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

[Sparky]

All my points are simple enough for even you to understand. I use intricate care to assure that this is the case. If you can't understand them, you shouldn't be in this thread.

Didn't Wile E. Coyote say that just before he cratered?

[KreeL]

How about calcs on the "overwhelming resistance" of which you speak.

Already done. There's already a massive thread on JREF discussing that very subject.

Next.

[KreeL]

Didn't Wile E. Coyote say that just before he cratered?

He say it?...or hold up a sign.:p

[Sparky]

Already done. There's already a massive thread on JREF discussing that very subject.

Next.

Next.

So how about my earlier offer? Ready to back up your piehole?

[mark4mark]

Already done. There's already a massive thread on JREF discussing that very subject.

Next.
Well good, you've located it.

Next you'd do well to read and attempt to understand them, unless, of course, you enjoy looking like a pompous a#@.

[KreeL]

To make a long story short - I am on the side of Conservation of Energy.

I agree with Gordon Ross' assessment and computations.

[boloboffin]

Wil E. spoke in the episodes he tried to take down Bugs.

[mark4mark]

To make a long story short - I am on the side of Conservation of Energy.

I agree with Gordon Ross' assessment and computations.

Ah, the imaginary "safety factor of four" salesman. What's he offered lately?

[KreeL]

Wil E. spoke in the episodes he tried to take down Bugs.

Oh man...I missed that one...:o

[Sparky]

Well, it's 10:00 in good old Southern California. Got to get up early to go to the office and copy/post the NFPA 72 data. Let me know if you want to match it, Kreel.

[KreeL]

Ah, the imaginary "safety factor of four" salesman. What's he offered lately?

I don't know, but with every model I tried, I couldn't get a progressive global collapse without using a baseball bat. Come to think of it - NEITHER DID NIST.:cool:

[T.A.M.]

what did you use for your model, paper or plastic?

TAM:D

[ozeco41]

You must be a disinfo agent. Nobody is dumb enough to think that these two events compare. Right?

G'day dtugg;

As a "newbie" to this forum I am still uncomfortable with the amount of post space wasted in personal attacks....

...it makes it very difficult to follow debate of the issues...

...and it APPEARS that the discussion of issues is only a secondary excuse to give a reason for all the ad hominary....

That bit of frustration released (and revealed)

..you identify the key issue in recent posts on this topic - false analogy.

PLUS the most obvious characteristic of "Truthers" IMNSHO

..they will not define explicitly what they are saying by innuendo

The WTC Towers were not demolished - no competent engineer would claim otherwise. Some "theoratical engineers" get lost in theory and lose the picture - regrettably that is typical of engineers as a profession...they usually need "steering". (And that is the opinion of a senior engineering manager with decades of experience. You are very lucky if 1 in 4 can remember that the objective was to drain the swamp :) :D :confused: (I trust you are familiar with the old standard "When you are up to your arse in Alligators it is hard to remember that the objective was to drain the swamp")

And these emergency situation reviews and debriefs require a clear understanding of the relationship of swamps to alligators - especially if your arse is hanging bare in the breeze. :D :D

[KreeL]

Goodnight sparky. You missed my point, but I'll be glad to see what you come up with.

[T.A.M.]

the amount of wasted space used on "banter" is often directly related to the # of different truther trolls attending the thread. If you look at the # baiting in this thread, it is high, almost all of the existing numbnuts not banned...that is why the rant/useless banter volume is so high.

TAM:)

[KreeL]

The WTC Towers were not demolished - no competent engineer would claim otherwise. Some "theoratical engineers" get lost in theory and lose the picture - regrettably that is typical of engineers as a profession...they usually need "steering".

There is mounting evidence that indeed Bazant was 'steered'. Possibly several times.

Thanks for your post.

[T.A.M.]

There is mounting evidence that indeed Bazant was 'steered'. Possibly several times.

Thanks for your post.

got a single piece of this "mounting evidence" that he was "Steered" to present?

TAM:)

[George152]

Right now I am reclining, sparky ol' boy. For how long have you been trying to uphold the weak gov't theory? Did you know a plane flew right through the top of the steel structure of the Pirelli Tower? Completely through it. Severed some core beams. Big explosion. Big office fire ignited by the fuel. It burned for longer than an hour. :jaw-dropp The Pirelli Tower is still there. Although I'm sure you can't understand why it didn't self destruct, I will let you in on a secret... it wasn't rigged ahead of time.


Rockwell Commander112B
- Max speed 277km/h (150kt), max cruising speed 251km/h (135kt), long range cruising speed 222km/h (120kt). Initial rate of climb 880ft/min. Service ceiling 15,200ft. Max range with reserves 1085km (585nm), or 1647km (890nm) with optional fuel. 114 - Max speed 307km/h (166kt), max cruising speed 290km/h (157kt), long range cruising 254km/h (137kt). Initial rate of climb 1088ft/min. Service ceiling 17,400ft. Max range with reserves 1355km (730nm).

Weights
112B - Empty 804kg (1773lb), max takeoff 1270kg (2800lb). 114 - Empty 885kg (1885lb), max takeoff 1425kg (3140lb).

Take it from me the B767 is larger and faster

[Lupie]

I simply drop logic bombs all over the place and see how many shill carcasses stack up all around me. If you knew how many times I've seen the idiocy from hackjobs that say/spout things like 'It's impossible to dooooooo...' 'thermite isn't an explosiiiiiive...' 'thermite can't cut a vertical beeeeaaaamm'. Blah, blah, blah, and they lie through their teeth, or they are just plain ignorant, because they have nothing else.[/I]:)

Mr. Kreel,

I'm neither a scientist, nor do I have any in-depth knowledge of physics beyond the high-school level. However, I do have experience with thermite grenades. I have demonstrated their proper use and deployment as a training NCO in the U.S. Army. You need to understand two things. Thermite, is in fact, not an explosive. And, Thermite follows gravity. These two facts are exactly that-facts. When was the last time you actually handled and observed Thermite in a real world situation? Never, otherwise you would not be here making a mockery of yourself by attempting to speak of things that are outside of your experience without having done even the minimum of research on the subject. You need to learn the basic characteristics of what you are attempting to analyze. You are killing your credibility before you even have a chance to establish it.

[KreeL]

I believe there is another massive thread here at JREF discussing that exact subject.

I want to apologize for running this page count up on subjects not pertaining to the subject of this thread. In my exuberance over the independent lab verification of Dr. Jones' work, I likely overstepped proper posting procedures. Of course the nervousness of the ones disputing the results led to a bit of testiness towards we that believe the truth will eventually be exposed. I should be used to it by now on JREF because the gang of non-toofers usually show up in packs of 10-20 with the same old inane rhetoric.

Was arson involved at the WTC that day? I claim yes.

[KreeL]

Mr. Kreel,

I'm neither a scientist, nor do I have any in-depth knowledge of physics beyond the high-school level. However, I do have experience with thermite grenades. I have demonstrated their proper use and deployment as a training NCO in the U.S. Army. You need to understand two things. Thermite, is in fact, not an explosive. And, Thermite follows gravity. These two facts are exactly that-facts. When was the last time you actually handled and observed Thermite in a real world situation? Never, otherwise you would not be here making a mockery of yourself by attempting to speak of things that are outside of your experience. You need to learn the basic characteristics of what you are attempting to analyze. You are killing your credibility before you even have a chance to establish it.

I've already debunked that. Thermite is NOT an explosive UNLESS nano-technology is applied to it. THEN it becomes HIGHLY EXPLOSIVE.

I believe you understand thermite grenades. So do I. That is not what we are discussing here.

Thank you for your input.

Next.

[metamars]

But intensity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. From, say, 200 m away, the intensity of your 2 mm thermite chip has dropped off by a factor of 4,000.

Big Oops.

I thought about this some more, and realized that my 1/4,000 figure is way off. First of all, 200 * 200 is 40,000.

Secondly, the intensity is in units of energy / time * area. If you pick your units such that you 200 m = 1 metamars (to make up a cool name for a unit of length), if you follow my spurious logic for calculating relative intensity, clearly something is wrong, as you would get the same value.

What I had done was calculated the relative intensity at 200 m vs. 1 m. But a 2 mm chip will have a dropoff more like

(.002)^2 / 200^2 = .000004 / 40000 = 0.0000000001

or 1 / 10,000,000,000

[The Platypus]

I've already debunked that. Thermite is NOT an explosive UNLESS nano-technology is applied to it. THEN it becomes HIGHLY EXPLOSIVE.

I believe you understand thermite grenades. So do I. That is not what we are discussing here.

Thank you for your input.

Next.

I'd love to hear an explaination of this "nano-technology" and exactly how it turns thermite into a high explosive.

[metamars]

I submitted your post as the paint question. Actually, I broke it up into 2 questions, the last line in the quote above being question #2.

Professor Jones replied:

We used an epoxy paint used to paint the stadium at BYU, supposing
that to be relatively resistant to solvent attack.

[metamars]

You're correct. I just sent Professor Jones the following

Professor Jones replied

I think this would be chips provided to Mark Basile of New Hampshire
who has studied the red/gray chips using SEM/XEDS methods and
corroborated essential features of our discoveries, including bi-and
multi-layered chips as well as the elemental signature.
Mark has indicated to me a few weeks ago that he is preparing a paper
on his observations.

Dr. Frederic Henry-Couannier (sp?) has since then also studied the
chips and corroborated essential features... see attached, from him.
Note that there are no Zn or Cr peaks in his red material...
consistent with our Fig 7 for freshly-fractured red material (to avoid
surface contamination).

I can't open the Dr. Frederic Henry-Couannier .doc document attachment in MS Word. I see a message "QuckTime and a decompressor are needed to see this picture".

[KreeL]

I'd love to hear an explaination of this "nano-technology" and exactly how it turns thermite into a high explosive.

Since you would not believe me if I told you....I suggest you google it and find out for yourself. It's a rewarding experience to gain knowledge through your own research.

Oh, and you're welcome.:)

[KreeL]

I can't open the Dr. Frederic Henry-Couannier .doc document attachment in MS Word. I see a message "QuckTime and a decompressor are needed to see this picture".

Sounds like a Macintosh file of sorts. I don't have QT on my comp, but it might be worth a DL.

[The Platypus]

Since you would not believe me if I told you....I suggest you google it and find out for yourself. It's a rewarding experience to gain knowledge through your own research.

Oh, and you're welcome.:)


Totally expected and pathetic copout, and i'm not fooled by your constant arrogant nonsense, it only makes it more obvious that you don't know.

But here's the interesting thing, I have been searching the net for "nano-thermite" and i can find nothing on it, no information, not even a mention of it outside 9/11 cult websites.

Does this stuff even exist beyond the delusions and dishonest fabrications of your little lunatic fringe cult?

[bill smith]

You're correct. I just sent Professor Jones the following

I've been wondering about this myself for almost a year.

[240-185]

Dr. Frederic Henry-Couannier (sp?) has since then also studied the
chips and corroborated essential features... see attached, from him.
Note that there are no Zn or Cr peaks in his red material...
consistent with our Fig 7 for freshly-fractured red material (to avoid
surface contamination).

Yeah, another crackpot who can't decide whether therm*te or thermobaric weapons destroyed the TT. Although he chooses the latter.

[tfk]

James,



<snip>

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?



I have a similar problem, but it involves much higher temperatures.

What is the likelihood that some thermite could fire off (generating temps much higher than a fire) and thermite immediately adjacent to it does NOT ignite?

tom

[KreeL]

Totally expected and pathetic copout, and i'm not fooled by your constant arrogant nonsense, it only makes it more obvious that you don't know.

But here's the interesting thing, I have been searching the net for "nano-thermite" and i can find nothing on it, no information, not even a mention of it outside 9/11 cult websites.

Does this stuff even exist beyond the delusions and dishonest fabrications of your little lunatic fringe cult?

Yes indeed it exists. This is the funny thing - many of the NIST scientists worked on the technology back in the nineties for different aplications including military. The applications even included 'spray-on' type nano-thermite after it was manufactured into a sol-gel. Their papers are hard to google, but if you keep trying you will run across some.

I apologize for not just telling you this, but I hardly expect you to believe me without looking for yourself. I remember it took me a heck of a lot of searching to find it, but I was well rewarded.:cool:

[metamars]

Totally expected and pathetic copout, and i'm not fooled by your constant arrogant nonsense, it only makes it more obvious that you don't know.

But here's the interesting thing, I have been searching the net for "nano-thermite" and i can find nothing on it, no information, not even a mention of it outside 9/11 cult websites.

Does this stuff even exist beyond the delusions and dishonest fabrications of your little lunatic fringe cult?

I've posted links to a master's thesis and a Ph.D. thesis on the subject in this very thread. You can also search for "nanopowders", "aluminotheric", "nanocomposite thermites", "nanothermites". If you type in "nanothermites" into scholar.google.com, you get 7 pages of hits.

[240-185]

The applications even included 'spray-on' type nano-thermite after it was manufactured into a sol-gel. Their papers are hard to google, but if you keep trying you will run across some.
How convenient.

"It's hard to google it, so I won't provide a link because I didn't think to bookmark these pages which could help me in my argumentation."

[KreeL]

I've posted links to a master's thesis and a Ph.D. thesis on the subject in this very thread. You can also search for "nanopowders", "aluminotheric", "nanocomposite thermites", "nanothermites". If you type in "nanothermites" into scholar.google.com, you get 7 pages of hits.

Thank you, metamars, my old bookmarks are on my old computer.

[The Platypus]

How convenient.

"It's hard to google it, so I won't provide a link because I didn't think to bookmark these pages which could help me in my argumentation."

I know eh, gee how convenient.

Typical of all i ever see from his cult. He actually thinks i buy his dishonesty, copouts and evasions cuz he dresses em up with arrogance and thinks I can't tell that he doesn't know.

It's like dealing with a lying child, full of attitude, that can't see how transparent they are and thinks they can easily fool you.

[The Platypus]

I've posted links to a master's thesis and a Ph.D. thesis on the subject in this very thread. You can also search for "nanopowders", "aluminotheric", "nanocomposite thermites", "nanothermites". If you type in "nanothermites" into scholar.google.com, you get 7 pages of hits.

Thanks.

[Arus808]

Really, did this thread, that covers every thing that has been posted here in OTHER threads, need to go on for 40 pages?

[KreeL]

My guess is that several posters could add a couple pages if they would care to tell us how cognitive dissonance feels right now.

This is explosive stuff (no pun intended). :cool:

[dtugg]

My guess is that several posters could add a couple pages if they would care to tell us how cognitive dissonance feels right now.

This is explosive stuff (no pun intended). :cool:

Stop projecting, twoofer.

[Henry62]

Hi friends,
I wrote some observations about the paper we are discussing.

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2009/04/materiale-thermitico-attivo-trovato.html

Thanks,
Henry62

[Obviousman]

I've flown the AeroCommander 500S, which is not very different fuel capacity wise. Anyone who thinks that the difference between the Rockwell (a lovely aircraft, BTW) and a B757 / B767, in the respect of impact speed and amount of fuel that would be available for combustion after an impact, is not significant... well, they need to speak to some aircraft accident investigators, aeronautical engineers, etc.

Right now I am reclining, sparky ol' boy. For how long have you been trying to uphold the weak gov't theory? Did you know a plane flew right through the top of the steel structure of the Pirelli Tower? Completely through it. Severed some core beams. Big explosion. Big office fire ignited by the fuel. It burned for longer than an hour. :jaw-dropp The Pirelli Tower is still there. Although I'm sure you can't understand why it didn't self destruct, I will let you in on a secret... it wasn't rigged ahead of time.

[leftysergeant]

My guess is that several posters could add a couple pages if they would care to tell us how cognitive dissonance feels right now.

This is explosive stuff (no pun intended). :cool:

Not a bit punny.

I am really sick of WACers telling me that I have to Google for crap which does not exist. If they Google, and find themselves on an excursion up a bovine colon, they conclude that I have a mental defect when I react to the smell of half-digested hay as a rational human being does.

You say that the sooper-dooper magical cut anything thermiteexists and I say you are full of last week's beans. Most rational people agree with me. The burden of proof is on you. You have not, to date, shown any understanding of science, construction or fire fighting, all of which fall within the areas of expertise of many of the people calling you out.

Put up or shut up and wear the name of troll. Find a sooper-dooper thermite that meets all the parameters of Jonsie's paint chips and link to it. I have no timer to try to make contact via Google with your ear crickets.

[leftysergeant]

Right now I am reclining, sparky ol' boy. For how long have you been trying to uphold the weak gov't theory? Did you know a plane flew right through the top of the steel structure of the Pirelli Tower? Completely through it. Severed some core beams. Big explosion. Big office fire ignited by the fuel. It burned for longer than an hour. :jaw-dropp The Pirelli Tower is still there. Although I'm sure you can't understand why it didn't self destruct, I will let you in on a secret... it wasn't rigged ahead of time.

BS. The plane that hit trhe Pirelli Tower was a hell of a lot smaller and far lighter and carried significantly less fuel than did the one that smacked the Empire State Building in 1945 and, according to any source i have seen, the Pirelli Tower is more similar in construction to the ESB than to WTC, having, as it did, a reinforced concrete core. (Did you notice what a diffence that sort of thing can make, based on the performance of the Windsor Tower? Does it make your head hurt to consider these things?) Do come up with some relevant stuff before you post more crap in here.

[leftysergeant]

2:23 Niels Harrit: We going to watch the collapse of the north tower.
Where you can see the explosions directly.
It's like a mushroom cloud everything, is ejected up in the
air.
There is some of those 30 tons steel beam that is ejected
110m away.
There is some of those explosions that is ejected out of
the window, that has speeds of 100 mph.

3:10 Clip of the collapse of the north tower is showed and yellow arrows point to “scribs” below the crush zone.

3:24 Niels Harrit: Ok, the issue about ejection up in the air, pay attention to
the fragments, it is giant steel beams we talking about.
They are ejected up in the air in some large,
it's called parabolic, arch formed, trajectories.

This guy is dumber than Jonesie. He can't tell the difference between steel beams and aluminum cladding. What a hopeless little twit.

[twinstead]

My mother always told me people who have nothing of substance often hide behind arrogance. Behold KreeL, God of Arrogance.

[metamars]

Thank you, metamars, my old bookmarks are on my old computer.

You're welcome.

[metamars]

Really, did this thread, that covers every thing that has been posted here in OTHER threads, need to go on for 40 pages?

What would be good is if this thread could be locked, and a moderated thread created in the science forum.

[metamars]

Thank you, metamars, my old bookmarks are on my old computer.

I'm sorry, the correct term is "aluminothermic", not "aluminotheric". I do that often....

[leftysergeant]

Professor Jones replied:

Epoxy paint.

He assumed that testing a diffent sort of paint from an unrelated paint supplier, from a different sort of application, hundreds of miles away, is supposed to provide us with useful data.

I can't believe a physics professor could be so ghastly wrong about the methodolgy of forensic criminal investigation.

He needs to deal with a known paint sample from the towers or to shut the hell up forever.

[T.A.M.]

1. Do we know anything about Mark Basile? Is he truly independent or just another friend of Jones?
2. Was he asked to analyze the chips, or asked to find evidence of thermite?
3. I look forward to his observations, anyway

4. "Epoxy" paint is not good enough. We need the exact name of the paint...something along the lines as "tnemec series 010 primer - red" would be good.

TAM:)

[BigAl]

1. Do we know anything about Mark Basile? Is he truly independent or just another friend of Jones?
2. Was he asked to analyze the chips, or asked to find evidence of thermite?
3. I look forward to his observations, anyway

4. "Epoxy" paint is not good enough. We need the exact name of the paint...something along the lines as "tnemec series 010 primer - red" would be good.

TAM:)

Someone on Usenet nominated this. Apparently its been around for decades.

http://www.rustrustler.com/

As the paint dries, 6 to 8 layers of aluminum flakes rise to the surface to form a metal barrier that protects against the elements. It also works well on metal surfaces that have already begun to rust, and will help prevent further corrosion. Rust Rustler Aluminum Paint also comes in a spray can that covers 50 square feet per can - 3 to 4 times the coverage of ordinary spray paints! Rust Rustler covers more and lasts longer!

FWIW

[T.A.M.]

As for Mark Basile, and being independent, well for starters he is listed as a member of Jones 9/11 site, "Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice".

http://stj911.org/members/index.html

Nice try Jones, how about sending it to a truly INDEPENDENT LAB, with scientists who have no contact or knowledge of you, your agenda, or your movement.

TAM:)

[Sunstealer]

Professor Jones replied:

We used an epoxy paint used to paint the stadium at BYU, supposing that to be relatively resistant to solvent attack.What sort of numpty is Jones? The man cannot even read a simple request. I don't give a flying <rule> what the paint was used on I want to know what it is. Manufacturers data sheet?

It's plainly obvious that he is dishonest when he pulls crap like that. Knowing Jones they probably had a wonder over to the stadium and peeled a bit of paint off.

This thread has run it's course as far as I'm concerned, because it's become infected with the crazy and good posts are lost in the sea of ever deepening rubbish. Time to go elsewhere.

[T.A.M.]

What sort of numpty is Jones? The man cannot even read a simple request. I don't give a flying <rule> what the paint was used on I want to know what it is. Manufacturers data sheet?

It's plainly obvious that he is dishonest when he pulls crap like that. Knowing Jones they probably had a wonder over to the stadium and peeled a bit of paint off.

This thread has run it's course as far as I'm concerned, because it's become infected with the crazy and good posts are lost in the sea of ever deepening rubbish. Time to go elsewhere.

What do you think of the fact that the scientist Jones is claiming as his "Independent" analysis, is a member of his 9/11 truth organization??

TAM:)

[Macgyver1968]

Here's what I don't understand...How does painted on nanothermite even work? Once the thermite is ignited, it turns into molten iron. If it is painted on, the molten iron would just harmlessly run off. Thermite needs something to hold it in place to give the molten iron time to transfer it's heat.

[Macgyver1968]

I've already debunked that. Thermite is NOT an explosive UNLESS nano-technology is applied to it. THEN it becomes HIGHLY EXPLOSIVE.


Next.

Ok..I'm next. Exactly how did you come to this conclusion? What makes it explosive? If you grind the particles to a much smaller diameter, you increase the surface area, which would increase the speed of burning, but how does that create a shockwave? If it is explosive, then why don't we hear any explosions before the collapse begins?

[bill smith]

As for Mark Basile, and being independent, well for starters he is listed as a member of Jones 9/11 site, "Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice".

http://stj911.org/members/index.html

Nice try Jones, how about sending it to a truly INDEPENDENT LAB, with scientists who have no contact or knowledge of you, your agenda, or your movement.

TAM:)

I wonder if mark Basile became a member of Scholars for Truth AFTER he analsyed Stephen Jones's samples ? It would be very telling if he had not been a member before he saw the samples but became a member after he had analysed them..

[Sunstealer]

What do you think of the fact that the scientist Jones is claiming as his "Independent" analysis, is a member of his 9/11 truth organization??

TAM:)Dishonest - independent analysis means you send the samples with zero information about what they are, ask them to find out - must include XRD - you then publish the independent report as is.

Get the samples returned and then do it again with another lab if you must.

All this nonsense with EDS just strings the uneducated along. All this could be tidied up inside a week in done properly. Might cost a bit more but then these people want the truth don't they?

[tsig]

Dishonest - independent analysis means you send the samples with zero information about what they are, ask them to find out - must include XRD - you then publish the independent report as is.

Get the samples returned and then do it again with another lab if you must.

All this nonsense with EDS just strings the uneducated along. All this could be tidied up inside a week in done properly. Might cost a bit more but then these people want the truth don't they?


Nah they want "THE TRUTH".

[metamars]

What sort of numpty is Jones? The man cannot even read a simple request. I don't give a flying <rule> what the paint was used on I want to know what it is. Manufacturers data sheet?

It's plainly obvious that he is dishonest when he pulls crap like that. Knowing Jones they probably had a wonder over to the stadium and peeled a bit of paint off.

This thread has run it's course as far as I'm concerned, because it's become infected with the crazy and good posts are lost in the sea of ever deepening rubbish. Time to go elsewhere.

Since you have claimed to have identified some of the constituents of the chips, with great certainty, I should think that producing similar SEM, etc., should be quite easy for you, even without knowing the exact type of paint. You said

Bearing in mind I have shown beyond any reasonable doubt that samples a-d are hematite and red paint
(emphasis mine)

You didn't specify any particular type of red paint, implying that there should be multiple types of red paint that will look just like Jones' "paint chips". Indeed, perhaps you were implying that all paint chips consisting of red paint and primer would look like Jones', upon close examination. Were you?

Furthermore, you (or somebody else) could call BYU maintenance, and ask them about the stadium paint. I completely agree that Jones, et. al., should have identified it clearly, in their paper, but they didn't.

I have to wonder if, in fact, you are basically guessing re Jones' chips. Were you perhaps exaggerating, and instead you merely suspect, or believe wholeheartedly, that a small minority of red paint chip varieties will look like Jones' sample, and thus you will have to make many batches before you can re-create the Jones' type? Are you afraid of having to make many types of red paint chip before you hit the right one?

Perhaps Mackey's comment pooh-poohing the notion of the grey layer being "primer" has caused you to doubt?

Recall Mackey's words:

I surmise that the magnetic effects have nothing to do with hematite or aluminum, but are instead are caused by pure iron, due to flakes of the steel columns themselves (or some other incidental source of iron) stuck to the paint fragments. Rust layers and spall matches this effect perfectly.

Would you be so kind as to comment on this? Also, is it too much to ask that you also show us some detailed pictures of "Rust layers and spall" stuck to red paint? The Jones' pictures show relatively even layers, but I am suspicious about rusty paint chips being anywhere near this even. You could help settle the matter by also producing SEMs of rusty paint chips.

[bill smith]

Nah they want "THE TRUTH".

We all want the Truth and it looks like we are starting to get it- finally.

[BigAl]

I wonder if mark Basile became a member of Scholars for Truth AFTER he analsyed Stephen Jones's samples ? It would be very telling if he had not been a member before he saw the samples but became a member after he had analysed them..

If the test had been done properly, there would be no identification associated with it and Basile wouldn't have a clue as to where the sample came from or what organization to join based on what the tests showed.

[nicepants]

Professor Jones replied:

We used an epoxy paint used to paint the stadium at BYU, supposing
that to be relatively resistant to solvent attack.


He has thus shown that the chips in the WTC dust were not from the BYU stadium. Color me shocked.

[bill smith]

Suppose we had to stop considering the paint as an alternative for the thermite chips ? Is that it then ? Does that mean that the Jones paper becomes the autoritative work on the WTC dust- meaning , as it does that 9/11 was an inside job ?

[MikeW]

I wonder if mark Basile became a member of Scholars for Truth AFTER he analsyed Stephen Jones's samples ? It would be very telling if he had not been a member before he saw the samples but became a member after he had analysed them..
Archive.org has Basile on the list at February 19th 2007 (http://web.archive.org/web/20070219134210/http://stj911.org/members/index.html). That's their first record of the page, so he may have been a member for longer.

[phunk]

Big Oops.

I thought about this some more, and realized that my 1/4,000 figure is way off. First of all, 200 * 200 is 40,000.

Secondly, the intensity is in units of energy / time * area. If you pick your units such that you 200 m = 1 metamars (to make up a cool name for a unit of length), if you follow my spurious logic for calculating relative intensity, clearly something is wrong, as you would get the same value.

What I had done was calculated the relative intensity at 200 m vs. 1 m. But a 2 mm chip will have a dropoff more like

(.002)^2 / 200^2 = .000004 / 40000 = 0.0000000001

or 1 / 10,000,000,000

Your math is clearly flawed, or I wouldn't be able to see individual welders working on the new buildings near ground zero from several miles away in NJ. By your math, the light from the welding would be trillions of times less intense at that distance.

As we've already clearly established, the chip that jones examined is way to thin to have done anything at all to a column. The magic thermite would have to be layed on much thicker, and as such there would be larger chunks than 2mm knocked off the columns in the impact. I stand by my idea that we'd see lots of them blasted out and ignited by the impact if there was enough to do any damage to the columns and it could be ignited at 430C.

[bill smith]

Archive.org has Basile on the list at February 19th 2007 (http://web.archive.org/web/20070219134210/http://stj911.org/members/index.html). That's their first record of the page, so he may have been a member for longer.

Not very smart of Steven Jones to get somebody so close to do the analsys then.

[phunk]

You didn't specify any particular type of red paint, implying that there should be multiple types of red paint that will look just like Jones' "paint chips". Indeed, perhaps you were implying that all paint chips consisting of red paint and primer would look like Jones', upon close examination. Were you?


But you're missing the point. He shouldn't have to specify, had Jones' paper been any good, it would have specified EXACTLY what was used, and how everything else was ruled out. It didn't, and that's one of the many reasons the paper is a failure.

[kookbreaker]

Since you would not believe me if I told you....I suggest you google it and find out for yourself. It's a rewarding experience to gain knowledge through your own research.


Welcome to the truther version of 'A Wizard Did It'.

[Pardalis]

My guess is that several posters could add a couple pages if they would care to tell us how cognitive dissonance feels right now.

This is explosive stuff (no pun intended). :cool:

Let's just wait and see if Jones' "findings" resonate in the real scientific community.

Be careful not to get too ahead of yourselves, that's a pretty big matzo ball hanging out there.

[metamars]

Suppose we had to stop considering the paint as an alternative for the thermite chips ? Is that it then ? Does that mean that the Jones paper becomes the autoritative work on the WTC dust- meaning , as it does that 9/11 was an inside job ?

I think you mean "authoritative work on the WTC red/gray chips". (Certainly, it's subject isn't even the dust, as a whole, so how could it be authoritative?)

In this layman's opinion, there are far too many questions to consider the Jones, et. al., paper authoritative. E.g., the screamingly obvious question of whether or not you can create Al/Si in platelet form. I leave it to domain experts to tell us whether the test used by Jones, et. al., is foolproof for identifying elemental Al. If it is, then it's probably academic as to whether or not the methodology to create Al/Si in platelet form can be determined.

Notice that I used the word "probably", in the last sentence. These sort of issues should be debated by domain experts, not "truthers" and "debunkers". If "truthers" and "debunkers" want to entertain themselves, fine, but as you can see from this thread, e.g., it's not very enlightening.

I repeat what I've said before: 911 truthers are fools if they go running to debunkers, media, or government, at the expense of taking this paper to domain experts. And domain experts are not going to pay any attention to the paper, unless they are directed there. The Bentham Journal that this paper was published in has only been around for less than 2 years. I expect that only a tiny fraction of the scientific community reads it "regularly". In it's less than 2 years of existence, there's only 12 articles.

If the paper holds up, then it's fine to try and push it further to government and media. If it doesn't hold up, why would any reasonable and honest person want to push forward something that's a mistake, in the name of "truth"?

(Another possibility is that the paper will simply be considered doubtful, with insufficient evidence to convince a community of domain experts, who are paying attention to it, one way or the other.)

[Pardalis]

Partial translation of interview with Niels Harrit, regarding the Bentham paper.

1:02 Interviewer: What are those chips?

1:04 Niels Harrit: Its nanothermite. That is a, let me take the last part of
the word first. A thermite is a chemical expression for compound that is
pulverized aluminum and rust, pulverized rust. Its an old invention from
1893 and if you can get the compound to react, then it develops an
enormous amount of heat. 2500 degree. Iron is formed in the process
and the hot iron, you can use to melt other iron, you can also use it to
weld railroad tracks.

An old fashion thermite, it develops heat, but in a nanothermite, the
particles are so small and they react with each other so fast that it
beings to reassemble, or it becomes an explosive. You also have the
opportunity to mix other components in, it is more complicated than
just iron and rust, there is more things in it, that makes it an explosive.

2:19 Interviewer: We are going to watch a clip. What are we going to watch?

2:23 Niels Harrit: We going to watch the collapse of the north tower.
Where you can see the explosions directly.
It's like a mushroom cloud everything, is ejected up in the
air.
There is some of those 30 tons steel beam that is ejected
110m away.
There is some of those explosions that is ejected out of
the window, that has speeds of 100 mph.

3:10 Clip of the collapse of the north tower is showed and yellow arrows point to “scribs” below the crush zone.

3:24 Niels Harrit: Ok, the issue about ejection up in the air, pay attention to
the fragments, it is giant steel beams we talking about.
They are ejected up in the air in some large,
it's called parabolic, arch formed, trajectories.

3:34 Interviewer: There was two yellow arrows that indicated
something below the crush zone?

3:39 Niels Harrit: It is obvious explosions, that are set off to early, its
complicated business these things. They (The
scribs/puffs) are well below the crush zone.
The argument where you imagine that the puffs coming
out from the side should be caused by the collapsing floors
are clearly disproved by those yellow arrows.

3:59 Interviewer:If there is some that think, that those that believe in this
are very crazy, can you understand this?

4:04 Niels Harrit: Hehe, If we going to look at what happened. then there
has been a crime, ok?, there is 3000 people that died that
day and there has never been a judicial investigation, police
investigation of that event.
There has never been any evidence presented, there is no
one charged in this case. The police, FBI has
not charged anybody. Nobody is wanted, so i do not know
who is the crazy?

Source:
URL:---.youtube.com/watch?v=nP810ssxyo4

Regards
Scientiae Confidimus

The bolded parts are not about the "Bentham paper". It's pure unscientific and unsubstanciated speculation, that has nothing to do with thermite.

See, their paper isn't about the samples, it's about validating anyway possible their crazy controlled demolition theory. These guys are not scientists, they're ideologues, they have a political agenda to push.

[beachnut]

Quite the contrary. You believe that an office fire is more devastating to structural steel than thermate. What room at the asylum are you living in again?

Here it is Kreel. Specify the amount of thermite used because there is zero evidence of any thermite used on any steel at the WTC; it would stand out. Thermite was made up by Jones and it is the dumbest ideas since beam weapons and nukes used to bring down the WTC. So you picked the dumbest idea to use for your idiotic delusion. How dumb does the idea have to be for you to fall for it?

Next please tell us the amount used. The office fire is bigger and even the jet fuel is bigger. But you failed to do the work to understand 911. Failure is the paper and your ideas on 911 because you can’t tell me how much thermite was used and all the idiotic scenarios by 911Truth Hoffman and Jones are brain dead stupid. And you can’t explain any real scenario or amount, or the heat in joules released by your failed brain-dead thermite stupid scenario. Zero ability to do the math or specify the amount of thermite used. Office fires have more heat energy; and you can’t figure it out. Why? You failed to gain and education in over 7 years? You don’t think for yourself but you post lies, hearsay, failed opinions and fantasy.

[Pardalis]

And domain experts are not going to pay any attention to the paper, unless they are directed there. The Bentham Journal that this paper was published in has only been around for less than 2 years. I expect that only a tiny fraction of the scientific community reads it "regularly". In it's less than 2 years of existence, there's only 12 articles.

Maybe the best way to get "attention" would be to publish in a better peer-review journal?

[WilliamSeger]

I've alluded to the magnetism of different oxide layers or products before, so search hematite, maghemite and my name and you'll get the post in this thread.

With Jones' chips it's slightly more difficult, because we can't see the underside of the "gray layer".

That seems to be another issue Jones has left open, then. If Marseille's analysis is really the same as Jones', I'd guess the chips are from the same source , so it would be odd if Jones' chips didn't also have the metal crystals on the bottom -- especially since that would explain why all the chips could be collected with a magnet. If Jones' chips DO have metal crystals hanging on them, that would a "curious" omission from the paper, wouldn't it.

I still think we could cut to the chase if someone could get some paint samples from the actual WTC steel, if there are still some in that hanger at JFK.

[A W Smith]

Archive.org has Basile on the list at February 19th 2007 (http://web.archive.org/web/20070219134210/http://stj911.org/members/index.html). That's their first record of the page, so he may have been a member for longer.


Jonesie mentioned sending the samples to an "Independent lab" on December of 2007 on 911blogger. ten months after it is documented that Basile had joined his little fantasy role playing club.

[Pardalis]

The truthers' interpretation of "peer" is "another truther".

[roundhead]

The truthers' interpretation of "peer" is "another truther".


And liar's definition of peer is another liar.....

Whats your point?

[alienentity]

Hi fellas,

Couple of questions:

1) anyone know what the ignition temp for ordinary paint flakes might be?
2) Is there any documentation to show that real thermite can be engineered to ignite at 430c?
3) don't explosives have to be specially shaped into cutting charges in order to blast thru steel columns? I fail to see a single scrap of real-world data that suggests a 'painted on' layer of combustible material can destroy steel.... isn't this an outrageous assumption?
4) Do common paints contain 'nano' engineered materials?

ps Jones at least gave a clue about the paint they used as a control. We know for a fact now that there WASN'T a sincere attempt to match it to WTC paints, nor to determine the composition of WTC paints, before and after fires, in order to eliminate them as a source of the grey/red chips.

All that needs to be done then, is for an independent lab to get hold of some WTC paint chips and look at the composition. Any suggestions for how this might be accomplished?

[ozeco41]

....3) don't explosives have to be specially shaped into cutting charges in order to blast thru steel columns? ... No but it helps and to cut larger members it is almost essential. (Bold assertion based on military engineering training)
....I fail to see a single scrap of real-world data that suggests a 'painted on' layer of combustible material can destroy steel.... isn't this an outrageous assumption?.... .. no doubt it is outrageous (or worse!! :D ) if the inference is it would work at the scale of WTC steel members.

In terms of the question "Demolition or not at WTC?" this whole thread is a derail/red herring. AFAIK there is no extant formed hypothesis as to how therm*te could be used in a demolition scheme which would be consistent with what happened at WTC on 9/11. So the legitimate role of this thread is to discuss therm*te from a hypothetical scientific perspective with no inferences that it is relevant to the WTC "collapses that actually happened".

[alienentity]

If the Jones team were a private company, claiming to have a technology which could perform 'X' (in this case, it seems to be destroy structural steel with thinly painted on material) wouldn't a potential investor want to see some proof?
Wouldn't they need to demonstrate the technology actually working?

Or is this more in the realm of, say, cold fusion research, where the idea is to explore, and get government grants and university funding for more research?

I believe Jones, by saying 'we have nailed it!' is giving a false impression that they've demonstrated the proposed technology actually works. It would be honest to say, Dr. Jones, that you have taken but a tiny step in a long, long process to determine whether the technology could ever work.

From an investor's POV, you're a long shot at best sir. I think I'd rather invest in cold fusion....

[ozeco41]

If the Jones team were a private company, claiming to have a technology which could perform 'X' (in this case, it seems to be destroy structural steel with thinly painted on material) wouldn't a potential investor want to see some proof?
Wouldn't they need to demonstrate the technology actually working?

Or is this more in the realm of, say, cold fusion research, where the idea is to explore, and get government grants and university funding for more research?

I believe Jones, by saying 'we have nailed it!' is giving a false impression that they've demonstrated the proposed technology actually works. It would be honest to say, Dr. Jones, that you have taken but a tiny step in a long, long process to determine whether the technology could ever work.

From an investor's POV, you're a long shot at best sir. I think I'd rather invest in cold fusion....
...nhah...

Put your money on the horses if that desperate. ;)

[metamars]

Your math is clearly flawed, or I wouldn't be able to see individual welders working on the new buildings near ground zero from several miles away in NJ. By your math, the light from the welding would be trillions of times less intense at that distance.


Is my math flawed, or is your knowledge of physics non-existent? The area of a sphere if 4 * pi * r^2. If Em radiation is moving at a constant rate outwards, at the speed of light, and the energy in each wavefront is considered constant (from conservation of energy, plus symmetry considerations), then how can the power per unit area not drop off as 1/r^2 ?

If you think I punched in values for R(2 mm)^2 and R(200 m)^2 incorrectly, why don't you try it with your own calculator?


As we've already clearly established, the chip that jones examined is way to thin to have done anything at all to a column. The magic thermite would have to be layed on much thicker, and as such there would be larger chunks than 2mm knocked off the columns in the impact.

Ya think?


I stand by my idea that we'd see lots of them blasted out and ignited by the impact if there was enough to do any damage to the columns and it could be ignited at 430C.
Are we supposed to be impressed by this? I can tell that you won't lift a finger to do a single calculation to support your idea.

[beachnut]

... calculation to support your idea.
You have that super program to calculate some number but you failed too? Where is your total termite needed and joules to destroy the WTC? You got a program to do it, what numbers did you come up with?

So do you support the delusion paper of thermite made up by Jones as reality? Or do you support that impact, fire, and gravity collapse destroyed the WTC?

What is your stand on the selective element study of Jones and his conclusion that it was thermite, not just some rust and aluminum found in sample of debris that is like other fire debris at other fires?

A selective study done to support the finding of rust and Al in debris with a nut case conclusions implying the scenario of thermite being planted in the WTC to bring down the WTC. A delusion? Do you support this or what is your great scenario? You got anything beside jibber jabber and claims of some great program that can show the amount of thermite needed and the heat in joules that you can't show?

That is right, now you are just concentrating on WTC that burned a long time and fell due to gravity as your smoke and mirror 911Truth dumb idea.

But what is your take on the delusional thermite scenario that Jones supports? You said you could define the amount needed and the joules of heat requried but you will not do it; why?

[Pardalis]

And liar's definition of peer is another liar.....

Meaningless. Don't try it if you haven't got it.

[bill smith]

I think you mean "authoritative work on the WTC red/gray chips". (Certainly, it's subject isn't even the dust, as a whole, so how could it be authoritative?)

In this layman's opinion, there are far too many questions to consider the Jones, et. al., paper authoritative. E.g., the screamingly obvious question of whether or not you can create Al/Si in platelet form. I leave it to domain experts to tell us whether the test used by Jones, et. al., is foolproof for identifying elemental Al. If it is, then it's probably academic as to whether or not the methodology to create Al/Si in platelet form can be determined.

Notice that I used the word "probably", in the last sentence. These sort of issues should be debated by domain experts, not "truthers" and "debunkers". If "truthers" and "debunkers" want to entertain themselves, fine, but as you can see from this thread, e.g., it's not very enlightening.

I repeat what I've said before: 911 truthers are fools if they go running to debunkers, media, or government, at the expense of taking this paper to domain experts. And domain experts are not going to pay any attention to the paper, unless they are directed there. The Bentham Journal that this paper was published in has only been around for less than 2 years. I expect that only a tiny fraction of the scientific community reads it "regularly". In it's less than 2 years of existence, there's only 12 articles.

If the paper holds up, then it's fine to try and push it further to government and media. If it doesn't hold up, why would any reasonable and honest person want to push forward something that's a mistake, in the name of "truth"?

(Another possibility is that the paper will simply be considered doubtful, with insufficient evidence to convince a community of domain experts, who are paying attention to it, one way or the other.)

It's true that there are questions but three that stand out in my opinion. Is there a nano-thermite present ? Is this a highly engineered example of a nano product ? Is it possible that this highly engineered product could have been n the WTC dust on 9/11 in an explainable way?

If the paper holds up then that means that 9/11 was an inside job- no less than that. After that it just depends on whether people actually WANT to know or not.

[Pardalis]

If the paper holds up then that means hat 9/11 was an inside job- no less than that. After that it just depends on whether people actually WANT to know or not.

There's no way something like that will go unnoticed. So Jones has set himself up to change the world, no matter what.

Big motza ball...

[ozeco41]

It's true tht there are questions but three that stand out in my opinion. Is there anano-thermite present ? Is this a highly engineered example of a nano product ? Is it possible that this highly engineered product could have been n the WTC dust on 9/11 in an eplainable way? ...

CARE TO FILL IN THIS GREAT BIG QUANTUM LEAP OF A FALSE DICHOTOMY BILL?

If the paper holds up then that means hat 9/11 was an inside job- no less than that. After that it just depends on whether people actually WANT to know or not.

Irrespective of whether Jones "proves" thermate or not there is no way that thermate played a significant part in assisting the "collapses which actually happened" at WTC.

Sure there is potential to use it in hypothetical scenarios but no one has put forward any workable suggestion as to how it could have been used in the actual collapse.

There is, AFAICS, only one small "window of opportunity" where rebuttal of claims of thermate use depend on statistical improbability. I will even tell you what it is. It is the use of thermate in the impact zone to cut the lower chords of floor joists. It would have to be after the crash impact so needs a team of suicide terrorists to do it.

All other possible uses in the "collapse that actually happened" can be rebutted by evidence which does not rely on improbability.
:) :D

[KreeL]

The question is much simpler than this. How much was required, how it was applied, what it achieved -- are all subjective. The substantiated FINDING of nano-thermite is damning enough. Arson has been proved.

[T.A.M.]

Jonesie mentioned sending the samples to an "Independent lab" on December of 2007 on 911blogger. ten months after it is documented that Basile had joined his little fantasy role playing club.

Well there you have it. Jones lies once again. There is nothing independent about having other truther "scientists" verify your results.

Why am I not surprised?

TAM:rolleyes:

[T.A.M.]

The question is much simpler than this. How much was required, how it was applied, what it achieved -- are all subjective. The substantiated FINDING of nano-thermite is damning enough. Arson has been proved.

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=161&pictureid=689

Sorry, Wrong!!!

TAM:)

[KreeL]

There are currently other labs and scientists testing the samples.

Cognitive dissonance is a bitch, eh TAM?

[beachnut]

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=161&pictureid=689

Sorry, Wrong!!!

TAM:)

At the WTC we have 10 terrorists in two planes killing 4 pilots and flying their jets into the largest buildings in NYC with 66,000 pounds of jet fuel with the heat energy of 630 TONS of TNT and the 911Truth cult members says arson was done by super thermite which was made up by a physics prof with brain cancer published in a vanity journal?

Yes it was arson and kinetic energy impacts that doomed the WTC, but the super thermite is a delusion. Poor dolts can’t see fraud when it is clearly made up junk.

The terrorist act is too simple for simple cult members of 911Truth to grasp. Kill pilots, fly planes into large buildings. Too complex for 911Truth?

Jones made it up! 911Truth believers are too lazy to research and they are too blind by lack of knowledge to see Jones is a fraud.

Ignorance is bliss for 911Truth cult member chanting “super thermite”. What incompetence display by those simply buying and regurgitating the junk science of Jones who found rust and Al as he excluded all the other elements found and ignore the fact not one single piece of steel in the WTC showed any thermite damage. Zip. Good work 911Truth cult members; total lack of self-esteem and zero knowledge on 911 leads to delusional beliefs.

[T.A.M.]

There are currently other labs and scientists testing the samples.

Cognitive dissonance is a bitch, eh TAM?

just remember all that you are saying when all is said and done Kreel, cause looking like a jackass will be a bigger bitch for you son. You know this is all gonna turn out to be crap, just like all the other "scientific" garbage the truther "scientists" put out.

Just remember.

TAM:)

[bill smith]

There are currently other labs and scientists testing the samples.

Cognitive dissonance is a bitch, eh TAM?

I was wondering if Dr. Jones and Kevin Ryan would do it this way. The drip-drip-drip of one credentialled scientist after another confirming their findings will be devastating for the government story. This way it's not a story that comes and goes....it's ongoing and damning and puts the major media under steadily increasing pressure to pick up on the story which will be the final decapitating blow. Truthers may be on all the talk shows soon..

[roundhead]

At the WTC we have 10 terrorists in two planes killing 4 pilots and flying their jets into the largest buildings in NYC with 66,000 pounds of jet fuel with the heat energy of 630 TONS of TNT and the 911Truth cult members says arson was done by super thermite which was made up by a physics prof with brain cancer published in a vanity journal?

Yes it was arson and kinetic energy impacts that doomed the WTC, but the super thermite is a delusion. Poor dolts can’t see fraud when it is clearly made up junk.

The terrorist act is too simple for simple cult members of 911Truth to grasp. Kill pilots, fly planes into large buildings. Too complex for 911Truth?

Jones made it up! 911Truth believers are too lazy to research and they are too blind by lack of knowledge to see Jones is a fraud.

Ignorance is bliss for 911Truth cult member chanting “super thermite”. What incompetence display by those simply buying and regurgitating the junk science of Jones who found rust and Al as he excluded all the other elements found and ignore the fact not one single piece of steel in the WTC showed any thermite damage. Zip. Good work 911Truth cult members; total lack of self-esteem and zero knowledge on 911 leads to delusional beliefs.


a good bit of that questionable amount of jet fuel burned up outside the towers. Watch video much????????????

[A W Smith]

Is my math flawed, or is your knowledge of physics non-existent? The area of a sphere if 4 * pi * r^2. If Em radiation is moving at a constant rate outwards, at the speed of light, and the energy in each wavefront is considered constant (from conservation of energy, plus symmetry considerations), then how can the power per unit area not drop off as 1/r^2 ?

If you think I punched in values for R(2 mm)^2 and R(200 m)^2 incorrectly, why don't you try it with your own calculator?


Ya think?


Are we supposed to be impressed by this? I can tell that you won't lift a finger to do a single calculation to support your idea.

How far away from a star do we have to be to no longer see it in the night sky then? Assuming these stars are spheres. Can you "punch in" those numbers for us Genius?

[The Platypus]

I'm no expert, just a regular guy. But it seems that this all boils down too:

Some tiny flakes of possible thermite like material found in 4 samples of questionable origin. That are claimed to come from the massive dust cloud on 9/11. Which then sat around for years in drawers and cupboards, till one day they were sent to known 9/11 conspiracy theorists only. Who then claimed to find the flakes of possible thermite like material and then published this in a 2 year old, little known journal, with seriously questionable practices and that is pay for play.

Not only that but this now somehow totally proves that there really is an NWO evil organization, that really did 9/11 just to play games with our heads and is out to enslave and kill us all in FEMA camps, while they live forever with immortality technology, etc, etc. While countless numbers of other people are in on it or know about it and are paid to keep quiet.

This is what they are trying to sell to everyone...

[KreeL]

At the WTC we have 10 terrorists in two planes killing 4 pilots and flying their jets into the largest buildings in NYC with 66,000 pounds of jet fuel with the heat energy of 630 TONS of TNT and the 911Truth cult members says arson was done by super thermite which was made up by a physics prof with brain cancer published in a vanity journal?

Yes it was arson and kinetic energy impacts that doomed the WTC, but the super thermite is a delusion. Poor dolts can’t see fraud when it is clearly made up junk.

The terrorist act is too simple for simple cult members of 911Truth to grasp. Kill pilots, fly planes into large buildings. Too complex for 911Truth?

Jones made it up! 911Truth believers are too lazy to research and they are too blind by lack of knowledge to see Jones is a fraud.

Ignorance is bliss for 911Truth cult member chanting “super thermite”. What incompetence display by those simply buying and regurgitating the junk science of Jones who found rust and Al as he excluded all the other elements found and ignore the fact not one single piece of steel in the WTC showed any thermite damage. Zip. Good work 911Truth cult members; total lack of self-esteem and zero knowledge on 911 leads to delusional beliefs.

The problem with your theory is you have no evidence backing it up. A simple part number off of one of the engines or landing gear assembly would go a long way in helping your statement seem a bit more believeable. Perhaps arab names on a manifest would help you out a bit also. In fact a simple picture from one of the many cams in the boarding lounge at Dulles showing some of your phantom 'hijackers' actually boarding a flight would be enormously helpful to your credibility. Pfft...talk about make believe crap - you believe whatever they tell you, eh TAM?:p

[T.A.M.]

I was wondering if Dr. Jones and Kevin Ryan would do it this way. The drip-drip-drip of one credentialled scientist after another confirming their findings will be devastating for the government story. This way it's not a story that comes and goes....it's ongoing and damning and puts the major media under steadily increasing pressure to pick on the story which will be the final decapitating blow. Truthers may be on all the talk shows soon..

ROFLMAO.

Yes, I await a return of Fetzer and Reynolds to the talk shows...oh please let it be so.

Alas, you will see, bill, that a year from now, this paper will be long gone, long forgotten, except in the minds of the few truthers left.

But why don't you bookmark this post of mine, so you can rub it in my face if I am wrong...lol

TAM:)

[beachnut]

I was wondering if Dr. Jones and Kevin Ryan would do it this way. The drip-drip-drip of one credentialled scientist after another confirming their findings will be devastating for the government story. This way it's not a story that comes and goes....it's ongoing and damning and puts the major media under steadily increasing pressure to pick on the story which will be the final decapitating blow. Truthers may be on all the talk shows soon..
They are seen as crazy people with nut case ideas. The elements they picked from their samples have nothing to do with thermite being planted in the WTC. Jones has a nut case idea thermite was planted in the WTC and he found rust and Al and excluded all the other elements in his fraud paper.

You have not tried to learn chemistry and you post zero evidence as Dr Jones paper is ignored because the conclusions from the paper mean he ignored other elements he found and ruled out by faulty methods. You are funny as you have zero knowledge and fail to realize Jones is making up the thermite scenario he can’t define in the first place.

Jones says people carried in the thermite in sacks, but now he lets Hoffman explain it was painted on the steel columns and in ceiling tiles. You lap up the lies and think they have something due to your complete ignorance of the needed specialties to understand Hoffman and Jones are making it all up. No one outside of 911Truth circles will support the paper. You can’t support the paper you have no knowledge or experience. You spew half-baked ideas and have no clue you were fooled. The ultimate con, you don’t know you were taken.

Jones was fired, forced to retire due to his insane preoccupation with the MIB planting thermite in the WTC. Now you think there is a day the lid will blow off: you missed it Jones lost all touch with reality in September 2005 when he first dropped a concrete block feet onto the ground and declared there was too much dust at the WTC so there is something wrong. Yes, Dr Jones has crazy ideas on 911 and you lack the skill and logic to understand he has delusions.

[KreeL]

Once again, beachnut, cognitive dissonance is a bitch.:D

[fullflavormenthol]

It seems to me that this thread is composed of people with knowledge of the scientific method and rules of research explaining why this paper doesn't meet the standard, and others without knowledge (not to mention being so arrogant that they remind me of the hybrid episode of South Park) screaming, "Nah uh! This is big!"

My prediction is that one year from now this thread will be dead, and so will any notion of this paper being "explosive". It will be obscure and not paid attention to outside of truther circles. I would apply for the million dollar prize based on the accuracy of my prediction, but I would imagine that there is a rule against using 1:1 (even money) odds to justify my prediction. :D

[bill smith]

ROFLMAO.

Yes, I await a return of Fetzer and Reynolds to the talk shows...oh please let it be so.

Alas, you will see, bill, that a year from now, this paper will be long gone, long forgotten, except in the minds of the few truthers left.

But why don't you bookmark this post of mine, so you can rub it in my face if I am wrong...lol

TAM:)

I'm not that concerned TAM. If this revelation doesn't do it another will. This looks like a strong candidate thouugh. If it's correctly managed this can easily be 'the one'. Either way sooner or later the scales will fall from people's eyes and they will call a spade a spade. Have a little faith in your fellow man.

It's unfortunate that the Truth Movement has almost disappeared but I suppose that means that the few dozen of us that are left will just have to work harder.

.

[KreeL]

It seems to me that this thread is composed of people with knowledge of the scientific method and rules of research explaining why this paper doesn't meet the standard, and others without knowledge (not to mention being so arrogant that they remind me of the hybrid episode of South Park) screaming, "Nah uh! This is big!"

My prediction is that one year from now this thread will be dead, and so will any notion of this paper being "explosive". It will be obscure and not paid attention to outside of truther circles. I would apply for the million dollar prize based on the accuracy of my prediction, but I would imagine that there is a rule against using 1:1 (even money) odds to justify my prediction. :D

How ludicrous to believe that top scientists and laboratories don't understand 'scientific method'. The only 'scientific method' understood by gov't non-toofers is 'they tell me what to think'. Works for you!;)

[bill smith]

It seems to me that this thread is composed of people with knowledge of the scientific method and rules of research explaining why this paper doesn't meet the standard, and others without knowledge (not to mention being so arrogant that they remind me of the hybrid episode of South Park) screaming, "Nah uh! This is big!"

My prediction is that one year from now this thread will be dead, and so will any notion of this paper being "explosive". It will be obscure and not paid attention to outside of truther circles. I would apply for the million dollar prize based on the accuracy of my prediction, but I would imagine that there is a rule against using 1:1 (even money) odds to justify my prediction. :D
If you can prove Bazant's collapse hypothesis Heiwa is offering a one millon dollar prize. See another thread for details.

[beachnut]

ROFLMAO.

Yes, I await a return of Fetzer and Reynolds to the talk shows...oh please let it be so.

Alas, you will see, bill, that a year from now, this paper will be long gone, long forgotten, except in the minds of the few truthers left.

But why don't you bookmark this post of mine, so you can rub it in my face if I am wrong...lol

TAM:)
Old Dr Jones will post another paper after he gets the money and there will be another yearly epiphany of 911Truth to keep the cult busy hoping as spring emerges.

The dumber the paper the more it is the smoking gun, or what did Jones say this time, the LOADED GUN to prove something incredible.

What is fascinating there is ample evidence for doubt of Jones conclusion from the paper itself; did they all forget to read it and check the references? What do they think references are for but to be checked to see if they support the paper conclusions? Why are these 911Truth cult members acting like moths to bright light (in this case the bright light of stupid) unable to figure it out?

The paper clearly shows how Jones made his conclusion based on the exclusion of other elements in his own sample. And how the samples failed to match the thermal properties of thermite. The paper proves Jones conclusion to be an opinion based on his own obvious exclusions and selected results.

Maybe in the next 7 years some of those who believe in Jones will get a PhD in some related field to climb out of the pit of ignorance they have slipped into on the slim trap set by Jones’ anti-intellectual tripe.

[ozeco41]

It seems to me that this thread is composed of people with knowledge of the scientific method and rules of research explaining why this paper doesn't meet the standard, and others without knowledge (not to mention being so arrogant that they remind me of the hybrid episode of South Park) screaming, "Nah uh! This is big!"...
Well we are on the same "side" and I don't want to piss on your parade BUT.....

tHe problem is not strictly about scientific method OR research of the type the scientific method is focussed towards.

The exercise is actually one of engineering forensic analysis of a single, one-off event. The principles of scientific research are valuable but do not apply to all aspects of WTC 9/11.

That said the therm*te question is close to scientific method - the real problem from engineering forensic analysis is that it is irrelevant to the primary question of "Was there demolition". There was no demolition as shown by all the other evidence so, even if the material is therm*te, it will need another explanation other than demolition.

[Jackanory]

The problem with your theory is you have no evidence backing it up. A simple part number off of one of the engines or landing gear assembly would go a long way in helping your statement seem a bit more believeable. Perhaps arab names on a manifest would help you out a bit also. In fact a simple picture from one of the many cams in the boarding lounge at Dulles showing some of your phantom 'hijackers' actually boarding a flight would be enormously helpful to your credibility. Pfft...talk about make believe crap - you believe whatever they tell you, eh TAM?:p

All been done and long ago?

Kreel strikes again:jaw-dropp

[KreeL]

Interesting, and a great start for non-toofers to attempt to explain the presence of thermite. This will be good.

"Yeah, thermite was found, BUT we all know the towers simply collapsed due to fire and gravity because we saw it on TV!"

ROFL

As for your non-toofer scientific method. How about NIST? - "We aren't going to check for arson (even though required by fire code) BECAUSE we (the gov't...spelled G.O.D.) have decided that fire and gravity brought down the towers because we saw it on TV!".

ROFL -- either way, you're screwed.

[metamars]

How far away from a star do we have to be to no longer see it in the night sky then? Assuming these stars are spheres. Can you "punch in" those numbers for us Genius?

The astute reader will notice that the question asks about seeing a star in the night sky. That's because 911 impacts occurred on a dark, moonless night. NOT.

planck's constant h = 6.6 x 10^-34 joule-sec

eyeballing the graph here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EM_spectrum.svg

we see that the frequency of a photon in the optical range is 10^15 sec^-1


so, an optical source which outputs 1 measely joule, weighs in at ~ 10^19 photons (since E = h * frequency )

To put 10^19 into perspective, consider that the US Debt is in the trillions. A Trillion = 10^12. That's a lot of photons!!!

So, 1 joule's worth of a WTC source of thermite chip photons, in the optical range, will still be hitting you with about

10^19 / 10,000,000,000 = 10^9 optical range photons (per unit area)

Yet, you're not going to go blind, and your cornea will not melt. Why do you suppose that is? If you can figure that out, I trust that you can figure out why you probably are not going to be able to distinguish photons belonging to a thermite chip from photons that are from something else.

You should also be able to figure out, qualitatively, how it is that stars that are so very, very, very, very, very far away can still be visible, even if their intensity is very, very, very, very, very diminished, as compared to near their source. If you want to know the details about a particular star, talk to your friendly, neighborhood astronomer or astrophysicist.

[fullflavormenthol]

How ludicrous to believe that top scientists and laboratories don't understand 'scientific method'. The only 'scientific method' understood by gov't non-toofers is 'they tell me what to think'. Works for you!;)
Oh yes, and I am also on the payroll, and I am really an agent. I know, I have read your bull(rule 10) for multiple pages now. Your so proud of yourself and what not, and it is sad because no one outside of the troofers and debunking community pays attention to this nonsense.

And go ahead and provide some actual evidence of top scientists and laboratories confirming this "evidence". All I see here is your assumption that the Publish America of the scientific journal actually cares about the process of peer review.

Why wasn't it tested againts other paint samples? That makes no sense. Why is sulfur not found? There are holes in this paper big enough to drive a truck through. Stop being arrogant for one moment and actually answer the questions.

[beachnut]

I simply drop logic bombs all over the place and see how many shill carcasses stack up all around me. ...
This is classic 911Truth logic? where you buy into failed lies, hearsay, and delusions.

So far you have proven you think super thermite took down the WTC and you have nothing but hearsay, lies, delusions, and a failed paper published in a vanity journal to back your big troll talk. Where is your logic bomb, your logic is missing. You have only bombed.

[beachnut]

Hi friends,
I wrote some observations about the paper we are discussing.

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2009/04/materiale-thermitico-attivo-trovato.html

Thanks,
Henry62
Good job; doubt the 911Truth cult drones can understand.

[WilliamSeger]

Interesting, and a great start for non-toofers to attempt to explain the presence of thermite. This will be good.

But that's not necessary when the paper itself proves that the chips aren't thermite. The paper calls it "thermitic material" which apparently only means that it contained aluminum and iron oxide, and there seems to be only indirect evidence that it was capable of any thermitic activity at all. As glaringly obvious as it is that the paper fails miserably at ruling out paint, that's really a secondary issue. The main issue is that the paper concludes that the chips are "highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material." I wonder if you could be so kind as to briefly summarize the argument that leads to that conclusion, in your own words, just to see if I'm misunderstanding it.

[KreeL]

Funny how he still believes that NIST is telling him the truth. Like we all believe Charles Manson. Riiiiiiight.

[dtugg]

Are you sure you're not a disinfo agent, KreeL?

[fullflavormenthol]

Funny how he still believes that NIST is telling him the truth. Like we all believe Charles Manson. Riiiiiiight.

Yes, yes ad hom based arrogance is fun and all, but how about answering a question? For example...

But that's not necessary when the paper itself proves that the chips aren't thermite. The paper calls it "thermitic material" which apparently only means that it contained aluminum and iron oxide, and there seems to be only indirect evidence that it was capable of any thermitic activity at all. As glaringly obvious as it is that the paper fails miserably at ruling out paint, that's really a secondary issue. The main issue is that the paper concludes that the chips are "highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material." I wonder if you could be so kind as to briefly summarize the argument that leads to that conclusion, in your own words, just to see if I'm misunderstanding it.

Contributing something other than smart (rule 10) responses might actually help your case here.

[Thunder]

wasn't this amazing news supposed to hit the MSM soon? what happened?

lolololol

[Thunder]

We all want the Truth and it looks like we are starting to get it- finally.

submit the samples to independent, non-political testers, for an independent analysis.

then I will believe.

but until that fateful day comes...

YOU FAIL!!!

=)

[fullflavormenthol]

wasn't this amazing news supposed to hit the MSM soon? what happened?

lolololol
It was also supposed to hit all the talk shows too. The most likely thing I see is a special episode of Maury "Help! My son won't move out of the basement!", on that episode this paper will be promoted.

[leftysergeant]

Interesting, and a great start for non-toofers to attempt to explain the presence of thermite.

What thermiote? Nobody has shown us a bloody thing that could reasonably be called thermite.

We have seen the natterings of some nitwits who mistake themselves for geniuses jumping up and down about what they think is thermite, but no proof. We don't have to prove psychotics wrong, they hjave to prove themselves right. They haven't.

Not that that stops socipaths like WeAreChange from making life miserabnle for everybody who demand rational proofs.

As for your non-toofer scientific method. How about NIST? - "We aren't going to check for arson (even though required by fire code)

Fire codes do not require tests for evidence of arson other than that observed when the actual act of arson is observed on live TV.

It would be rather like demanding that the medical examiner test a gunshot victim in a drive-by shooting for snake bite.

[T.A.M.]

Interesting, and a great start for non-toofers to attempt to explain the presence of thermite. This will be good.

"Yeah, thermite was found, BUT we all know the towers simply collapsed due to fire and gravity because we saw it on TV!"

ROFL

As for your non-toofer scientific method. How about NIST? - "We aren't going to check for arson (even though required by fire code) BECAUSE we (the gov't...spelled G.O.D.) have decided that fire and gravity brought down the towers because we saw it on TV!".

ROFL -- either way, you're screwed.

we are screwed? please elaborate? How am I, as a Physician in Canada, screwed in anyway by anything you or your merry band of dickheads produce?

TAM:)

[fullflavormenthol]

It would be rather like demanding that the medical examiner test a gunshot victim in a drive-by shooting for snake bite.

But, but, but...it could be. I mean aren't inspectors supposed to test for everything?;)

[T.A.M.]

wasn't this amazing news supposed to hit the MSM soon? what happened?

lolololol

ask bill. Something about a monkee(sic).

TAM;)

Actually this entire wave of truthers claiming "The end is near" "we will prevail" "the revolution is at hand now" reminds me of Jerome the Gnome, a poster here, who back in early 2007 was predicting that Hillary Clinton was going to win the white house. He Guaranteed it. Told us that that was the plan, and there was nothing that could be done about it. Funny I have not heard from him since Obama (whom he said would not win) won.

Keep telling yourselves what you like truthers. I'll be hear a year from now, when you have gone nowhere, and your "amazing thermite" paper has done ZERO to promote your cause. Will I rub it in your faces...probably.

TAM:)

[KreeL]

Yes, yes ad hom based arrogance is fun and all, but how about answering a question? For example...



Contributing something other than smart (rule 10) responses might actually help your case here.

I have yet to see your paper that ordinary paint is thermitic.

The paper proves that thermitic substance was present in the towers. Arson has been proven. The question you raise as to exactly what type of nano-thermite, how much, and how applied, is likely known only to the arsonists - as one would suspect.

[fullflavormenthol]

I have yet to see your paper that ordinary paint is thermitic.

The paper proves that thermitic substance was present in the towers. Arson has been proven. The question you raise as to exactly what type of nano-thermite, how much, and how applied, is likely known only to the arsonists - as one would suspect.
Thats nice...answer this question. It should be simple given your level of arrogance.

But that's not necessary when the paper itself proves that the chips aren't thermite. The paper calls it "thermitic material" which apparently only means that it contained aluminum and iron oxide, and there seems to be only indirect evidence that it was capable of any thermitic activity at all. As glaringly obvious as it is that the paper fails miserably at ruling out paint, that's really a secondary issue. The main issue is that the paper concludes that the chips are "highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material." I wonder if you could be so kind as to briefly summarize the argument that leads to that conclusion, in your own words, just to see if I'm misunderstanding it.

By the way you are putting words in my mouth as to what questions I am raising. Pathetic, and avoiding the question that I am asking you on behalf of WilliamSeger to answer. Stop with the arrogant (rule 10) (rule 10) to actually stop and defend your position.

EDIT: To speak to Williams question there are many paints with aluminum and Iron Oxide, many of the ones I have found are water based paints that would be used indoors...interesting.

[T.A.M.]

I have yet to see your paper that ordinary paint is thermitic.

Don't need one, see burden of proof.


The paper proves that thermitic substance was present in the towers.


Wrong.


Arson has been proven.


Strike two.


The question you raise as to exactly what type of nano-thermite, how much, and how applied, is likely known only to the arsonists - as one would suspect.

blah blah blah....

Strike three. Ok Jim, what do we have as a consolation prize for our contestant?

TAM;)

[leftysergeant]

The paper proves that thermitic substance was present in the towers. Arson has been proven. The question you raise as to exactly what type of nano-thermite, how much, and how applied, is likely known only to the arsonists - as one would suspect.

It has not been proven to be thermite. It has been proven to contain ELEMENTS which are used in thermite, but it has not been proven that they are present as COMPOUNDS used for thermite, nor has it been ruled out that there are compounds that would inhibit it from acting as thermite.

Linseed oil will prevent some types of thermite from working.

Some types of primer burn readily when you hit them with an acetylene torch.

Your shipment of fail has arrived.

[WilliamSeger]

I have yet to see your paper that ordinary paint is thermitic.

The paper proves that thermitic substance was present in the towers. Arson has been proven. The question you raise as to exactly what type of nano-thermite, how much, and how applied, is likely known only to the arsonists - as one would suspect.

Nope, that was not my question. My request was that you briefly summarize the argument that leads to the conclusion that the chips are "highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive." Since you seem to be convinced that the paper does that, I assumed you could help me work through it.

[Jackanory]

Kreel is a No Planer! Why oh why are you feeding this troll?

[fullflavormenthol]

Nope, that was not my question. My request was that you briefly summarize the argument that leads to the conclusion that the chips are "highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive." Since you seem to be convinced that the paper does that, I assumed you could help me work through it.
Sorry. I was pulling for you, given that you asked a good question that I felt should be answered. Unfortunately he has yet to answer any questions so far.

[dudalb]

Actually this entire wave of truthers claiming "The end is near" "we will prevail" "the revolution is at hand now" reminds me of Jerome the Gnome,.....

Agreed, but they remind me even more of The Black Knight in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail".

"Running away, you cowardly B------s? Come back and fight, and I'll bite you to death!".

[Jackanory]

The problem with your theory is you have no evidence backing it up. A simple part number off of one of the engines or landing gear assembly would go a long way in helping your statement seem a bit more believeable. Perhaps arab names on a manifest would help you out a bit also. In fact a simple picture from one of the many cams in the boarding lounge at Dulles showing some of your phantom 'hijackers' actually boarding a flight would be enormously helpful to your credibility. Pfft...talk about make believe crap - you believe whatever they tell you, eh TAM?:p

Kreel is a Troll - STOP FEEDING HIM.

8 years on and he still lies about lack of known evidence!

How can he be entertained on anything remotely scientific? Ignore!

[apathoid]

Kreel is a No Planer! Why oh why are you feeding this troll?


Exactly. Of all the forums I frequent, this one is positively the worst at ignoring trolls. I wish we would just learn to stop feeding them so they may get bored and move on.

[ozeco41]

Exactly. Of all the forums I frequent, this one is positively the worst at ignoring trolls. I wish we would just learn to stop feeding them so they may get bored and move on.
My feeling also as a relative newbie here.

The personal insults and cad homs and trolling really do frustrate real debate of issues.

And it seem to be accepted that they are the first priority with genuine debate second priority at best.

That may be just the 9/11 corner - I have only looked in here so far.

On another forum the rules against trolling have served to raise trolling to an art form where dewep knowledge of the issues is essential if you are to troll and get away with it.

......there can be admiration of the skill of people who press the limit of rules.

...even if you would wish to call them ********* OR ########

[KDLarsen]

Regarding Niels Harrit's boss disappearance from the Board of Editors at the journal, I've had a word with Niels, but he doens't seem to know anything about that.

Mind you, we're in the middle of the easter holidays, so it could be monday or tuesday before I get a reply to the mail I've sent to Niels O. Andersen.

[fullflavormenthol]

Kreel is a No Planer! Why oh why are you feeding this troll?
I didn't know that. After my experience with Ace Baker I don't think I have it in me to actually put up with another debate. I think I will stick to a debate of the actual paper itself and not to the trolling comments I have been reading.

[beachnut]

Exactly. Of all the forums I frequent, this one is positively the worst at ignoring trolls. I wish we would just learn to stop feeding them so they may get bored and move on.
We need a beer club, or lunch club; if we post to a troll we have to buy.

Who do I own a beer to? I have to hide now.

Who will bring the thermite chips dipped in mek.

[ozeco41]

We need a beer club, or lunch club; if we post to a troll we have to buy.

Who do I own a beer to? I have to hide now.

Who will bring the thermite chips dipped in mek.
Count me in. Mine is Boags Special.

Any pub in Sydney. Others by prior arrangement.

(Never offer beer with Aussies listening :D )

[Jackanory]

We need a beer club, or lunch club; if we post to a troll we have to buy.

Who do I own a beer to? I have to hide now.

Who will bring the thermite chips dipped in mek.

lol - point taken.

I suppose the twoofers are also a psychiatrists wet dream and the twoofer gets free couch time on here too:rolleyes:

[apathoid]

We need a beer club, or lunch club; if we post to a troll we have to buy.

Who do I own a beer to? I have to hide now.

Who will bring the thermite chips dipped in mek.


We'll do a forum search and settle up at this years NWO Gala. The worst troll feeder will be sacrificed to the Moloch aka Big Owl. :p

(only after buying a round, of course) ;)

[Jackanory]

Count me in. Mine is Boags Special.

Any pub in Sydney. Others by prior arrangement.

(Never offer beer with Aussies listening :D )

Pure Blonde on Kings Beach will do nicely:)

[beachnut]

I am afraid it is my shout.

[leftysergeant]

Somewhere, I have seen a video in which the giggling slob mentions finding zinc in one of his samples, and I believe he was referring to the chips. That completesthe list of things that should be in the paint, but I can't seem to locate it right now. I can only watch som many hours of Jones' rantings before I start giggling inappropriately. Contagious.

[BigAl]

We need a beer club, or lunch club; if we post to a troll we have to buy.

Who do I own a beer to? I have to hide now.

Who will bring the thermite chips dipped in mek.

I nominate the place that could be my local.

http://www.suspendersbar.com/

On Broadway just a block north of Wall Street/Trinity Church, Suspenders is the best kept secret in the Financial District. Owned by former NYC firemen, the restaurant/bar seats 200 indoors. The mahogany bar and turn of the century woodwork give a charming atmosphere to our newly revamped Wall Street institution. Our private party room seats 45 guests with complete audio/video services and wireless internet connectivity. Our main dining room may also be partitioned for larger events, presentations and conferences.

[George152]

I am afraid it is my shout.

Why?
I thought you'd be only too pleased to assuage my thirst...

[GregoryUrich]

Here again, gregory, you are assuming 1" thickness. You must remember that military grade nano-thermite remains out of the public domain. Quite simply we can't guess how much, or what thickness, would be required to produce the results witnessed. Your argument fails.:cool:

You didn't read the links did you. The thermitic reaction is the same in terms of energy release regardless of the size of the particles. Dr. Greening calculated full reactivity which is the maximum yield.

Take some time and think about this. Do the math and see for yourself.

[GregoryUrich]

Hi all

I have great concern for the credibility and reputation of the University of Copenhagen and Niels Bohr's old institute.

Harrit and 911 truthsites have attempted to gain credibility for they work and Bentham by pointing out that the dean of the natural science faculty of the university of Copenhagen is a member of The open chemical physical journal's editorial board.

This appears to no longer be the case. Dean Niels O. Andersen has been removed from the list of editors.

List of editors:
URL: ---.bentham.org/open/tocpj/EBM.htm

I hope this is a step towards repairing some of the damage done.

I'm currently considering translating a recent interview with Harrit from Danish national TV, where he claims:

- They have found nanothermite in WTC dust.
- The nanothermite is an explosive, apparently capable of hurling 30 tons steel beams in parabolic trajectories up to 100m.
- Nanothermite is super high technological front line military research

My poor language skills are holding me back, but if there is interest, i will try.

Interview with Niels Harrit:
URL: ---.youtube.com/watch?v=nP810ssxyo4

Regards
Scientiae Confidimus

SC,

I'm an american ex-pat living in Sweden and speak and write Swedish fluently. I never understand a word the Danes are saying (and apparently neither do they (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-mOy8VUEBk)) but I usually understand it if it's written. I could take a look at what you come up with.

[KreeL]

You didn't read the links did you. The thermitic reaction is the same in terms of energy release regardless of the size of the particles. Dr. Greening calculated full reactivity which is the maximum yield.

Take some time and think about this. Do the math and see for yourself.

So Greening is privy to the properties of nano-thermite?

[beachnut]

So Greening is privy to the properties of nano-thermite?
beer time


nano-thermite is the same energy per gram as is thermite. Sorry, you can't comprehend chemistry and you have fallen for Jones' lies and pathetic implied scenario of stupid. Knowledge is needed in a fact fight. Why do you come unarmed?

[KreeL]

You can have a beer and not dodge the question.:)

So what does Greening say about the findings in the paper?

[The Platypus]

You can have a beer and not dodge the question.:)

So what does Greening say about the findings in the paper?

Of course you cult minions never ever dodge questions... not you, no never...:rolleyes:

[KreeL]

Greening being an honorable chemist should be highly interested in the latest discovery. I am curious while waiting for his explanation of the presence of thermite in the towers.

[Orphia Nay]

Somewhere, I have seen a video in which the giggling slob mentions finding zinc in one of his samples, and I believe he was referring to the chips. That completesthe list of things that should be in the paint, but I can't seem to locate it right now. I can only watch som many hours of Jones' rantings before I start giggling inappropriately. Contagious.

Figure 14 of the paper shows zinc in the chips.

Fig. (14). XEDS spectrum of red side before soaking in MEK. Notice
the presence of Zn and Cr, which are sometimes seen in the red
layers. The large Ca and S peaks may be due to surface contamination
with wallboard material.

[Dog Town]

Greening being an honorable chemist should be highly interested in the latest discovery. I am curious while waiting for his explanation of the presence of thermite in the towers.

If you paid the slightest bit of attention, you could have your answer. Hell, even in this very thread, there is a link to the forum he hangs out!

Good Luck, you'll need it!

[beachnut]

You can have a beer and not dodge the question.:)

So what does Greening say about the findings in the paper?

You posted a dumb question, which quoted the very answer I gave you again. You are told the answers and you ignore them without missing a post.

Who cares what Greening does, he loves to stir the pot and failed to see zinc in the samples Jones had as covered in the paper. Dr Geewhiz missed zinc in the very paper as he was trying to tease JREF for calling the chips paint when they could be remnants of paint burnt and sent flying on 911. Who cares if it is paint or chips of debris, it is not proof of super thermite used to bring down the WTC. So Dr Geewhiz can take his PhD expert opinions and stick them in the pit of ignorance with 911Truth doltish ideas right next to all your failed ideas. Dr Gwhiz stirs the pot so those who lack knowledge can imagine he is supporting their insane claims on 911. He is teasing you as much as he teases JREF. Wake up; he has a PhD he is not stupid but he may be a curmudgeonly Phd; preying on the uniformed and unprepared in a fact fight you are unarmed and unable to participate.

[KreeL]

Who does Greening work for again?

[KreeL]

Isn't Greening the guy (a chemist) who tried and failed to debate Gordon Ross on the physics of the collapses?

Oh yeah, I remember him quite well. ROFL

[WilliamSeger]

Greening being an honorable chemist should be highly interested in the latest discovery. I am curious while waiting for his explanation of the presence of thermite in the towers.

Well, for one thing:
You suggest that the DSC traces shown in Figures 19 and 29 are indicative of thermite reactions such as:

Fe2O3 + 2Al = Al2O3 + 2Fe

However, if this was true, the DSC traces should show a sharp endothermic reaction peak at 659 °C due to the melting of aluminium. Such a peak is absent from your traces. This, I think, seriously undermines your identification of the red/gray chips as some form of thermite.

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/active-thermitic-material-in-wtc-dust-t150.html

By the way, how are you coming with that summary of Jones' argument for a "highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material?"

[Dog Town]

---Greening being an honorable chemist should be highly interested in the latest discovery. I am curious while waiting for his explanation of the presence of thermite in the towers.

--Isn't Greening the guy (a chemist) who tried and failed to debate Gordon Ross on the physics of the collapses?

Oh yeah, I remember him quite well. ROFL

Schizophrenic much?

[KreeL]

If you are going to believe someone, just make sure they know what they are talking about. Greening has proven himself daft by trying to make himself an expert in all areas of science - many of which he fails. Collapse physics being only one.:p

[The Platypus]

If you are going to believe someone, just make sure they know what they are talking about. Greening has proven himself daft by trying to make himself an expert in all areas of science - many of which he fails. Collapse physics being only one.:p

:yikes: This is absolutely hilarious coming from a cult minion who should be listening to his own advice.

[Slayhamlet]

Holy crap, did a Truthtard really just try to pass off the no-Arab-names-on-the-flight-manifests" lie? In 2009? How much more benighted can these losers get?

[Dog Town]

If you are going to believe someone, just make sure they know what they are talking about. Greening has proven himself daft by trying to make himself an expert in all areas of science - many of which he fails. Collapse physics being only one.:p


As opposed to you, who follow Christ in Americas & Cold Fusion!? Gottcha!

[KreeL]

Cognitive dissonance much? Seems to be all over the non-toofers in this thread.

[The Platypus]

Cognitive dissonance much? Seems to be all over the non-toofers in this thread.

LOL Now he tries the old "pot called the kettle" tactic LOL Boy, that will fool everyone! Especially right after you just got called on your blatant hypocrisy, repeatedly! LOL

You should really stop with the snake oil salesman tactics, because you really really suck at it. You are more transparent than glass. It's like watching a unruly child that lies alot while pointing the finger at everyone else, while thinking that he's got the world outsmarted.

[Henry62]

Hi friends,
I wrote some observations about the paper we are discussing.

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2009/04/materiale-thermitico-attivo-trovato.html

Thanks,
Henry62
Good job; doubt the 911Truth cult drones can understand.

Thanks Beachnut.

I think Dr. Jones & Co. commited two heavy analysis method errors, at least:

- use of MEK with Al (Al + MEK => chemical reaction);
- use of DSC in air, so the Carbon combustion created a great heat quantity.

Why didn't they use unreactive atmosphere, as Argon or Nitrogen, in the DSC test?

Thermite must burn without Oxigen from air, because its Oxigen is in Fe2O3.

Hi,
Henry62


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

Visit my English blog:

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/04/english-section.html

[KreeL]

Perhaps an explanation is in order.;)

Thermitic material has been found and verified. It wasn't paint chips. This is fact. This means that all the other threads on this great site don't amount to anything. The party is over for you guys.

I've read the other threads and they are generally 20-30 non-toofers backslapping each other for repeating talking points given to them by the government/NIST/Popular Mechanics until they actually believe the nonsense regardless of reality. They run up about 15 pages wailing against the minority of those seeking the truth until the truthseekers give up from the idiocy. This laughingly equals victory in the minds of the non-toofers -and they rinse/repeat for every thread. As more and more experts piled up against the gov't theory at every critical juncture (scientists, pilots, military, architects, et al), the non-toofers here simply cranked up the backslapping rhetoric.

So why bother posting previous threads? I asked for the serial numbers from the plane debris, photos of hijackers boarding the flights, manifests with arab names, simple stuff if you truly believed what you were arguing, but all we get are links to other threads where supposedly these questions were laid to rest. That's just three easy things to expect just one of you to produce.

Now we have empirical scientific proof that blows the non-toofers out of the water. All the other backslap threads mean squat, because if those that told you what to think lied about the collapses, then they lied to the you about a myriad of other things concerning 9/11. Cognitive dissonance requires you to cling to your theory. The only question is for how long.

[Henry62]

...
Thermitic material has been found and verified. It wasn't paint chips. This is fact ...

Are you really sure?

:jaw-dropp

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

Visit my English blog:

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/200...h-section.html

[alienentity]

Thanks Beachnut.

I think Dr. Jones & Co. commited two heavy analysis method errors, at least:

- use of MEK with Al (Al + MEK => chemical reaction);
- use of DSC in air, so the Carbon combustion created a great heat quantity.

Why didn't they use unreactive atmosphere, as Argon or Nitrogen, in the DSC test?

Thermite must burn without Oxigen from air, because its Oxigen is in Fe2O3.

Hi,
Henry62


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

Visit my English blog:

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/04/english-section.html

Very good points.

I see you guys are still playing 'Whack-a-Troll' with KreeL. Since I last checked the thread I enjoyed a cultural event, spent some time with some nice normal people (who aren't convinced the illuminati are out to get them TODAY that is).

I took some small comfort in the fact that most people intuitively abhor the constant campaign of 9/11 'truth' to smear everything and everyone who doesn't agree with their paranoid fantasies.

That doesn't mean that it isn't important for others, on forums such as this one, to fight this evil 'truth' movement which is little more than a modern-day witch hunt, IMHO.

If it amuses you to play Whack-a-Troll, whack away boys. And thanks for your other efforts as well.

goodnight

[WilliamSeger]

Perhaps an explanation is in order.;)

Thermitic material has been found and verified. It wasn't paint chips.

Yes, thank you; I think that's a pretty good summary of Jones' argument for "highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material": He "concluded" it by assuming it.

[twinstead]

Perhaps an explanation is in order.;)

Thermitic material has been found and verified. It wasn't paint chips. This is fact. This means that all the other threads on this great site don't amount to anything. The party is over for you guys.

I've read the other threads and they are generally 20-30 non-toofers backslapping each other for repeating talking points given to them by the government/NIST/Popular Mechanics until they actually believe the nonsense regardless of reality. They run up about 15 pages wailing against the minority of those seeking the truth until the truthseekers give up from the idiocy. This laughingly equals victory in the minds of the non-toofers -and they rinse/repeat for every thread. As more and more experts piled up against the gov't theory at every critical juncture (scientists, pilots, military, architects, et al), the non-toofers here simply cranked up the backslapping rhetoric.

So why bother posting previous threads? I asked for the serial numbers from the plane debris, photos of hijackers boarding the flights, manifests with arab names, simple stuff if you truly believed what you were arguing, but all we get are links to other threads where supposedly these questions were laid to rest. That's just three easy things to expect just one of you to produce.

Now we have empirical scientific proof that blows the non-toofers out of the water. All the other backslap threads mean squat, because if those that told you what to think lied about the collapses, then they lied to the you about a myriad of other things concerning 9/11. Cognitive dissonance requires you to cling to your theory. The only question is for how long.

You are under the mistaken impression that the only detractors to your theory exist here on this forum.

Oh what a tangled web we weave

[Sparky]

So Greening is privy to the properties of nano-thermite?

Oh, please! Are you seriously going to try and pull the "orders of magnitude" argument that Billy tried the other night?

I would hope that you would be more original than that!

[KreeL]

tsk, tsk, tsk - still oblivious sparky?:rolleyes:

[Sparky]

I see you guys are still playing 'Whack-a-Troll' with KreeL. Since I last checked the thread I enjoyed a cultural event, spent some time with some nice normal people (who aren't convinced the illuminati are out to get them TODAY that is).



I pretty much did the same as you today. Since Kreel of Zacky Farms never agreed to my challenge of last night, I decided to be productive at work today instead of wasting my time reproducing NFPA 72 data.

Probably even earned my outrageously high NWO paycheck today, even though it was a Friday!

[Sparky]

tsk, tsk, tsk - still oblivious sparky?:rolleyes:

Blinded, Kreel. Ask me if I care.

[The Platypus]

Perhaps an explanation is in order.;)

Thermitic material has been found and verified. It wasn't paint chips. This is fact. This means that all the other threads on this great site don't amount to anything. The party is over for you guys.

I've read the other threads and they are generally 20-30 non-toofers backslapping each other for repeating talking points given to them by the government/NIST/Popular Mechanics until they actually believe the nonsense regardless of reality. They run up about 15 pages wailing against the minority of those seeking the truth until the truthseekers give up from the idiocy. This laughingly equals victory in the minds of the non-toofers -and they rinse/repeat for every thread. As more and more experts piled up against the gov't theory at every critical juncture (scientists, pilots, military, architects, et al), the non-toofers here simply cranked up the backslapping rhetoric.

So why bother posting previous threads? I asked for the serial numbers from the plane debris, photos of hijackers boarding the flights, manifests with arab names, simple stuff if you truly believed what you were arguing, but all we get are links to other threads where supposedly these questions were laid to rest. That's just three easy things to expect just one of you to produce.

Now we have empirical scientific proof that blows the non-toofers out of the water. All the other backslap threads mean squat, because if those that told you what to think lied about the collapses, then they lied to the you about a myriad of other things concerning 9/11. Cognitive dissonance requires you to cling to your theory. The only question is for how long.

You are quite delusional as is typical of brainwashed cult minions. I can see right through your hustles, your lies and your arrogant act.

Your cult hasn't won anything, noone outside of 9/11 cult sites is buying this latest attempt at trickery. And outside of those and a few skeptic sites, noone even cares because the credibility of your little cult and it's few "experts" have continually proven yourselves to be completely untrustworthy. Not only that, but this whole "party is over, we won", constant childish arrogance game, has been played so many times already it's pathetic.

Also your delusions of grandeur about your fringe group, and all these "experts" you have in it, are completely false and you are exposing yourself as a liar, while you aren't not fooling anyone. The vast majority of experts do not agree with you nor does the vast majority of the public agree with you. You're cult is not growing, it's shrinking in numbers and dying out and there aren't many of you left.

Boldly calling yourselves truthers out of bold arrogance, is the dumbest move your cult could have done to itself because it only because it exposes you for what you really are. You didn't even come up with this tactic, the largest cults, religions, beat you too the "wave around the word truth" game by several thousand years. The only people that run around going "truth, truth, truth" all the time are manipulative habitual liars, snake oil selling conmen trying to cover cover and boost their sales pitch, and arrogant delusional cults to reinforce the brainwashing within and marketing of, the cult.

[fullflavormenthol]

You know what is kinda of funny here is that if you look at the context in which Cognitive dissonance is being thrown around; you'll find the person using it, probably doesn't understand what it means.

[ozeco41]

Remember also folks that the discussion here is on a narrow focus - it is about alleged thermate residues on the site.

I care not whether the answer is yes or no - though I suspect "no".

BUT why do I care not?

Because even if a truck load of thermate was deposited on site it does not lead to any conclusions about demolition. All the other evidence strongly rebuts demolition by any agent.

So why do we keep feeding the trolls who play "reverse the burden of truth?"

They are the ones saying (by implication - not game to support the statement are they?) ....saying "demolition!" it is their "burden of proof" to support their claims.

OK folks money where mouth is. What structural members of the Towers were cut by thermate? How did that happen? Was it possible? and, naturally, let us see if it could have caused or assisted the "collapse that actually happened"

I can identify only one small window of opportunity - maybe the pro thermate mob can show me where I am wrong or what I am missing.

And my "small window of opportunity"? requires a team of suicide workers to go into the impact zone and apply thermate (or explosives) after the aircraft crash and whilst fires are raging. (Engineers don't read this. For the non engineers who can't work it out for themselves it is on the floor joist lower chords - and after the crash because among the issues against this is the simple fact that the crash would remove it if pre-positioned. Brave men these terrorists intent on getting their 72 clear raisins in paradise)

So you pro thermate claimers prove me wrong.

:D :) :rolleyes:

[240-185]

OK folks money where mouth is. What structural members of the Towers were cut by thermate? How did that happen? Was it possible? and, naturally, let us see if it could have caused or assisted the "collapse that actually happened"

Beware! That picture with that truss cut diagonally should reappear!

[ozeco41]

Beware! That picture with that truss cut diagonally should reappear!
I think I have its mate - the one of the bloke cutting said truss - er column - already on my server - but thanks for the warning - I will check. :D



EDIT: This is probably better:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySHgiUxnLC0

[Henry62]

Beware! That picture with that truss cut diagonally should reappear!

:eek: :)

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/04/real-world-tests-cut-through-steel.html

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/02/technical-widening-about-thermal.html

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/12/molten-metal-pools-may-have-simple.html

:p

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

Visit my English blog:

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/04/english-section.html

[ozeco41]

:eek: :)

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/04/real-world-tests-cut-through-steel.html

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/02/technical-widening-about-thermal.html

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/12/molten-metal-pools-may-have-simple.html

:p

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

Visit my English blog:

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/200...h-section.html
Thanks Henry - those thermic lances are impressive - and they will work underwater.

I met one "truther" on another forum who had thermic lances and thermite confused..

[bill smith]

If a man falls down dead and here are two competing theories for how he died- one saying that he died from a wound and another saying that the wound was not grevious enough to kill him and that they believe that the real reason for his death is that he was poisoned.

Then the first people put in their own coroners who say that the cause of his death was definately the wound and only the wound. Still the second group is not satisfied and come up with several elaborate scenarios for how he died. One of these says it was poison- and not any old poison- they even know the type, which is a rare exotic poison only accessible to the first group of people and their agents.

This goes on for years intil the second group perform an in depth study of the dead man's blood which shows that it is liberally laced with the exact same rare poison that they predicted. Efforts by he first group to disrove this scientific finding appear to fail.

Therefore the second group is fully entitled to an immediate exhumation and reexamination of the body by a group of fully independent coroners. Would anybody find that unreasonable ?

[dtugg]

If a man falls down dead and here are two competing theories for how he died- one saying that he died from a wound and another saying that the wound was not grevious enough to kill him and that they believe that the real reason for his death was that he was poisoned.

Then the first people put in their own coroners who say that the cause for his death was definately he wound and only the wound. Still the second group is not satisfied and come up with several elaborate scenarios for how he died. One of these says it was poison- and not any old poison- they even know the type, which is a rare exotic poison only accessible to the first group of people and their agents.

IThis goes on for years intil the second group perform an in depth study of the dead man''s blood which shows that it is liberally laced with the exact same rare poison that they predicted. Efforts by he first group to disrove this scientific finding appear to fail.

Therefore the first group is fully entitled to an immediate autopsy and reexaniation by a group of international fully independent coroners. Would anybody find that unreasonable ?

To make your little analogy match reality, the second group are actually proven frauds and idiots and what they found in the blood was totally innocuous and to be expected. And the second group of idiots and frauds have never even proven that their alleged poison can even kill a man. So no. They get no second autopsy.

[ozeco41]

If a man falls down dead and here are two competing theories for how he died- one saying that he died from a wound and another saying that the wound was not grevious enough to kill him and that they believe that the real reason for his death was that he was poisoned.

Then the first people put in their own coroners who say that the cause for his death was definately he wound and only the wound. Still the second group is not satisfied and come up with several elaborate scenarios for how he died. One of these says it was poison- and not any old poison- they even know the type, which is a rare exotic poison only accessible to the first group of people and their agents.

IThis goes on for years intil the second group perform an in depth study of the dead man''s blood which shows that it is liberally laced with the exact same rare poison that they predicted. Efforts by he first group to disrove this scientific finding appear to fail.

Therefore the first group is fully entitled to an immediate autopsy and reexamination of the body by a group of international fully independent coroners. Would anybody find that unreasonable ?
Apart from the false analogy and therefore "Off Topic"

A slightly better analogy would be if, after competent post mortem it was concluded death from previously unknown "rare exotic poison" and some nuts came up and suggested the victim had been stabbed and there was no hole in the corpse.

Because that is the situation you seem to be refering to by innuendo as the WTC collapses.

As you should know full well no second group or third or fourth or..... has ever come up with an alternative scenario. Just Jones Thermate company saying "he was stabbed" but refusing to point to the hole.....

And a few others who play the same childish tricks.

Hence my challenge for some truther to "put up". In two years regularly issuing that challenge I have only met one taker. He was pretty good - I let him develop his hypothesis "on the fly" - so he learned something about structures and demolition - but in the end he was Committed CT to the end - had him down to that same "one last window of opportunity" and he sort of forgot to come back to the forum. Like most "truthers" or "CT's" he knew he was wrong but could not bring himself to face up to admitting it.

And, by the way, don't blame me for the remaining defects in the analogy - you put up the ridiculous original and I just corrected the raw material to make a better "fit".

It should be an international day of celebration if EVER a SINGLE truther puts up an alternative scenario.

At least there will be something to think about.

[GregoryUrich]

If you are going to believe someone, just make sure they know what they are talking about. Greening has proven himself daft by trying to make himself an expert in all areas of science - many of which he fails. Collapse physics being only one.:p

Your saying it doesn't make it true. The physical mechanics involved in the Greening or Ross analyses is not beyond any undergraduate engineer. I know for a fact that Ross made so many mistakes in his work that his conclusions are completes unreliable. I'll be glad to spell it out for you if you are really willing to discuss the issues. Tell us where Greening was wrong and Ross was right.

[GregoryUrich]

Perhaps an explanation is in order.;)

Thermitic material has been found and verified. It wasn't paint chips. This is fact. This means that all the other threads on this great site don't amount to anything. The party is over for you guys.

I've read the other threads and they are generally 20-30 non-toofers backslapping each other for repeating talking points given to them by the government/NIST/Popular Mechanics until they actually believe the nonsense regardless of reality. They run up about 15 pages wailing against the minority of those seeking the truth until the truthseekers give up from the idiocy. This laughingly equals victory in the minds of the non-toofers -and they rinse/repeat for every thread. As more and more experts piled up against the gov't theory at every critical juncture (scientists, pilots, military, architects, et al), the non-toofers here simply cranked up the backslapping rhetoric.

So why bother posting previous threads? I asked for the serial numbers from the plane debris, photos of hijackers boarding the flights, manifests with arab names, simple stuff if you truly believed what you were arguing, but all we get are links to other threads where supposedly these questions were laid to rest. That's just three easy things to expect just one of you to produce.

Now we have empirical scientific proof that blows the non-toofers out of the water. All the other backslap threads mean squat, because if those that told you what to think lied about the collapses, then they lied to the you about a myriad of other things concerning 9/11. Cognitive dissonance requires you to cling to your theory. The only question is for how long.

The material found by your "scientists" couldn't raise the temperature of the columns more that 48 deg C (assuming it was all 6 layers). Please at least come up with a possible scenario before spreading this nonsense. You have a both a civic resposibility and a responsibility to your activist organization to be somewhat sure of what you are talking about.

[leftysergeant]

Figure 14 of the paper shows zinc in the chips.

Okay, I appreciate that a lot, Orphia. I have a hard time making sense of idiot boy's visual aids.

In a prior presentation, Jonesie mentions finding zinc, (and thinking that it somehow figures into there being thermite residues in the dust) and that there is little chromium present, and that this eliminates structural steell as the source for the blobs of metal.

Had that boy two neurons meeting in close proximity, he would by now know that he left the house without some stuff he really needed.

The zinc and chromium were components of paint as "yellow zinc chromate."

The chips are paint. Case closed.

[bill smith]

To make your little analogy match reality, the second group are actually proven frauds and idiots and what they found in the blood was totally innocuous and to be expected. And the second group of idiots and frauds have never even proven that their alleged poison can even kill a man. So no. They get no second autopsy.

Why not rewrite my analogy to conform to your version of the Truth ? Comparing the two could be interesting for everybody. I think the analogy itself works globally quite well.

[T.A.M.]

The material found by your "scientists" couldn't raise the temperature of the columns more that 48 deg C (assuming it was all 6 layers). Please at least come up with a possible scenario before spreading this nonsense. You have a both a civic resposibility and a responsibility to your activist organization to be somewhat sure of what you are talking about.

I think until he turns 18, he probably has no civic responsibility. He is behaving like a 12 year old boy who thinks he has "PWNED" someone in Halo 3, so I think this is his approach.

The true test for me, will be if I can avoid bringing myself to his level when he is proven wrong. It will be so easy to rub it in his face, but will we.

TAM:)

[Sunstealer]

This post will form part of the rebuttal to Jones' paper. I've collated the information quickly in order to show JREF posters and any lurkers as soon as possible, but the evidence is quite damning.

Jones claims that samples a-d are essentially the same material and I agree with him. His paper's EDS spectra are very close and this confirms that the materials are identical.

An analysis of the chips was performed to assess the similarity of the chips and to determine the chemistry and materials that make up the chips.

All of the chips used in the study had a gray layer and a red layer and were attracted by a magnet.

Similarities between the samples are already evident from these photographs.

We also have information from another source of Jones' chips namely a chip that has also had SEM and EDS analysis performed on them.

http://darksideofgravity.com/marseille.pdf

Comparing this report and Jones' we see from these SEM photo-micrographs that samples a-d are identical to the chip in the above report.

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=861

We can now closely look at the morphology of the chips a-d and compare the structures therein to see whether there are any similarities between observed structures in the sample and known structures.

Jones' paper clearly examines these structures in samples a-d and notes

The results indicate that the small particles with very high BSE intensity (brightness) are consistently 100 nm in size and have a faceted appearance. These bright particles are seen intermixed with plate-like particles

By placing the beam on a cluster of plate-like particles, the spectrum in Fig. (11a) was generated. The spectrum in Fig. (11b) was acquired from a cluster of the smaller bright faceted grains. Again it was observed that the thin sheet-like particles are rich in Al and Si whereas the bright faceted grains are rich in Fe. Both spectra display significant carbon and oxygen

The results indicate that the smaller particles with very bright BSE intensity are associated with the regions of high Fe and O. The plate-like particles with intermediate BSE intensity appear to be associated with the regions of high Al and Si. The O map (d) also indicates oxygen present, to a lesser degree, in the location of the Al and Si. However, it is inconclusive from these data whether the O is associated with Si or Al or both.Until now.

The following photo-micrograph shows samples a-d (on the left) and Kaolinite (on the right).

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=857


Examining the two side by side clearly shows similarity in size, crystal shape and thickness between the two groups of plate-like particles. Note the exact same style of grouping where platelets have "sandwiched" together in the top middle of b) and the top left of c) in Jones' samples and the exact same phenomenon in the photo to the right. This indicates very strongly that these particles are indeed Kaolinite.

There are many such photo-micrographs of Kaolinite available.

Therefore it is now essential that we examine EDS data of known samples of Kaolinite and compare them with the EDS data generated in Jones' paper. Note that I also include data from the chip sent in the report linked earlier. I have scaled these SEM spectra as best I can in a short space of time in order that the KeV scale matches across spectra.

One of Jones' claims, as is that of the author of the above linked report, is that the EDS spectra of the red layer show signs of contamination

The resulting spectrum, shown in Fig. (14), produced the expected peaks for Fe, Si, Al, O, and C. Other peaks included calcium, sulfur, zinc, chromium and potassium. The occurrence of these elements could be attributed to surface contamination due to the fact that the analysis was performed on the as-collected surface of the red layer. The large Ca and S peaks may be due to contamination with gypsum from the pulverized wallboard material in the buildings.

Gypsum is a naturally occurring mineral and aswell as being used in wall board or drywall is also used in the manufacture of paint. The following are EDS spectra from Kaolinite with Gypsum, Fig 7 c) of Jones' paper and finally slide/page 14 of the above link.

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=858

It is abundantly clear that the spectra share more than enough characteristics to say that not only is gypsum present, but that Kaolinte is too.

The plate-like structures seen in the photo-micrographs, of both "thermite chip" samples, share not only the same crystalline morphology and grouping, but also the same EDS signature.

This means that there is very little doubt remaining as to what these platelets are. In light of this evidence it is safe to say that these platelets consist of Kaolinite, which does not contain any "elemental aluminium". The SEM examination in Jones' paper does not show any other particle type (other than the rhomboidal Fe2O3) and no other data in the EDS spectra for samples a-d indicate it's presence.

Therefore these samples CANNOT be thermite.

QED.

For Jones to now claim that elemental aluminium is present then the only way to confirm this is by XRD analysis or a suitable equivalent.

We can also say that because Kaolinite is present and that it is embedded in a Carbon based matrix with Rhomboidal Fe2O3 that a more likely explanation for the red material is paint.

When we look at the material that the "red layer" in the samples is attached to and the notable difference in the structure compared to the "red layer" along with it's EDS spectra it is clear to see that this is a form of Iron Oxide. The corresponding Carbon peaks and the possibility of Mn peak at 5.9KeV indicate the source of this oxide as being steel.

If you also not in the second photo on this page you can clearly see this oxide layer is also attached to a crystalline fibrous material that again does not share morphology with the "red layer" or the "gray layer". The French paper linked has EDS data of this layer. Notable we do not see the underside of the "gray layer/iron oxide layer" in samples a-d in Jones paper.


Addition.

We can also see the EDS spectra of pure Kaolin for comparison and untreated clay which will explain any queries with the Carbon peak also noting that Carbon is closely associated with Fe in steel.

http://www.scielo.org.ar/scielo.php?pid=S0327-07932007000200005&script=sci_arttext

We can also confirm the presence in other spectra by comparing them eg Fig 11a), Fig 14 (noting the correlating high Ca, O and S peaks - gypsum), etc.

[Thunder]

why do you hate the truth so much?

:D

[bill smith]

The excellent work by Niels Harrit, Farrer, Jones and Ryan et. al in the recent journal article (Thermitic Material Discovered in WTC Dust) has paved the way for some very good media coverage in Denmark. At around 10:30 pm on Monday April 6, Harrit was interviewed for 10 minutes during the late news program on one of the two most respected Danish television channels (TV2). On Wednesday April 8, Harrit was interviewed for 6 minutes at 8:45 am during a live news and entertainment program on the same channel. In both cases, Harrit, and the claims of the article, were treated with refreshing seriousness and respect.

The first interview has been subtitled in English and loaded onto youtube:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2E911blogger%2Ecom%2F&feature=player_embedded

[Thunder]

The excellent work by Niels Harrit, Farrer, Jones and Ryan et. al in the recent journal article (Thermitic Material Discovered in WTC Dust)

has already been debunked. if they dare to bring it to the major American media, it will be torn into shreds and flushed down the toilet, by real scientists who will debunk this stuff to hell.

i now say..bring it on!!! i wonder what the geniuses at MIT and CalTech have to say about this so-called "evidence".

:D

[bill smith]

has already been debunked. if they dare to bring it to the major American media, it will be torn into shreds and flushed down the toilet, by real scientists who will debunk this stuff to hell.

i now say..bring it on!!! i wonder what the geniuses at MIT and CalTech have to say about this so-called "evidence".

:D

So far....zip.

[bill smith]

has already been debunked. if they dare to bring it to the major American media, it will be torn into shreds and flushed down the toilet, by real scientists who will debunk this stuff to hell.

i now say..bring it on!!! i wonder what the geniuses at MIT and CalTech have to say about this so-called "evidence".

:D

When and if they do respond Parky it will start the conversation- hopefully on a national scale which is wht we have been striving for all along. If they do not respond that will tell it's own story. I don't know why you guys are so afraid to go mainstream with this. We are all looking for the Truth after all.

[Thunder]

I don't know why you guys are so afraid to go mainstream with this. We are all looking for the Truth after all.

we are afraid to go mainstream? you guys are the ones with the accusation.

its your job to take it to NBC, CNN, NBC, BBC, etc.

don't tell me you want us to do your work for you?

i assume, one of you guys will bring it to an MSM outlet. what they choose to do with it is their business. though, the way u guys treat their reporters on the street, i would not be surprised if they tell you to "piss off". thats what happens when WAC harrasses their reporters time and time again. you can't call people conspirators in murder and them expect them to pay attention to you. people have feelings...u know?

i suggest you send your findings and some samples of the "thermite" to CalTech or MIT. let them do their own analysis. if they find thermite, i will believe it.

infact, I challenge you guys to do it. if you don't we can assume you are afraid.

[dtugg]

Why not rewrite my analogy to conform to your version of the Truth ? Comparing the two could be interesting for everybody. I think the analogy itself works globally quite well.

A famous, important man is shot on live television and the shooter commits suicide. The important man later dies, also on live television, from his wounds. It is glaringly obvious what happened. The shooter even left a suicide note. Because the man is so famous and important, the government conducts a very thorough investigation including an autopsy and confirms the glaringly obvious. The government even makes the results available to the public. Nobody to date has been able make any challenges that stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny.

However, there is a small group of really stupid and/or crazy people that make up wildly impossible conspiracy theories because they are really stupid and/or crazy and thus don't understand that if somebody gets shot he might die. Some of these stupid/crazy people insist that the man wasn't even shot, that the government in collusion with the media faked the footage. Some of the stupid/crazy people who aren't quite as stupid/crazy as the ones who say the man wasn't shot say that he was also poisoned by a huge conspiracy involving thousands of people and that's why he died. They found a substance in what they claim to be the man's blood that they claim to be a deadly poison. But they can't even prove that the blood belonged to the man. Furthermore, it doesn't even matter if they could because the substance they found was actually something innocuous that would be expected to be found anyway. Even worse for these really stupid and/or crazy people, this substance that they falsely claim they found has never killed anybody in the history of ever nor have they even attempted to prove that it could

So, while the vast majority of people can see the glaringly obvious, some really stupid/crazy people make up really stupid/crazy conspiracy theories to explain it because they are really stupid/crazy. They demand a new investigation to justify their really stupid/crazy ideas, but nobody outside of their little club and the one that likes to make fun it even pays attention. These people will never come close to accomplishing anything, ever. The only good they will ever do to the world is provide endless, unintentional comedy.

The end.

[Sunstealer]

I think Bill must have me on ignore - can anyone quote this and get him to read post #1694 where I clearly debunk scientifically with mountains of evidence that Jones' sample a-d cannot possibly be thermite?

Or do truthers just ignore everything that isn't to their liking? My post shatters Jones' paper completely - there is just no other explanation for those platelets to be anything other than Kaolinite given the current data.

Any truther who wilfully reads and understands that post, who then continues to back Jones' paper is dishonest.

Bill et al - read that post - it's conclusive.

[Thunder]

This post will form part of the rebuttal to Jones' paper. I've collated the information quickly in order to show JREF posters and any lurkers as soon as possible, but the evidence is quite damning.

Jones claims that samples a-d are essentially the same material and I agree with him. His paper's EDS spectra are very close and this confirms that the materials are identical.

We also have information from another source of Jones' chips namely a chip that has also had SEM and EDS analysis performed on them.

http://darksideofgravity.com/marseille.pdf

Comparing this report and Jones' we see from these SEM photo-micrographs that samples a-d are identical to the chip in the above report.

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=861

We can now closely look at the morphology of the chips a-d and compare the structures therein to see whether there are any similarities between observed structures in the sample and known structures.

Jones' paper clearly examines these structures in samples a-d and notes

Until now.

The following photo-micrograph shows samples a-d (on the left) and Kaolinite (on the right).

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=857


Examining the two side by side clearly shows similarity in size, crystal shape and thickness between the two groups of plate-like particles. Note the exact same style of grouping where platelets have "sandwiched" together in the top middle of b) and the top left of c) in Jones' samples and the exact same phenomenon in the photo to the right. This indicates very strongly that these particles are indeed Kaolinite.

There are many such photo-micrographs of Kaolinite available.

Therefore it is now essential that we examine EDS data of known samples of Kaolinite and compare them with the EDS data generated in Jones' paper. Note that I also include data from the chip sent in the report linked earlier. I have scaled these SEM spectra as best I can in a short space of time in order that the KeV scale matches across spectra.

One of Jones' claims, as is that of the author of the above linked report, is that the EDS spectra of the red layer show signs of contamination



Gypsum is a naturally occurring mineral and aswell as being used in wall board or drywall is also used in the manufacture of paint. The following are EDS spectra from Kaolinite with Gypsum, Fig 7 c) of Jones' paper and finally slide/page 14 of the above link.

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=858

It is abundantly clear that the spectra share more than enough characteristics to say that not only is gypsum present, but that Kaolinte is too.

The plate-like structures seen in the photo-micrographs, of both "thermite chip" samples, share not only the same crystalline morphology and grouping, but also the same EDS signature.

This means that there is very little doubt remaining as to what these platelets are. In light of this evidence it is safe to say that these platelets consist of Kaolinite, which does not contain any "elemental aluminium". The SEM examination in Jones' paper does not show any other particle type (other than the rhomboidal Fe2O3) and no other data in the EDS spectra for samples a-d indicate it's presence.

Therefore these samples CANNOT be thermite.

QED.

For Jones to now claim that elemental aluminium is present then the only way to confirm this is by XRD analysis or a suitable equivalent.

We can also say that because Kaolinite is present and that it is embedded in a Carbon based matrix with Rhomboidal Fe2O3 that a more likely explanation for the red material is paint.

When we look at the material that the "red layer" in the samples is attached to and the notable difference in the structure compared to the "red layer" along with it's EDS spectra it is clear to see that this is a form of Iron Oxide. The corresponding Carbon peaks and the possibility of Mn peak at 5.9KeV indicate the source of this oxide as being steel.

If you also not in the second photo on this page you can clearly see this oxide layer is also attached to a crystalline fibrous material that again does not share morphology with the "red layer" or the "gray layer". The French paper linked has EDS data of this layer. Notable we do not see the underside of the "gray layer/iron oxide layer" in samples a-d in Jones paper.


Addition.

We can also see the EDS spectra of pure Kaolin for comparison and untreated clay which will explain any queries with the Carbon peak also noting that Carbon is closely associated with Fe in steel.

http://www.scielo.org.ar/scielo.php?pid=S0327-07932007000200005&script=sci_arttext

We can also confirm the presence in other spectra by comparing them eg Fig 11a), Fig 14 (noting the correlating high Ca, O and S peaks - gypsum), etc.

masterful work my friend. i feel like a speck of dust compared to you.

i expect NO rebuttal from truthers, as they cannot handle the truth.

[Thunder]

When and if they do respond Parky it will start the conversation- hopefully on a national scale which is wht we have been striving for all along. If they do not respond that will tell it's own story. I don't know why you guys are so afraid to go mainstream with this. We are all looking for the Truth after all.

Any comment on Sunstealer's amazing rebuttal to Jones' findings?

Do you have the courage to take it on?

[T.A.M.]

The excellent work by Niels Harrit, Farrer, Jones and Ryan et. al in the recent journal article (Thermitic Material Discovered in WTC Dust) has paved the way for some very good media coverage in Denmark. At around 10:30 pm on Monday April 6, Harrit was interviewed for 10 minutes during the late news program on one of the two most respected Danish television channels (TV2). On Wednesday April 8, Harrit was interviewed for 6 minutes at 8:45 am during a live news and entertainment program on the same channel. In both cases, Harrit, and the claims of the article, were treated with refreshing seriousness and respect.

The first interview has been subtitled in English and loaded onto youtube:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2E911blogger%2Ecom%2F&feature=player_embedded

bill:

I think you should inform Danish TV that they are being duped, so they have a chance to redeem themselves before the paper they produced is shown to be a fraud.

I think you owe that to them...right?

TAM;)

[T.A.M.]

I think Bill must have me on ignore - can anyone quote this and get him to read post #1694 where I clearly debunk scientifically with mountains of evidence that Jones' sample a-d cannot possibly be thermite?

Or do truthers just ignore everything that isn't to their liking? My post shatters Jones' paper completely - there is just no other explanation for those platelets to be anything other than Kaolinite given the current data.

Any truther who wilfully reads and understands that post, who then continues to back Jones' paper is dishonest.

Bill et al - read that post - it's conclusive.

proverbial nail on head my friend.

TAM:)

[metamars]

Any comment on Sunstealer's amazing rebuttal to Jones' findings?

Do you have the courage to take it on?

I have a comment on this "amazing rebuttal". And that is

a) in Sunstealer's #1694 post, there is no link immediately after

"The following photo-micrograph shows samples a-d (on the left) and Kaolinite (on the right)."

b) in your post immediately preceeding this one, wherein you quote Sunstealer's 1694 post, there is a link, viz.,

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=857

When I click on that link, I don't see anything.


Shouldn't an "amazing rebuttal" have non-disappearing links, which point to web pages that still exist?

[tsig]

I have a comment on this "amazing rebuttal". And that is

a) in Sunstealer's #1694 post, there is no link immediately after

"The following photo-micrograph shows samples a-d (on the left) and Kaolinite (on the right)."

b) in your post immediately preceeding this one, wherein you quote Sunstealer's 1694 post, there is a link, viz.,

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=857

When I click on that link, I don't see anything.


Shouldn't an "amazing rebuttal" have non-disappearing links, which point to web pages that still exist?

So you didn't understand anything about the technical aspects of the paper and have to resort to nitpicking.

[twinstead]

So you didn't understand anything about the technical aspects of the paper and have to resort to nitpicking.

Yes, an actual comment on the substance of the paper would have been more convincing.

[Sunstealer]

I have a comment on this "amazing rebuttal". And that is

a) in Sunstealer's #1694 post, there is no link immediately after

"The following photo-micrograph shows samples a-d (on the left) and Kaolinite (on the right)."

b) in your post immediately preceeding this one, wherein you quote Sunstealer's 1694 post, there is a link, viz.,

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=857

When I click on that link, I don't see anything.


Shouldn't an "amazing rebuttal" have non-disappearing links, which point to web pages that still exist?The photo appears for me. One of the photo links didn't work so I edited it 30 seconds after posting to make sure it was there. You should see the photo in post #1694 http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4607894&postcount=1694.

The public JREF album is http://forums.randi.org/album.php?albumid=181 - pic #4 is the one if you can't see it.

I've tried to make the post as concise and in a non-technical language as much as possible. Do you understand the information and what I have said in it? If there is anything you do not understand then please ask.

[metamars]

The photo appears for me. One of the photo links didn't work so I edited it 30 seconds after posting to make sure it was there. You should see the photo in post #1694 http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4607894&postcount=1694.

The public JREF album is http://forums.randi.org/album.php?albumid=181 - pic #4 is the one if you can't see it.


I see it now, thanks.


I've tried to make the post as concise and in a non-technical language as much as possible. Do you understand the information and what I have said in it? If there is anything you do not understand then please ask.

I don't have the time to carefully go through everything. I've already devoted far more time, this past week, than I should have, given my situation. However, I do try to skim intelligently, and focus on whatever is interesting and comprehensible. Sorry if I'm not doing your posts justice.

Some problems:

1) The pictures in wikipedia show a white-ish material. The description says that it can have a red, blue or brown tint from impurities. Why did you not remark on this difference?
2) The kaolinite platelets are much more densely packed than the Jones platelets
3) While I can make out a few candidates for non-platelet particles in the kaolite, it doesn't look like nearly as many as in the Jones photographs
4) You don't tell us what the very few candidates for non-platelets particles in the kaolite are made of. (Though I note that wikipedia says, " In many parts of the world, it is colored pink-orange-red by iron oxide". So, it should not surprise anybody if these candidates turn out to be iron oxide.")
5) You say that they are "similar in size", but while I see a scale in the Jones pictures, I don't see one in the kaolite picture. So, how do you know that they are "similar in size"? You mentioned something earlier about a mesh. Please elaborate.
6) The wikipedia page says

Kaolin is used in ceramics, medicine, coated paper, as a food additive, in toothpaste, as a light diffusing material in white incandescent light bulbs, and in cosmetics. It is generally the main component in porcelain.
It is also used in paint to extend titanium dioxide (TiO2) and modify gloss levels; in rubber for semi-reinforcing properties and in adhesives to modify rheology.[6]

Thus, it doesn't sound like it's a major constituent of paint, but just an additive.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but since it's used to extend TiO2, and TiO2 is used to make paints more opaque and skim milk whiter, as far as I can tell, the same should apply to kaolinite. Consequently, why would anybody make a red paint composed mostly of white pigment? The only answer I can think of is that it's much cheaper than the red pigment, and (perhaps) since the kaolinite makes the paint opaque, if the red is 'red enough', this is the cheap and effective way to go.

Would you please show us photomicrographs of a
1) red paint made with kaolinite?
2) red paint made with kaolinite, with whatever primer you are currently touting?

Note that this link (http://www.jeolusa.com/DesktopModules/Bring2mind/DMX/Download.aspx?EntryId=572&PortalId=2&DownloadMethod=attachment) says that

Automotive paint can be compared to more than 40,000 samples in the National Automotive Paint File, helping identify color, make, model and year of an automobile. The melted ends of a hot filament break indicate that the headlights were on when an accident occurred. Sharp ends indicate the headlights were off when the break occurred. The SEM reveals telling information.

Also, would you please tell us what the resistance of a red paint chip, made with kaolinite, is? ( I suppose that we need a range of values. )

[WilliamSeger]

Oh, well, at least "truthers" still have the CT that Jones is a disinfo agent, out to discredit their "movement." The wonderful thing about conspiracy theories is that you can explain anything that does or doesn't happen by putting whomever you don't like into the conspiracy.

[alienentity]

Thanks Sunstealer!

I've posted a link on a twoofer channel about the 'Thermite Scientifically Confirmed in 911'

Suggest you guys spread this data around.

Happy Easter to all


To all you twoofers: stop the madness.

[T.A.M.]

I have a comment on this "amazing rebuttal". And that is

a) in Sunstealer's #1694 post, there is no link immediately after

"The following photo-micrograph shows samples a-d (on the left) and Kaolinite (on the right)."

b) in your post immediately preceeding this one, wherein you quote Sunstealer's 1694 post, there is a link, viz.,

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=857

When I click on that link, I don't see anything.


Shouldn't an "amazing rebuttal" have non-disappearing links, which point to web pages that still exist?

whoa! you nailed him. You PWNed him with that one.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

I see it now, thanks.



I don't have the time to carefully go through everything. I've already devoted far more time, this past week, than I should have, given my situation. However, I do try to skim intelligently, and focus on whatever is interesting and comprehensible. Sorry if I'm not doing your posts justice.

Some problems:

1) The pictures in wikipedia show a white-ish material. The description says that it can have a red, blue or brown tint from impurities. Why did you not remark on this difference?
2) The kaolinite platelets are much more densely packed than the Jones platelets
3) While I can make out a few candidates for non-platelet particles in the kaolite, it doesn't look like nearly as many as in the Jones photographs
4) You don't tell us what the very few candidates for non-platelets particles in the kaolite are made of. (Though I note that wikipedia says, " In many parts of the world, it is colored pink-orange-red by iron oxide". So, it should not surprise anybody if these candidates turn out to be iron oxide.")
5) You say that they are "similar in size", but while I see a scale in the Jones pictures, I don't see one in the kaolite picture. So, how do you know that they are "similar in size"? You mentioned something earlier about a mesh. Please elaborate.
6) The wikipedia page says



Thus, it doesn't sound like it's a major constituent of paint, but just an additive.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but since it's used to extend TiO2, and TiO2 is used to make paints more opaque and skim milk whiter, as far as I can tell, the same should apply to kaolinite. Consequently, why would anybody make a red paint composed mostly of white pigment? The only answer I can think of is that it's much cheaper than the red pigment, and (perhaps) since the kaolinite makes the paint opaque, if the red is 'red enough', this is the cheap and effective way to go.

Would you please show us photomicrographs of a
1) red paint made with kaolinite?
2) red paint made with kaolinite, with whatever primer you are currently touting?

Note that this link (http://www.jeolusa.com/DesktopModules/Bring2mind/DMX/Download.aspx?EntryId=572&PortalId=2&DownloadMethod=attachment) says that

were off when the break occurred. The SEM reveals telling information.

Also, would you please tell us what the resistance of a red paint chip, made with kaolinite, is? ( I suppose that we need a range of values. )

You do realize that all that needs to be done is show significant doubt on Jones findings, with possible outcomes that were more likely than his, to prove that his entire paper is a worthless piece of biased OUTCOME HUNTING, rather than a truly scientific analysis, right?

TAM:)

[Thunder]

um..the links work for me. i guess truther computers can't handle non-truther evidence images.

=)

[bill smith]

This post will form part of the rebuttal to Jones' paper. I've collated the information quickly in order to show JREF posters and any lurkers as soon as possible, but the evidence is quite damning.

Jones claims that samples a-d are essentially the same material and I agree with him. His paper's EDS spectra are very close and this confirms that the materials are identical.







We also have information from another source of Jones' chips namely a chip that has also had SEM and EDS analysis performed on them.

http://darksideofgravity.com/marseille.pdf

Comparing this report and Jones' we see from these SEM photo-micrographs that samples a-d are identical to the chip in the above report.

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=861

We can now closely look at the morphology of the chips a-d and compare the structures therein to see whether there are any similarities between observed structures in the sample and known structures.

Jones' paper clearly examines these structures in samples a-d and notes





Until now.

The following photo-micrograph shows samples a-d (on the left) and Kaolinite (on the right).

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=857


Examining the two side by side clearly shows similarity in size, crystal shape and thickness between the two groups of plate-like particles. Note the exact same style of grouping where platelets have "sandwiched" together in the top middle of b) and the top left of c) in Jones' samples and the exact same phenomenon in the photo to the right. This indicates very strongly that these particles are indeed Kaolinite.

There are many such photo-micrographs of Kaolinite available.

Therefore it is now essential that we examine EDS data of known samples of Kaolinite and compare them with the EDS data generated in Jones' paper. Note that I also include data from the chip sent in the report linked earlier. I have scaled these SEM spectra as best I can in a short space of time in order that the KeV scale matches across spectra.

One of Jones' claims, as is that of the author of the above linked report, is that the EDS spectra of the red layer show signs of contamination



Gypsum is a naturally occurring mineral and aswell as being used in wall board or drywall is also used in the manufacture of paint. The following are EDS spectra from Kaolinite with Gypsum, Fig 7 c) of Jones' paper and finally slide/page 14 of the above link.

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=858

It is abundantly clear that the spectra share more than enough characteristics to say that not only is gypsum present, but that Kaolinte is too.

The plate-like structures seen in the photo-micrographs, of both "thermite chip" samples, share not only the same crystalline morphology and grouping, but also the same EDS signature.

This means that there is very little doubt remaining as to what these platelets are. In light of this evidence it is safe to say that these platelets consist of Kaolinite, which does not contain any "elemental aluminium". The SEM examination in Jones' paper does not show any other particle type (other than the rhomboidal Fe2O3) and no other data in the EDS spectra for samples a-d indicate it's presence.

Therefore these samples CANNOT be thermite.

QED.

For Jones to now claim that elemental aluminium is present then the only way to confirm this is by XRD analysis or a suitable equivalent.

We can also say that because Kaolinite is present and that it is embedded in a Carbon based matrix with Rhomboidal Fe2O3 that a more likely explanation for the red material is paint.

When we look at the material that the "red layer" in the samples is attached to and the notable difference in the structure compared to the "red layer" along with it's EDS spectra it is clear to see that this is a form of Iron Oxide. The corresponding Carbon peaks and the possibility of Mn peak at 5.9KeV indicate the source of this oxide as being steel.

If you also not in the second photo on this page you can clearly see this oxide layer is also attached to a crystalline fibrous material that again does not share morphology with the "red layer" or the "gray layer". The French paper linked has EDS data of this layer. Notable we do not see the underside of the "gray layer/iron oxide layer" in samples a-d in Jones paper.


Addition.

We can also see the EDS spectra of pure Kaolin for comparison and untreated clay which will explain any queries with the Carbon peak also noting that Carbon is closely associated with Fe in steel.

http://www.scielo.org.ar/scielo.php?pid=S0327-07932007000200005&script=sci_arttext

We can also confirm the presence in other spectra by comparing them eg Fig 11a), Fig 14 (noting the correlating high Ca, O and S peaks - gypsum), etc.

Would this not mean that we were dealing with highly engineered nano-kaolin ?

[beachnut]

Burnt pages similar to National Geographic.

[KreeL]

The material found by your "scientists" couldn't raise the temperature of the columns more that 48 deg C (assuming it was all 6 layers). Please at least come up with a possible scenario before spreading this nonsense. You have a both a civic resposibility and a responsibility to your activist organization to be somewhat sure of what you are talking about.

False. Likely source: Greening

[Thunder]

looks like paint to me.

[Fjolle]

Would this not mean that we were dealing with highly engineered nano-kaolin ?
You really need to understand that nano is only used to descripe stuff smaller than 1 micro meter. It doesnt have to be engineered, you dig it up from the ground :) I would guess that you could grind it to that size.

[metamars]

You do realize that all that needs to be done is show significant doubt on Jones findings, with possible outcomes that were more likely than his, to prove that his entire paper is a worthless piece of biased OUTCOME HUNTING, rather than a truly scientific analysis, right?

TAM:)

Let's be clear, here. Insofar as I have studied and understood sunstealer, he has not convinced me, anymore than Jones, et. al., have convinced me.

And do you really think that you are competent to pass judgement on whether sunstealers' "possible outcomes" are "more likely" than Jones'? Funny, but I don't have that impression. I also don't have that impression about myself, either. All the more reason to appeal to domain experts and - I expect - further investigations.

Kaolinite is used to extend TiO2, which makes skim milk whiter, and it's the active ingredient in kaopectate. I presume it's what makes it look so chalky. I have posted a picture of a squarish red grey chip here... (http://metamars.i8.com/blank_1.html).
(Shown below)

http://metamars.i8.com/red-grey.jpg

and I am not at all confident of the 'kaolinite connection'. (BTW, why don't you show the picture to any 10 year old you find, and ask them if they see any shapes associated with the color red? Or purple-red, actually.)

Furthermore, the "rust" layer, as some people are suggesting, doesn't look rusty, at all.

[bofors]

You do realize that all that needs to be done is show significant doubt on Jones findings, with possible outcomes that were more likely than his, to prove that his entire paper is a worthless piece of biased OUTCOME HUNTING, rather than a truly scientific analysis, right?

TAM:)

No, you have to:

(1) Propose a specific non-pyrotechnic material to be the source of the "red chips" and prove that this material existed in the WTC.

(2) Show that this specific non-pyrotechnic WTC material has exactly the same properties by light microscopy, SEM, XDS and DSC as the "red chips."

(3) Publish your results in a peer-reviewed journal and then wait for others to reproduce your work.

[Sunstealer]

I don't have the time to carefully go through everything. I've already devoted far more time, this past week, than I should have, given my situation. However, I do try to skim intelligently, and focus on whatever is interesting and comprehensible. Sorry if I'm not doing your posts justice.No problem.

Some problems:

1) The pictures in wikipedia show a white-ish material. The description says that it can have a red, blue or brown tint from impurities. Why did you not remark on this difference?You are comparing things on a macro scale. I'm aware of impurities etc because Kaolin is also found with CaO and sometimes CaCO3 (calcium carbonate), gypsum and other materials - I allude to that I think in the post.

SEM photos aren't in colour because there is no light involved (for those that don't know)


2) The kaolinite platelets are much more densely packed than the Jones plateletsThat is because the SEM photo show Kaolinite only - Remember Jones photos are of a material that has a Carbon matrix (binder) and Fe2O3 in too so it's not going to show groupings tightly.

The whole point of that SEM photo on the right is to show the characteristics of Kaolin platelets. Therefore you can compare the characteristics with the platelets in Jones' photos. That is they are thin sheets, roughly hexagonal and of the same size and in Jones' photos you get the same type of bunching of the platelets (which I've called sandwiching).


3) While I can make out a few candidates for non-platelet particles in the kaolite, it doesn't look like nearly as many as in the Jones photographsNo there won't be because the SEM photo is of the Kaolinite is of Kaolinite only (or very little else). Jones' photos have the Fe2O3 particles (bright white) and the carbon matrix. They talk of no other particles and I can't see any in the highest magnification SEM photo. That indicates there aren't any additional particles. You'd expect aluminium in some powder form and this will show itself usually as a spherical form if it's been man made, with sizes as small as 1µm.

4) You don't tell us what the very few candidates for non-platelets particles in the kaolite are made of. (Though I note that wikipedia says, " In many parts of the world, it is colored pink-orange-red by iron oxide". So, it should not surprise anybody if these candidates turn out to be iron oxide.")OK - the bright white particles in Figs 8 and 9 of Jones' paper are iron oxide particles in a rhomboidal crystal shape and are sub-micron in size. I did comment on them, but not in detail because this is correct and that's what they state in their paper. It's impossible to come to any other conclusion when you take the shape and the EDS data in Fig 6 into account. They don't comment on anything else except the Carbon matrix so even if we found something else we wouldn't know what it was unless there was a better look and some EDS data.

The resolution on Fig 8 is not the best, however, if you look very closely on Fig 8 b) - locate the brightest crystal in the middle at the bottom - just to the left and slightly above you can see other "clump" of what appear to be crystals but it's impossible to tell what they are. They aren't Fe2O3, they look like they are Kaolinite if you use the grey shading as a marker or they could be SiO2. Without additional data it's impossible to tell.


5) You say that they are "similar in size", but while I see a scale in the Jones pictures, I don't see one in the kaolite picture. So, how do you know that they are "similar in size"? You mentioned something earlier about a mesh. Please elaborate.Yes certainly - there is a scale there, it's hard to see, it's in the middle bottom of the screen (sorry I'm familiar with these things so I know where to look.

You can find plenty of Kaolinite SEM photos on the net. Sizes will range, because it's a natural. For manufacture in lots and lots of different materials, especially ceramics, (which is where most Kaolinite is used and of coarse Kaolin which is used in paper), then particle size distribution is critical. This is why the material is sieved. Different sieves have different sizes and this is where "mesh size (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesh_size)" comes in.

The US has a different scale to us so I can never remember which way it goes but a mesh size will obviously only let particles of a smaller size than the mesh through. By doing this you can tailor the particle size distribution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_size_distribution) to get the best size for your product.

So if I want a size between 500mesh and 325mesh I'll sieve with those two. The 325 stops big bits and that gets thrown away. Then the sieved material goes into the 500mesh and that lets through all the really small bits and you chuck them. What you are left with is a distribution between 500 and 325mesh.


6) The wikipedia page says

Thus, it doesn't sound like it's a major constituent of paint, but just an additive.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but since it's used to extend TiO2, and TiO2 is used to make paints more opaque and skim milk whiter, as far as I can tell, the same should apply to kaolinite. Consequently, why would anybody make a red paint composed mostly of white pigment? The only answer I can think of is that it's much cheaper than the red pigment, and (perhaps) since the kaolinite makes the paint opaque, if the red is 'red enough', this is the cheap and effective way to go.Wiki has only limited information - if you do any search for Kaolin/Kaolinite and paint you'll get thousands of pages with Kaolin in paint. Usually it's used as a replacement for Talc. And the bold part is you answering your own question.

Would you please show us photomicrographs of a
1) red paint made with kaolinite?
2) red paint made with kaolinite, with whatever primer you are currently touting?The red paint or "red layer" as Jones calls it could either be paint or primer so i just use the word paint.

I've not looked for any SEM photos like that and I haven't found any when picking up a couple of SEM photos for the rebuttal post.

There isn't any need to imho. The SEM photos and the EDS data correlate so well that getting what you ask for gilding the lilly. I can try, but if the evidence I've come up with so far doesn't convince you then I doubt anything else will.


Note that this link (http://www.jeolusa.com/DesktopModules/Bring2mind/DMX/Download.aspx?EntryId=572&PortalId=2&DownloadMethod=attachment) says that

were off when the break occurred. The SEM reveals telling information.Yes, it does, but like any tool you have to be able to understand how, it works, hot to use, it what it's limitations are and also how to interpret or use what the image is showing and also what to look at. I've had access to a SEM since 1994 when doing a final year project on SiAlON (Silicon Nitride).

For example when looking at fracture surfaces, notably fatigue, it takes experience to know exactly what part of the fracture surface you look at in order to measure the length of striations which you can then use to determine crack propagation rates. One area right next to another will give you wildly different results. You have to be careful and not get sucked in with the size of what you are looking at.

Also, would you please tell us what the resistance of a red paint chip, made with kaolinite, is? ( I suppose that we need a range of values. )No idea, I've not even looked at that part yet, it's a very obscure test and I have no idea why it was carried out when XRD would be 1000 times more useful, it's completely irrelevant imho. The information that I have shown clearly supports evidence that the material is Kaolinite and therefore it's up to others to refute that with their own data.

Secondly what type of paint do you want it with? Do you want that to be just the paint or do you want a layer of iron oxide attached to it aswell? Maybe some steel parent material attached to the oxide ala the chip that went to France?

The resistance of the chip is a complete red herring because unless the value obtained can be compared with paint with an iron oxide layer then you are going to get a different value.

Paint ≠ Paint with oxide layer ≠ Paint with oxide layer and steel substrate.

I've done the best I can with those. Feel free to ask more, I'll try and get a full answer to you.

[Sunstealer]

Would this not mean that we were dealing with highly engineered nano-kaolin ?No, Kaolin is a natural occurring mineral with a size range. It does go through some processing before being used but that will depend on the end use.

I'll use the same answer that i gave metamars with regard to sizing.

Sizes will range, because it's a natural. For manufacture in lots and lots of different materials, especially ceramics, (which is where most Kaolinite is used and of coarse Kaolin which is used in paper), then particle size distribution is critical. This is why the material is sieved. Different sieves have different sizes and this is where "mesh size" comes in.

The US has a different scale to us so I can never remember which way it goes but a mesh size will obviously only let particles of a smaller size than the mesh through. By doing this you can tailor the particle size distribution to get the best size for your product.

So if I want a size between 500mesh and 325mesh I'll sieve with those two. The 325 stops big bits and that gets thrown away. Then the sieved material goes into the 500mesh and that lets through all the really small bits and you chuck them. What you are left with is a distribution between 500 and 325mesh.

If you want a finer size then use a finer mesh. Although that gets problematic. You can use fluidised beds to separate material out as well.

[Sunstealer]

You really need to understand that nano is only used to descripe stuff smaller than 1 micro meter. It doesnt have to be engineered, you dig it up from the ground :) I would guess that you could grind it to that size.I have been trying to get some people to understand what nano actually is.

Nano-technology is typically anything that uses sizes of 100µm or less.

You are using nano-technology right now when you view this. CPU chips have been under 100µm for a good few years. I mentioned "fine wire gold bonds" earlier and they were 17.5µm wide. Not only that but we were mounting them in resin, grinding them down to section through the foot then using a polish of 7 and then 1µm to get a finish in order to examine them.

Everything I section, grind and polish ends up with a 1µm (micron) polished finish. You can even get 0.5µm alumina powder for use on some metals and allows (titanium for me). Nano is nothing special.

[Mr.Herbert]

Good stuff Sunstealer.... I posted your rebuttal at Above Top Secret. Only one to touch it was the in house engineer "Griff"... this was his response:


No where did I see an MSDS sheet claiming a specific type of paint with the exact same physical qualities as these chips. If you can come up with one, I'll join the paint band wagon.

BTW, most steel coatings and paints I have been researching have a combustion point well over 500C when they are still wet and still have their most flammable chemicals in them.

Until you come up with a paint that ignites when dry at 480C (or whatever the specific temperature was) I have to say that this paint doesn't exist. Please prove me wrong.

[bill smith]

No, Kaolin is a natural occurring mineral with a size range. It does go through some processing before being used but that will depend on the end use.

I'll use the same answer that i gave metamars with regard to sizing.

Sizes will range, because it's a natural. For manufacture in lots and lots of different materials, especially ceramics, (which is where most Kaolinite is used and of coarse Kaolin which is used in paper), then particle size distribution is critical. This is why the material is sieved. Different sieves have different sizes and this is where "mesh size" comes in.

The US has a different scale to us so I can never remember which way it goes but a mesh size will obviously only let particles of a smaller size than the mesh through. By doing this you can tailor the particle size distribution to get the best size for your product.

So if I want a size between 500mesh and 325mesh I'll sieve with those two. The 325 stops big bits and that gets thrown away. Then the sieved material goes into the 500mesh and that lets through all the really small bits and you chuck them. What you are left with is a distribution between 500 and 325mesh.

If you want a finer size then use a finer mesh. Although that gets problematic. You can use fluidised beds to separate material out as well.
I'd say in a natural situation you would get some nano particles. But if most of the particles were at he nano scale then they were made to be that way. We are talking billionths of a meter particle size. All the sieving in the world will not achieve that result. This size particle can even enter the human cell. Therefore it has been engineered in a very high-tech way. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[T.A.M.]

Let's be clear, here. Insofar as I have studied and understood sunstealer, he has not convinced me, anymore than Jones, et. al., have convinced me.

And do you really think that you are competent to pass judgement on whether sunstealers' "possible outcomes" are "more likely" than Jones'? Funny, but I don't have that impression. I also don't have that impression about myself, either. All the more reason to appeal to domain experts and - I expect - further investigations.

Kaolinite is used to extend TiO2, which makes skim milk whiter, and it's the active ingredient in kaopectate. I presume it's what makes it look so chalky. I have posted a picture of a squarish red grey chip here... (http://metamars.i8.com/blank_1.html).
(Shown below)

http://metamars.i8.com/red-grey.jpg

and I am not at all confident of the 'kaolinite connection'. (BTW, why don't you show the picture to any 10 year old you find, and ask them if they see any shapes associated with the color red? Or purple-red, actually.)

Furthermore, the "rust" layer, as some people are suggesting, doesn't look rusty, at all.

by more like outcomes, I was not specifically referring to Sunstealers. I am not qualified on the science, any more than anyone with an MD, BSc in Medical Science, and an Electronic Engineering Tech diploma (3 year) is.

I was referring to the fact, that given what we know (that the jetliners crashed into the towers, there were large fires, alot of damage, and certainly removal of some fireproofing, and buildings collapsed), there are many MORE LIKELY sources of his chips, such as paint, etc... then an exotic, never before used in a building demolition, compound such as thermite/thermate/nano...blah blah blah.

That was my point.

TAM:)

[metamars]

Yes certainly - there is a scale there, it's hard to see, it's in the middle bottom of the screen (sorry I'm familiar with these things so I know where to look.

You can find plenty of Kaolinite SEM photos on the net. Sizes will range, because it's a natural. For manufacture in lots and lots of different materials, especially ceramics, (which is where most Kaolinite is used and of coarse Kaolin which is used in paper), then particle size distribution is critical. This is why the material is sieved. Different sieves have different sizes and this is where "mesh size (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesh_size)" comes in.

The US has a different scale to us so I can never remember which way it goes but a mesh size will obviously only let particles of a smaller size than the mesh through. By doing this you can tailor the particle size distribution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_size_distribution) to get the best size for your product.

So if I want a size between 500mesh and 325mesh I'll sieve with those two. The 325 stops big bits and that gets thrown away. Then the sieved material goes into the 500mesh and that lets through all the really small bits and you chuck them. What you are left with is a distribution between 500 and 325mesh.




I'm still not sure exactly what size the platelets you are showing are. However, this link (http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka/professional/terra_sig.htm) says

Pure clay is composed of kaolinite crystals in particles called platelets. The average size of a clay platelet is less than two microns. A micron is 1/1000 of a millimeter.

Call the average size 1 micron. There's 1,000 nanometers in a micron. Thus, your platelets are 10x as wide as Dr. Jones' chips are thick, including the red and grey layer.

I'd say that's a problem, unless it's typical to process the kaolinite that ends up in paint such that the pieces end up 20x smaller. However, if that's the case, will they still end up "roughly hexagonal"?

[T.A.M.]

No, you have to:

(1) Propose a specific non-pyrotechnic material to be the source of the "red chips" and prove that this material existed in the WTC.

(2) Show that this specific non-pyrotechnic WTC material has exactly the same properties by light microscopy, SEM, XDS and DSC as the "red chips."

(3) Publish your results in a peer-reviewed journal and then wait for others to reproduce your work.

No, Jones has not proven what the chips are conclusively. Until he does so, all we have to do is show how bad his science is by pointing out possible alternatives that he did not, in his haste to bolster his own bias conclusions, exclude with any degree of certainty, if an attempt was even made.

No body without bias has reproduced Jones work, and more importantly, no one outside the truther community has come to the conclusions Jones had based on his data.

TAM:)

[16.5]

No, you have to:

(1) Propose a specific non-pyrotechnic material to be the source of the "red chips" and prove that this material existed in the WTC.

(2) Show that this specific non-pyrotechnic WTC material has exactly the same properties by light microscopy, SEM, XDS and DSC as the "red chips."

(3) Publish your results in a peer-reviewed journal and then wait for others to reproduce your work.

Oh my gosh! Jones little stunt has drawn more truthers out of the woodwork!

Hey bofors, thanks for listing three things that Jones DID NOT DO! Fantastic.

Further, using Jones own data, baisc analysis has shown his conclusions to be absolutely false.

further, Jones flat out lied about sending his samples to independent labs.

My god, you truthers are willing to accept anything any truther says, no matter how fanciful. Slurp!

[twinstead]

Oh my gosh! Jones little stunt has drawn more truthers out of the woodwork!

Hey bofors, thanks for listing three things that Jones DID NOT DO! Fantastic.

Further, using Jones own data, baisc analysis has shown his conclusions to be absolutely false.

further, Jones flat out lied about sending his samples to independent labs.

My god, you truthers are willing to accepot anything any truther says, no matter how fanciful. Slurp!

Very true, and for that, you get a promotion...I'm going to round you up to 17! ;)

[Sunstealer]

I'd say in a natural situation you would get some nano particles. But if most of the particles were at he nano scale then they were made to be that way. We are talking billionths of a meter particle size. All the sieving in the world will not achieve that result. This size particle can even enter the human cell. Therefore it has been engineered in a very high-tech way. Correct me if I'm wrong.Have you ever used Talcum Powder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talc) Bill? You know the stuff you put on babies bottoms to keep them dry. Would you say that has "been engineered in a very high-tech way".

All you ever wanted to know about Kaolin (China Clay), but were too afraid to ask. (http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Kaolin&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a)

[bill smith]

Have you ever used Talcum Powder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talc) Bill? You know the stuff you put on babies bottoms to keep them dry. Would you say that has "been engineered in a very high-tech way".

All you ever wanted to know about Kaolin (China Clay), but were too afraid to ask. (http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Kaolin&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a)

Suppose talc WAS nano ? Your baby might be dry inside and outside. lol

[bofors]

No, Jones has not proven what the chips are conclusively. Until he does so, all we have to do is show how bad his science is by pointing out possible alternatives that he did not, in his haste to bolster his own bias conclusions, exclude with any degree of certainty, if an attempt was even made.

You seem to be seriously confused about the scientific process in general and about materials science or analytical chemistry in particular.

Can you tell us exactly what academic experience you have to make your broad assertions?


No body without bias has reproduced Jones work, and more importantly, no one outside the truther community has come to the conclusions Jones had based on his data.


Again, you are seriously confused about the basic scientific process. The scientists who reviewed the paper by Harrit el al. and the editor who selected them certainly are in the "truther community," and did come to same conclusions on the data. Otherwise, they would have not published the paper. That is how peer review works.

Do you have any real scientific experience?

Have you published any peer-review papers?

[bill smith]

I think it was Richard Feynman who famously said that the entire 24 volumes of the Encyclopoedia Brittannica could be written on the head of a pin at the nano scale. I can't imagine it myself.

[bofors]

The following photo-micrograph shows samples a-d (on the left) and Kaolinite (on the right).

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=857


What is the scale of the image on right? Where is scale bar?

[boloboffin]

Good stuff Sunstealer.... I posted your rebuttal at Above Top Secret. Only one to touch it was the in house engineer "Griff"... this was his response:

A possible argument against the lower temp - these paint chip are posited to have already been baked at higher temperatures (at some point in the fires/collapse/subsequent fires). They've been "charcoalized", to coin a term. So the fact that they now ignite at a lower temperature supports the position that they are paint chips after all.

Suppose talc WAS nano ? Your baby might be dry inside and outside. lol

OK, that's funny. I don't care who you are.

[bofors]

I'm still not sure exactly what size the platelets you are showing are. However, this link (http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka/professional/terra_sig.htm) says

Call the average size 1 micron. There's 1,000 nanometers in a micron. Thus, your platelets are 10x as wide as Dr. Jones' chips are thick, including the red and grey layer.

I'd say that's a problem...

I see...

Yes, I say that's a problem too. Not only with the assertion of Kaolinite here but also with the person making it. Perhaps Sunstealer would like to clarify whether he thinks the length scales are important in morphological comparisons?

EDIT: It seems that Metamars made a mistake, the platelets are both on the order of one micron.

[Sunstealer]

I'm still not sure exactly what size the platelets you are showing are. However, this link (http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka/professional/terra_sig.htm) says


Call the average size 1 micron. There's 1,000 nanometers in a micron. Thus, your platelets are 10x as wide as Dr. Jones' chips are thick, including the red and grey layer.

No - have a look at Fig 8 and 9. Look at the scale in the bottom right hand corner. It's 1µm isn't it? 1µm is 1 micron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micrometre).

100nm is 0.1µm. The white particles you can see are roughly that scale so they are really only just edging into the designation of <100nm and "nano". The gray platelets are >1µm - see c) top left and they are at 90° so will extend into the picture.

Depending on the source and on therefore the processing you are going to get different sizes however, the crystalline morphology does not change. That is what is important. How do we know that there aren't photos of larger platelets? The snapshot is tiny. What is important is to show that at that level there is a material that matches the characteristics of the material you have in the sample. If it was hundreds of orders of magnitude you may have a good point, but that's not the case.

Tell me - is this not Kaolinite? It's 10cm plus across! http://www.uwm.edu/Course/422-100/Mineral_Rocks/kaolinite1.jpg - from here http://www.uwm.edu/Course/422-100/Mineral_Rocks/kaolinite.data.html

I'd say that's a problem, unless it's typical to process the kaolinite that ends up in paint such that the pieces end up 20x smaller. However, if that's the case, will they still end up "roughly hexagonal"?Fractures will occur along crystal lines therefore you'll break things up into smaller and smaller subfractions of the whole. The crystallography does not change with size.

Secondly the SEM data backs the photo up to the hilt. Unless someone can come up with a different material that has the a similar shape, size and hexagonal profile with the same EDS data then the data stands. There is more than sufficient evidence to question the paper's conclusions.

I know you are trying to pick holes, but I'm unfazed - I have two characteristics; EDS data and SEM data, that match Kaolinite well enough with the material to require a full explanation. If it would make you happy I'll get some SEM photos of a range of Kaolins and sizes, it won't change the evidence or what that brings to the argument.

I do this sort of thing for a living, material characterization is all part of failure investigation work (Forensic metallurgy), I'm treating this just as I would do anyone who required a component examined to find out why it failed. If I thought thermite was present I'd do exactly the same and put up the evidence that lead me to that conclusion and I'd answer questions best I could.

[bofors]

I don't care who you are.

I do care who you are, Joseph. I was looking at this last night and just shaking my head.


I am currently a live voice writer, which means I produce captions for live television using voice recognition software. I used to be an working actor with the various "day jobs" such a profession requires. I also graduated from International Bible College (now Heritage Christian University) with a BA in Bible, and attended Harding Graduate School of Religion for two years pursuing a Masters in Christian Theology. I am now an agnostic on all matters religious.

http://www.ae911truth.info/tiki-index.php?page=Joseph+Nobles


You think you are in any way qualified to comment on 9/11 research? Don't be absurd.

[boloboffin]

Perhaps I am not qualified to comment on 9/11 research. My comments should be held to the same standards of evidence and logic as any. But as has been demonstrated here again and again, people who seem to have these qualifications, the authors of this paper for the most part, have had their statements held against the evidence and shown to be completely inept.

I would far rather be a former actor and current captioner commenting on 9/11 research than an associate professor of chemistry who put his name at the front of the OP's paper. I have very little reputation to ruin.

[T.A.M.]

You seem to be seriously confused about the scientific process in general and about materials science or analytical chemistry in particular.

Can you tell us exactly what academic experience you have to make your broad assertions?



Again, you are seriously confused about the basic scientific process. The scientists who reviewed the paper by Harrit el al. and the editor who selected them certainly are in the "truther community," and did come to same conclusions on the data. Otherwise, they would have not published the paper. That is how peer review works.

Do you have any real scientific experience?

Have you published any peer-review papers?

Electronic Engineering Technology - 3 year diploma
BSC MEd Sci
MD
CFPC

I have been an "investigator" in several Peer Reviewed Scientific Papers. As a Physician, it works a little different.

oh, and while you are at it, please explain to me how I got it wrong.

The scientific process, with regards to analysis, is not to enter with an agenda, "hunting" for a particular material. You may "hypothesize" that a certain material is in fact "X", but you cannot declare such until you have eliminated, through careful process, all other likely possibilities. Jones et al have done the complete opposite.

They knew darn well that paint might be a possibility, as they mentioned it in their paper. But did they eliminate the type of paint, with its particular composition, that was used on the WTC beams? No. Is that proper "scientific process". Seems Jones et al, and perhaps you (given you are defending their paper) need a lesson in proper "scientific process".

but don't take my word for it. Dr, Greening, a chemist who I am sure has been peer reviewed, has substantial problems with the Jones paper...go ask him,

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/active-thermitic-material-in-wtc-dust-t150-30.html

I don't need you, bofors, telling me about the scientific process, thank you very much.

TAM:)

[bill smith]

No - have a look at Fig 8 and 9. Look at the scale in the bottom right hand corner. It's 1µm isn't it? 1µm is 1 micron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micrometre).

100nm is 0.1µm. The white particles you can see are roughly that scale so they are really only just edging into the designation of <100nm and "nano". The gray platelets are >1µm - see c) top left and they are at 90° so will extend into the picture.

Depending on the source and on therefore the processing you are going to get different sizes however, the crystalline morphology does not change. That is what is important. How do we know that there aren't photos of larger platelets? The snapshot is tiny. What is important is to show that at that level there is a material that matches the characteristics of the material you have in the sample. If it was hundreds of orders of magnitude you may have a good point, but that's not the case.

Tell me - is this not Kaolinite? It's 10cm plus across! http://www.uwm.edu/Course/422-100/Mineral_Rocks/kaolinite1.jpg - from here http://www.uwm.edu/Course/422-100/Mineral_Rocks/kaolinite.data.html

Fractures will occur along crystal lines therefore you'll break things up into smaller and smaller subfractions of the whole. The crystallography does not change with size.

Secondly the SEM data backs the photo up to the hilt. Unless someone can come up with a different material that has the a similar shape, size and hexagonal profile with the same EDS data then the data stands. There is more than sufficient evidence to question the paper's conclusions.

I know you are trying to pick holes, but I'm unfazed - I have two characteristics; EDS data and SEM data, that match Kaolinite well enough with the material to require a full explanation. If it would make you happy I'll get some SEM photos of a range of Kaolins and sizes, it won't change the evidence or what that brings to the argument.

I do this sort of thing for a living, material characterization is all part of failure investigation work (Forensic metallurgy), I'm treating this just as I would do anyone who required a component examined to find out why it failed. If I thought thermite was present I'd do exactly the same and put up the evidence that lead me to that conclusion and I'd answer questions best I could.

Would you expect the material to have a very energetic reaction when ignited if it WAS kaolin ? If not then it can't be kaolin surely ?

[metamars]

No - have a look at Fig 8 and 9. Look at the scale in the bottom right hand corner. It's 1µm isn't it? 1µm is 1 micron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micrometre).

100nm is 0.1µm. The white particles you can see are roughly that scale so they are really only just edging into the designation of <100nm and "nano". The gray platelets are >1µm - see c) top left and they are at 90° so will extend into the picture.



Oops. :D

I confused my nano's with my microns.

[Pardalis]

Oh my gosh! Jones little stunt has drawn more truthers out of the woodwork!

It wreaks of desperation doesn't it?

[Thunder]

Electronic Engineering Technology - 3 year diploma
BSC MEd Sci
MD
CFPC

I have been an "investigator" in several Peer Reviewed Scientific Papers. As a Physician, it works a little different.

oh, and while you are at it, please explain to me how I got it wrong.

The scientific process, with regards to analysis, is not to enter with an agenda, "hunting" for a particular material. You may "hypothesize" that a certain material is in fact "X", but you cannot declare such until you have eliminated, through careful process, all other likely possibilities. Jones et al have done the complete opposite.

They knew darn well that paint might be a possibility, as they mentioned it in their paper. But did they eliminate the type of paint, with its particular composition, that was used on the WTC beams? No. Is that proper "scientific process". Seems Jones et al, and perhaps you (given you are defending their paper) need a lesson in proper "scientific process".

but don't take my word for it. Dr, Greening, a chemist who I am sure has been peer reviewed, has substantial problems with the Jones paper...go ask him,

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/active-thermitic-material-in-wtc-dust-t150-30.html

I don't need you, bofors, telling me about the scientific process, thank you very much.

TAM:)

You tell em'!!!!!!!

These guys are doing their very best, to find thermite. All other possible explenations are clearly thrown in the mental garbage can, or ignored.

Scientific method? I don't think so. This is politics masqurading as pseudo-science. Flat-Earthers and Creationists should take lessons from these guys.

[bill smith]

It wreaks of desperation doesn't it?

Old Truthers only fade away. They will always be there and ready to come out of the woodwork at any time as you say.

[16.5]

Again, you are seriously confused about the basic scientific process. The scientists who reviewed the paper by Harrit el al. and the editor who selected them certainly are in the "truther community," and did come to same conclusions on the data. Otherwise, they would have not published the paper. That is how peer review works.

Do you have any real scientific experience?

Have you published any peer-review papers?


I would not say that the editor at Bentham is in the "truther community" they are more in the accept the check and deposit it community!

I love how Bofors comes crawling out of the woodwork after a year, and freaking assumes that this article has been peer reviewed just because your truther heros claimed it. What do you know about this "open" pay for publish internet web site, bofors?

You are aware that it has been comprehensively demonstrated on this site that it is NOT properly peer reviewed? Sad, you are a Truther Slurper.