a link...sorry.

Hmm. I'm not sure what you mean by open daylight, but it really seems to me that the picture is taken outside in daylight...

also eecue.com/images.php?images_id=25229&fullsize=1 gives another look where you can see that it is clearly the aluminium that is red and not a reflection from the container.

[BCR]

'A typical JREFers sits in their underwear of their mom's basement'

Holy sh*t! Where's the hidden camera!

My mom is dead. I have to sit in my underwear in my own bedroom :(

[leftysergeant]

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g171/boloboffin2/911/Separated-At-Birth.jpg

Do the world a favor. Take that viral and attach it to every post you can find related to Jones' paper.

Dude is SO busted.

This scale is also lifting from the steel's surface. Is it part of the steel that's been oxidised and is spalling or is it part of the paint or something else?

Probably some sort of coating either applied to the steel at the mill or created in the milling process, or just blowing about the mill and into the painting area.

[bill smith]

Hmm. I'm not sure what you mean by open daylight, but it really seems to me that the picture is taken outside in daylight...

also eecue.com/images.php?images_id=25229&fullsize=1 gives another look where you can see that it is clearly the aluminium that is red and not a reflection from the container.

It's very similar to the first photo and notice that the red colour disappears entirely at the instant the stream hits the platter.

[Fjolle]

It's very similar to the first photo and notice that the red colour disappears entirely at the instant the stream hits the latter.

Uh. Yes? That is when the stream cools down and it becomes silvery...

[bill smith]

Uh. Yes? That is when the stream cools down and it becomes silvery...

It just seems a lttle abrupt to me.Instant transition from red to silver.

[Hokulele]

Uh. Yes? That is when the stream cools down and it becomes silvery...


Welcome to the forums Fjolle. :)

[JSSTyger]

Let's head off some of the potshots that have been fired off in this thread already.

1) It's not a vanity press. Here's the peer review process:



2) Check the advisory board. It's not a bunch of kooks, but credentialed, international scientists.

3) The second author is Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, current BYU faculty. And although Jones has been smeared pretty good here, it's a solid list of scientists with him.

4) Read the paper. I'm going through it now and it's quite interesting and thoroughly sourced. It's certainly worthy of productive discussion.


Thank You for actually reading the paper. I was alittle upset when I saw people yacking about how its just paint chips...clear indication they didn't read it.

[Fjolle]

It just seems a lttle abrupt to me.Instant transition from red to silver.

Well.. You know. That is kinda what happens when you pour hot aluminium onto cold steel...

Edit: Thanks T.A.M. and Hokulele :)

[bill smith]

Well.. You know. That is kinda what happens when you pour hot aluminium onto cold steel...

If you say so

[A W Smith]

Thank You for actually reading the paper. I was alittle upset when I saw people yacking about how its just paint chips...clear indication they didn't read it.
its paint. deal with it

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g171/boloboffin2/911/Separated-At-Birth.jpg

[alienentity]

Thank You for actually reading the paper. I was alittle upset when I saw people yacking about how its just paint chips...clear indication they didn't read it.

So if one reads the paper and still concludes that they're paint chips, what is your excuse going to be?

Are you saying that there's no such thing as a legitimate criticism of the paper?
Did God write it then?

And further, does this paper settle the issue definitively, and if so, how? Is it even necessary for the thermite paint hypothesis to be tested on structural steel or should the idea be accepted as fact first?

[alienentity]

its paint. deal with it

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g171/boloboffin2/911/Separated-At-Birth.jpg

The one on the left is obviously thermite, the four on the right are obviously paint.

[alienentity]

oh, and one more thing JSSTyger: Do you hold truthers to the same standard? In other words, for them to accept this paper, should they be required to read it first?

Or is being uncritical an acceptable part of the cult?

[bill smith]

Thank You for actually reading the paper. I was alittle upset when I saw people yacking about how its just paint chips...clear indication they didn't read it.

Is there any information on the grey material ? Does it have nano-properties ?

[Sparky]

Is there any information on the grey material ? Does it have nano-proerties ?


Do you know what the word "nano" means? Really means?