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

[Galileo]

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

pp.7-31 (25)

Authors: Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen

doi: 10.2174/1874412500902010007

Abstract

We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.

Keywords: JScanning electron microscopy, X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy, Differential scanning calorimetry, DSC analysis, World Trade Center, WTC dust, 9/11, Iron-rich microspheres, Thermite, Super-thermite, Energetic nanocomposites, Nano-thermite
Affiliation: Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, DK-2100, Denmark.

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

MORE DETAILS:

"Formally published in a peer-reviewed Chemical Physics journal, today:"

http://www.911blogger.com/node/19761

The end is near for the archie debunkers.

[Dog Town]

The end is near ...

Old hat! Vanity published,paint chips,yadda,yadda,yadda!
NEXT!

[thought_fugitive]

What happens at the end again?

[ElMondoHummus]

Fail. They didn't publish in the the legitimate Chemical Physics (http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/505699/description) journal or the Journal of Chemical Physics (http://jcp.aip.org/) (yes, they are two different ones). They published in the Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal (http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/openaccess2.htm). See R.Mackey's posts on their editorial policies to understand why this is a fail.

[Galileo]

Fail. They didn't publish in the the legitimate Chemical Physics (http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/505699/description) journal or the Journal of Chemical Physics (http://jcp.aip.org/) (yes, they are two different ones). They published in the Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal (http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/openaccess2.htm). See R.Mackey's posts on their editorial policies to understand why this is a fail.

You fail. They published in a legitimate scientific journal. They found proof of explosives. You lose.

[stateofgrace]

The end is near for the archie debunkers.

And your plan then is?

Kangaroo courts? Mass executions?

What will you do with us traitorous debunkers?

[Galileo]

And your plan then is?

Kangaroo courts? Mass executions?

What will you do with us traitorous debunkers?



You fail. Mass murder is not a joke. You lose. The days of the debunkers are numbered.

[1337m4n]

You fail. They published in a legitimate scientific journal. They found proof of explosives. You lose.

If that's true, why aren't you taking this groundbreaking new evidence to the authorities?

[Galileo]

If that's true, why aren't you taking this groundbreaking new evidence to the authorities?

That is a stupid question. I am not going to call you stupid, but your question is stupid.

Which authority shall I bring it to, the JREF police?

[ElMondoHummus]

You fail. They published in a legitimate scientific journal. They found proof of explosives. You lose.

They do not have a legitimate peer review process. Ryan Mackey uncovered this last year. You lose. Go do a search.

Besides, what you fail to understand is that peer review is merely the first step in validation. If you had had a proper education in scientific research, you'd understand this. Refereeing only guarantees that method was followed, not that accuracy of results is achieved. That is only accomplished when results of other independent studies lend weight to the conclusions of a given paper.

Learn, Galileo. You too often fire off posts without thought or understanding.

[stateofgrace]

You fail. Mass murder is not a joke. You lose. The days of the debunkers are numbered.

I fail?

So you intend to bring retribution upon all those that question you?

This is your master plan? Your final solution ?

[Galileo]

They do not have a legitimate peer review process. Ryan Mackey uncovered this last year. You lose. Go do a search.

Besides, what you fail to understand is that peer review is merely the first step in validation. If you had had a proper education in scientific research, you'd understand this. Refereeing only guarantees that method was followed, not that accuracy of results is achieved. That is only accomplished when results of other independent studies lend weight to the conclusions of a given paper.

Learn, Galileo. You too often fire off posts without thought or understanding.

You fail to understand that these scientists found thermite. You lose.

[dtugg]

I think I am going to have to cry myself to sleep because of this Earth shattering absolute proof of an inside jobby job.

[ElMondoHummus]

Found it.

I received a reply from Mr. Alam to my reminder today, and it is not promising.

He decided to forward my complaints ... to the author of the paper.

I have informed him that, since the authors of dubious papers do not set the standards for journals, that his response is entirely inappropriate, and have reminded him that it is the editors who should be responding.

Thus far, only Mr. Alam has responded to anything, and it appears that he has no idea how real journals operate.

At this point, I am about 80 percent convinced that the Bentham Open Access Journals are merely a vanity publication. I do still have some doubt because there are a great many -- too many! -- professionals listed on their editorial board, and the few I've checked up on appear to be legitimate. I will be taking this discussion to them with or without Mr. Alam, and we will get to the bottom of this.

For what it's worth, I've had no further response from Dr. Jeng. So it stands where it was -- the publisher is operating without oversight, the publisher has no idea what he's doing, and the publisher has yet to provide the reviewers' comments (or even their names) to their own editor-in-chief.

I suppose I could turn up the heat and let their respective universities' steering committees know about this little tale of academic fraud, but I'm not sure we need to. We know what we wanted to know -- Dr. Jones got published because he found a disreputable journal, and his paper was never properly reviewed. Game, set, match, and he's still out a few hundred bucks.

If this happens again, though, the responsible parties have been duly reminded of their responsibility.

This has been covered before. Jones et. al. publishing in vanity publications is nowhere near the equivalent of publishing in established, legitimate scientific journals. On the contrary, it's an admittance of failure to be taken seriously by the academic community. On top of that, Jones's research has to date been shoddy. This is a poor stab of legitimacy on Jones et. al.'s part, and yet another demonstration of Galileo's inability to comprehend the reality of how research knowledge is generated and validated.

[Holler Hoojer]

Omigosh! I knew it! They finally found rust and traces of aluminum in structural steel. Please, dear lord, don't let them come to Pittsburgh. We've got piles and piles of conspiracy evidence.

[ElMondoHummus]

Jesus H... I'm only at the abstract, and they're trying to legitimize their "thermite chips" thesis...

This is a loser, folks. I'll read it through, but it simply looks like this is just a writeup of some spectroscopic work done on those chips. How that proves deliberate destruction of the towers in the absence of effects found on the structural steel, I don't know, but I doubt they'll even try to make that argument in this paper.

[Galileo]

Found it.





This has been covered before. Jones et. al. publishing in vanity publications is nowhere near the equivalent of publishing in established, legitimate scientific journals. On the contrary, it's an admittance of failure to be taken seriously by the academic community. On top of that, Jones's research has to date been shoddy. This is a poor stab of legitimacy on Jones et. al.'s part, and yet another demonstration of Galileo's inability to comprehend the reality of how research knowledge is generated and validated.

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

Argue the evidence or shut up.

[A W Smith]

You fail. They published in a legitimate scientific journal. They found proof of explosives. You lose.


No, its a pay to play vanity journal. Its already been debunked. The only condition you must meet to publish in it is to send in your check. The owners of the journal cannot even provide a who-is of the peer reviewers. They are not even aware of the content they allow to be published. They just cash the checks. Its a boiler room operation out of India. The fact that they had to resort to publishing outside of recognized scientific journals in an attempt to hide their folly means epic fail. Sorry you lose.

[ElMondoHummus]

You fail. They published in a legitimate scientific journal. They found proof of explosives. You lose.

You fail to understand that these scientists found thermite. You lose.

So which is it, genius? They found thermite, or they found an explosive? Those are two different things.

Cripes... all this time on the forum and you still don't realize that...

[stateofgrace]

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

Argue the evidence or shut up.

http://www.changetowin.org/connect/images/fail.jpg

Edited to remove hotlinked image.

[Galileo]

No, its a pay to play vanity journal. Its already been debunked. The only condition you must meet to publish in it is to send in your check. The owners of the journal cannot even provide a who-is of the peer reviewers. They are not even aware of the content they allow to be published. They just cash the checks. Its a boiler room operation out of India. Sorry you lose.

It was just approved and not debunked. That is why it was just published.

If you want to debunk it, go ahead and be a hero. Argue the evidence.

[Galileo]

http://www.changetowin.org/connect/images/fail.jpg

Argue the evidence.

[ElMondoHummus]

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

Argue the evidence or shut up.

Finding Iron oxide and aluminum in a tower built from steel with an aluminum facade is not unexpected, Galileo. On top of that, there's nothing in this paper that's not been restated before in previous threads. This is a total recycle.

If you want evidence, reconcile the fact that there was no thermite severance of the steel columns. Also reconcile the fact that, if you continue to mistakenly think thermite is an "explosive", why there's no evidence of such explosions left i.e. broken windows for blocks around, barotrauma, etc. Regardless of what Jones and his misled gang find, the fact remains that there was no sign of thermite or explosive severance on the recovered steel, nor was there any other evidence of it's emplacement. This argument has been made over and over before; go do a search for it. It's the conspiracy peddling side that's yet to actually deal with the real evidence.

[stateofgrace]

Argue the evidence.

It as been argued and you failed.

So, your final solution is?

[A W Smith]

It was just approved and not debunked. That is why it was just published.

If you want to debunk it, go ahead and be a hero. Argue the evidence.


Where have you been? Its been debunked months ago. Its paint. Also where the chain of custody? Did scientists collect and map collection points and protect the samples from contamination or did some lady swipe some from her lower Manhattan condo windowsill on a swiffer pad?

[ElMondoHummus]

Sunstealer, if you happen to read this thread, perhaps you can speak towards the spectroscopy Jones embedded in that report (obtainable here: http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/openaccess2.htm). To me, it looks like a rehash of his "microspheres" work, but this is supposedly on different substances. I simply don't have the spectroscopic knowledge to see whether it's a rehash or something new.

Regardless, finding iron oxide and aluminum from the Twin Towers is like finding water in the ocean i.e. fully expected. So I'm not about to cede an iota of legitimacy to their allegations of incendiaries use; it's a long step from finding those two substances and saying that an incendiary was used to topple the towers. In spite of that, it still might be instructive for lurkers and others to know what an experienced hand at reading X-EDS results has to say about his work.

[Doctor Evil]

It as been argued and you failed.

So, your final solution is?

Larger fonts, duh.



;)

[Galileo]

No, its a pay to play vanity journal. Its already been debunked. The only condition you must meet to publish in it is to send in your check. The owners of the journal cannot even provide a who-is of the peer reviewers. They are not even aware of the content they allow to be published. They just cash the checks. Its a boiler room operation out of India. The fact that they had to resort to publishing outside of recognized scientific journals in an attempt to hide their folly means epic fail. Sorry you lose.

Wrong!

This was not published in Vanity Fair. This was published in a peer reviewed scientific journal.

I feel your vain.

[Galileo]

Finding Iron oxide and aluminum in a tower built from steel with an aluminum facade is not unexpected, Galileo. On top of that, there's nothing in this paper that's not been restated before in previous threads. This is a total recycle.

If you want evidence, reconcile the fact that there was no thermite severance of the steel columns. Also reconcile the fact that, if you continue to mistakenly think thermite is an "explosive", why there's no evidence of such explosions left i.e. broken windows for blocks around, barotrauma, etc. Regardless of what Jones and his misled gang find, the fact remains that there was no sign of thermite or explosive severance on the recovered steel, nor was there any other evidence of it's emplacement. This argument has been made over and over before; go do a search for it. It's the conspiracy peddling side that's yet to actually deal with the real evidence.

Thermite was already discovered before, I agree with that.

[Galileo]

It as been argued and you failed.

So, your final solution is?

It has been argued, by scientists and referees, and they found thermite.

[Doctor Evil]

It has been argued, by scientists and referees, and they found thermite.

Actually, no, they did not. They found Iron oxide and Aluminum. As already noted, all elements were present in large quantities in the WTC buildings.

[Galileo]

Where have you been? Its been debunked months ago. Its paint. Also where the chain of custody? Did scientists collect and map collection points and protect the samples from contamination or did some lady swipe some from her lower Manhattan condo windowsill on a swiffer pad?

Chain of custody can be tested. Just compare these results to other independent samples preserved by authorities from the crime scene.

[Dog Town]

Wrong!

This was not published in Vanity Fair.



You got that right! VF would be a huge step up! Their researchers would shred it, though!

[Galileo]

Actually, no, they did not. They found Iron oxide and Aluminum. As already noted, all elements were present in large quantities in the WTC buildings.

It says in the report thay found unreacted thermite. You are wrong.

[dtugg]

It says in the report thay found unreacted thermite. You are wrong.

So? They are liars.

[stateofgrace]

It has been argued, by scientists and referees, and they found thermite.

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

[Galileo]

Mods:

Please move this to the mental pygmies section.

The people here have no interest in rational or scientific discussion.

I am very disappointed in the quality of the James Randi forum.

[Galileo]

So? They are liars.

No, you are the liar and you did not study the forensic evidence.

[Galileo]

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

What I say is backed up by peer reviewed science.

[dtugg]

No, you are the liar and you did not study the forensic evidence.

What evidence? Some rust and aluminum? OH MY GOD!!!!! RUST AND ALUMINUM WAS FOUND AT THE SITE THEREFORE THERMITE DESTROYED THE WORLD TRADE CENTER OMG!!1111!!!111ELEVENTY11111!!111!1!!!

[leftysergeant]

Argue the evidence.typoisThe evidence, to a person with proper credentials to eval;uate it, looks like p[aint chips.

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

The authorities you cite are know clowns.

Buh-bye.

[stateofgrace]

Mods:

Please move this to the mental pygmies section.

The people here have no interest in rational or scientific discussion.

I am very disappointed in the quality of the James Randi forum.

Mods I agree with the reincarnation of Galileo who excuses Al Quada and accuses innocent people of mass murder with zero evidence, let’s move this nonsense to a more suitable place.

[dtugg]

Dubya is so evil that not only does he pull off 9/11, he eats kittens alive.

http://www.laughparty.com/funny-pictures/President-Bush-Eats-Kitten-1259.jpg

[RedIbis]

Let's head off some of the potshots that have been fired off in this thread already.

1) It's not a vanity press. Here's the peer review process:

REVIEWING AND PROMPTNESS OF PUBLICATION: All manuscripts submitted for publication will be immediately subjected to peer-reviewing, usually in consultation with the members of the Editorial Advisory Board and a number of external referees. Authors may, however, provide in their Covering Letter the contact details (including e-mail addresses) of four potential peer reviewers for their paper. Any peer reviewers suggested should not have recently published with any of the authors of the submitted manuscript and should not be members of the same research institution.
All peer-reviewing will be conducted via the Internet to facilitate rapid reviewing of the submitted manuscripts. Every possible effort will be made to assess the manuscripts quickly with the decision being conveyed to the authors in due course.

2) Check the advisory board. It's not a bunch of kooks, but credentialed, international scientists.

3) The second author is Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, current BYU faculty. And although Jones has been smeared pretty good here, it's a solid list of scientists with him.

4) Read the paper. I'm going through it now and it's quite interesting and thoroughly sourced. It's certainly worthy of productive discussion.

[Dog Town]

What I say is backed up by peer reviewed science.

Ok...prove it!

Don't worry, we know you can't!

[defaultdotxbe]

i wonder how many truthers realize thermite is just rust and aluminum

[Shalamar]

It depends on the conclusions. SO they found Iron Oxide, and Aluminum.

Thermite could be one example, but the lack of other evidence to support it diminishes the claim.

The proper process is, for ANY good scientist is: What ELSE could that evidence conclude?

[Mangoose]

Is Jones pussyfooting the claim of finding barium in the red chips?

In the sections on the spectometry research, there is not a whiff about barium. I checked all the figures and the text, nothing about Ba. Now, if they DID find barium in those red chips, wouldn't that be mentioned? In fact, wouldn't that constitute key evidence in support of the hypothesis (well, at least insofar as thermate is concerned)?

Then in the penultimate section about avenues for further research, Jones et al. says this in passing:

We have observed that some chips have additional elements such as potassium, lead, barium and copper. Are these significant, and why do such elements appear in some red chips and not others? An example is shown in Fig. (31) which shows significant Pb along with C, O, Fe, and Al and displays multiple red and gray layers. (p. 28)


This is the first mention of barium in the paper. And then in the conclusions, the authors again say: "The red material is most interesting and has the following characteristics: 1. It is composed of aluminum, iron, oxygen, silicon and carbon. Lesser amounts of other potentially reactive elements are sometimes present, such as potassium, sulfur, lead, barium and copper" (p. 29). There it is again, barium, although nothing about it was mentioned in the body of the paper. Has Jones elsewhere made more definite claims about barium?

[RedIbis]

It depends on the conclusions. SO they found Iron Oxide, and Aluminum.

Thermite could be one example, but the lack of other evidence to support it diminishes the claim.

The proper process is, for ANY good scientist is: What ELSE could that evidence conclude?

They address that on pg 27:

"7. Could the Red Chip Material be Ordinary Paint?"

[16.5]

RedIbis:

1) It's not a vanity press. Here's the peer review process:

Are you freaking kidding me? Did you read this very freaking thread?? It has been established that Bentham is not a legitimate journal, is pay for publish and worse, their peer review process is a joke.

Also a joke is Jones and these other nitwits. Hey Red, quick question: how does gravity work? And in light of how gravity works, how does "super thermite" work horizontally?

Man, truthers are freaking morons.

[Sunstealer]

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

[UNLoVedRebel]

The entire premise is ridiculous. The WTC towers collapsed because of an unspecified amount of an unspecified explosive plus thermite used with an unspecified technology to cut the columns horizontally, and the only way to uncover the mighty plot is to put some paint chips under a microscope. :wackyrolleyes:

[ElMondoHummus]

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

Sunstealer, I'm not positive this is paint. Then again, I'm not sure if there are classes of silicon based paints that are not soluble in methyl ethyl ketone (MEK).

There are other classes of anticorrosive coatings. I wonder if that's what this could be that. I simply don't know enough about the composition of the towers to know if any were applied to the steel.

BTW, while I have you here: On p. 13 of this new paper, there's some X-EDS spectroscopy that Jones et. al. is claming demonstrates that the FE to O ratio is 2 to 3, therefore validating the notion that this is indeed Fe2O3. I haven't gone back to look at your posts regarding interpreting EDX, so I'm not sure how solid this identification is (my undergrad work had me do CGs and NMRs, and that was years ago, so I don't even remember much of that). Does that specific point seem solid to you?

Thanks.

[ElMondoHummus]

Also (sorry to keep picking your brain, Sunstealer): Am I missing something, or is there indeed no work establishing that there are stochiometrically correct ratios of Aluminum to Fe2O3? (*Sigh*...) I'll go back and reread it, but I don't think I see that. I'm of course subject to correction if I'm mistaken.

[1337m4n]

That is a stupid question. I am not going to call you stupid, but your question is stupid.

Which authority shall I bring it to, the JREF police?

You obviously have a plan to bring it to SOMEBODY, otherwise you would not be saying that our "days are numbered".

So who are you planning to show this evidence to?

[Sunstealer]

Sunstealer, I'm not positive this is paint. Then again, I'm not sure if there are classes of silicon based paints that are not soluble in methyl ethyl ketone (MEK).

There are other classes of anticorrosive coatings. I wonder if that's what this could be that. I simply don't know enough about the composition of the towers to know if any were applied to the steel.

BTW, while I have you here: On p. 13 of this new paper, there's some X-EDS spectroscopy that Jones et. al. is claming demonstrates that the FE to O ratio is 2 to 3, therefore validating the notion that this is indeed Fe2O3. I haven't gone back to look at your posts regarding interpreting EDX, so I'm not sure how solid this identification is (my undergrad work had me do CGs and NMRs, and that was years ago, so I don't even remember much of that). Does that specific point seem solid to you?

Thanks.They haven't provided any figures or calculations nor said what the software package is for converting their qualitative data (the spectra) to a quantitative one which will then give you actual compounds present. So no they can't just say that the ratio is 3:2 but I'll check when I've got more time to digest the paper because they are clearly looking at proving aluminium powder iron III oxide. TBH if it's unreactive thermite then with the SEM they should be able to pickout individual particles of Aluminium and iron III oxide, instead we see some form of iron oxide and a spectra with Aluminium, Silicon and Oxygen in with distinct crystollographic shapes and they claim the Oxygen is on the surface of the aluminium (how they tell this I don't know).

I was expecting some proper analysis using XRD (x-ray diffraction) because this would then definitely give the compounds present and their amounts and prove once and for all what the chips are actually made of. They keep using EDS and whilst the graphs look pretty and fool those who don't have any experience they simply cannot be used for a quantitative analysis so their claims are pretty poor.

I'm actually interested in Figs 24-27 and Fig 8. On first looking at fig 8 along with the spectra the dark crystals and platelets looks like Kaolin/Kaolinite. Whilst the smaller brighter crystals look a bit like SiO2 but they have EDS data showing predominantly Fe and O in those regions.

Note how in fig 25 they pick up Titanium which will almost certainly be TiO2 which is a whitener and used in paint.

I'm sure that what gives the game away with regard to this material being red paint or potentially an anti-corrosion coating is the fact it's clearly dual layer. Could even be a primer with paint.

Themite is just a mix of fine iron oxide and aluminium powder (and sometimes Sulphur, Potassium Permanganate, Barium Nitrate). It won't form a dual layer because you require the mixture to be as well mixed as possible for it to work, it's effectively homogeneous.

It's late for me now, but I'll go over that paper a bit more closely to actually see what their claims are. You never know they could be right.

[metamars]

It's certainly worthy of productive discussion.

If this is true, how likely are you to get that, here? I would suggest taking the paper to your friendly, neighborhood university that has a Materials Science department (or two - you might find one group in the physics department, and another Materials Science department in the college of engineering.).

I haven't read any of the paper, but have seen photos of the chips. They struck me as far, far too regular to be paint chips. In any event, materials science is hardly my area of expertise.

Please direct any scientists you talk to, to the911forum.freeforums.org. The moderator there will not tolerate much abuse. Also, the comments tend to be substantive. Just like I don't think many scientists like to be insulted, I also don't think that they have a lot of time to waste.

Then, if you're so inclined, you can distill whatever pearls of wisdom qualified individuals have to say, and post the main points, here.

[Mercutio]

So... just curious... suppose it actually was thermite, instead of red (iron-pigmented) paint chips. A layer of thermite the thickness of a thick coat of paint--given something as massive as a steel beam, is the paint-thickness thermite likely to heat the beam up enough to make it too warm to pick up without gloves? Weaken steel? Liquify?

I have no expertise whatsoever on this, but every thermite video I have seen has used substantial amounts of thermite to attack a fairly small amount of metal. A paint-chip thickness seems... insignificant. Obviously, though, I could be wrong. Does anybody here know?

[16.5]

If this is true, how likely are you to get that, here? I would suggest taking the paper to your friendly, neighborhood university that has a Materials Science department (or two - you might find one group in the physics department, and another Materials Science department in the college of engineering.).

I haven't read any of the paper, but have seen photos of the chips. They struck me as far, far too regular to be paint chips. In any event, materials science is hardly my area of expertise.

Please direct any scientists you talk to, to the911forum.freeforums.org. The moderator there will not tolerate much abuse. Also, the comments tend to be substantive. Just like I don't think many scientists like to be insulted, I also don't think that they have a lot of time to waste.

Then, if you're so inclined, you can distill whatever pearls of wisdom qualified individuals have to say, and post the main points, here.

Oh Hai Metamars. Ask the serious scientists over by your web site just how the Thermite cuts STEEL BEAMS horizontally.

So you are about half way through the beam and in complete defiance of the laws of gravity, instead of burning the metal it is laying right the hell on top of, it keeps going sideways to sever the beam.

THAT is some SUPER Thermite!

Can a brother get a laughing dog?

[A W Smith]

Oh Hai Metamars. Ask the serious scientists over by your web site just how the Thermite cuts STEEL BEAMS horizontally.

So you are about half way through the beam and in complete defiance of the laws of gravity, instead of burning the metal it is laying right the hell on top of, it keeps going sideways to sever the beam.

THAT is some SUPER Thermite!

Can a brother get a laughing dog?

Oh thats an easy one,

Just ignore the effects of Gravity in every situation. Just like Heiwa does.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

So. not only did the NWO manage to hide enough Super Thermite in the WTC buildings to cause them to collapse when it exploded, the was some left over? :boggled:3

[R.Mackey]

So... just curious... suppose it actually was thermite, instead of red (iron-pigmented) paint chips. A layer of thermite the thickness of a thick coat of paint--given something as massive as a steel beam, is the paint-thickness thermite likely to heat the beam up enough to make it too warm to pick up without gloves? Weaken steel? Liquify?

Absolutely not. The heat content of thermite per pound is several times less than gasoline or even paper. You'd do more damage to the steel columns by wallpapering over them and setting that on fire.

Thermite only provides an advantage if there's so much of it, and you can convince it to react so quickly, that it exceeds the heating caused by regular combustion, which is dependent on atmospheric oxygen and limits its rate. This requires much more than a "thin film." Try inches. Maybe more, it's hard to quantify since they've never actually produced a complete hypothesis.

Anyway, the one thing that cracks me up the most about this paper is its own self-inconsistency... Several times we are told that the stuff can't be paint, notably in Section 7. But in Section 5 they talk about how their super-nano-destructo-stuff can be "painted" on, and they reference (https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/244137.pdf) a material science report that uses Viton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viton), a synthetic rubber compound, as a binder. So... they're saying that it can't be paint but it could be "paint?" What?

Obviously, Dr. Jones and company are aware that there's more than one kind of paint, or else they wouldn't have suggested the mystery substance could be "paint."

I still say the stuff is paint. You'll note that, conspicuously absent from this paper, is any description of the baseline paint they used for comparison in their various tests. The fallacy, therefore, is one of hasty generalization. Some paint will surely dissolve in methyl ethyl ketone, but that doesn't mean it all will. Not all paints burn the same, either. And somebody check me on this, but I believe Viton -- and by inference, the "sol-gel" they talk about above -- would dissolve in MEK, so this test seems inadequate to test either baseline paint or the mystery sample.

I say it's paint because every property they detected is consistent with paint. Metallic pigments, check. Aluminum oxide coating on pigments, check. Ignition temperature, check. All we need to do is find a paint that (a) was plausibly used in the WTC, and (b) after years of drying resists solution in MEK. Shouldn't be too hard. I note that the paints used 40 years ago are quite unlike paint you could buy off the shelf today, thanks to environmental regulations, so I would be highly surprised if whatever unspecified paint they used was at all comparable.

Whatever the stuff is, though, Dr. Jones's results here clearly demonstrate that it isn't thermite. There are at least three mechanical and physical properties he's worked out here that prove it isn't thermite. That's even if we overlook that huge quantities of it would be needed to cause anything, etc. -- I'll let you guys spot them. It's quite hilarious.

Now, regarding Bentham. It's fun to slam Bentham, but let's be clear on one point: Just because it's in Bentham doesn't mean its conclusions are wrong. Those are indeed wrong, but don't confuse the messenger with the message.

Slamming the paper because it's in Bentham, however, strikes me as appropriate. This is because, as far as I know, all of the results and all of the argumentation in the paper is not new. The only new thing here, the only new event, is the act of publication itself. Since the publication is a sham, to put it mildly, this is fair game for criticism.

Here's another fun fact about Bentham: Just yesterday, they invited me to be an Editorial Board Member! oh, happy day. That e-mail went straight to trash, but after I read this I retrieved it. Here's a sample of their pitch:

Based on your eminent contributions in the field of space technology, we would like to consider your possible nomination to the Editorial Board Membership of the journal. As an editorial board member, you may be required to occasionally review research papers. To make sure the Editorial Board of the journal consists of potential productive scientists, it is expected that all of the board members will publish one article each year in the journal which will be published after the routine reviewing process. The first article received from the EBMs each year will be published free of charge while the subsequent ones will be entitled to a 50% discount off the publication fees for submission of their manuscripts to the journal.(Emphasis added)

Oh, my, what a laugh that gave me. They need me to submit and pay for papers (at a discount, natch) to verify that I'm a "potential productive scientist??" Why the heck are they extending the offer if I'm not? Why don't they look at my other publications to make this determination?

I participate in peer review all the time. Just last week I reviewed a paper for the ASME, and I'm not even a member there; I got hit up out of the blue for my actual contributions which were similar to the paper under consideration. Next week I'm going to AIAA Infotech to present, and our paper there was reviewed properly. This stunt Bentham is pulling is a scam. I have never run into anyone professionally associated with them, and if I do, it will lower my respect for them enormously.

Suffice to say, I rejected the offer. But, if the Truth Movement thinks Bentham's blessing is so important, then obviously they must also think, by virtue of the above endorsement from Bentham, I'm qualified to review this paper. I'd flunk it, for reasons expressed above.

Maybe Dr. Jones should join Bentham. He seems to like publishing there, and I imagine they'd offer him the discount as well. :D

[16.5]

"it is expected that all of the board members will publish one article each year in the journal which will be published after the routine reviewing process. The first article received from the EBMs each year will be published free of charge while the subsequent ones will be entitled to a 50% discount off the publication fees for submission of their manuscripts to the journal."

OH. MY. STARS!

That is ridiculous!

[JamesB]

7International Center for 9/11 Studies, Dallas, TX 75231, USA

What the hell is the International Center for 9/11 Studies?

[applecorped]

That's where you send the checks.:rolleyes:

[ElMondoHummus]

Some paint will surely dissolve in methyl ethyl ketone, but that doesn't mean it all will.

Yes, this is correct. I'm finding "hints" pages telling painters to test small areas of painted surfaces with MEK to classify what kind of paint they're dealing with. Polyurethane-based paints in particular do not dissolve with MEK. Some epoxy paints, too, will resist but eventually will be dissolved.

I've been spending the past couple of hours reading what I can online (read: Superficial research, so let's not think it's anything profound) about polyurethane coatings, and surprise! Many anticorrosion coatings for steel are polyurethanes. This of course is far from being conclusive evidence that the "chips" in question are really anticorrosive coatings with some flecks of steel attached, but that's a possibility that none of Jones's experiments have eliminated. Indeed, none of them can eliminate them. So they're still an open possibility. Continuing in this vein, the significant "organic" material Jones keeps on talking about is may in fact not be the "sol-gel" he goes on about, but urethane(s).

Keep in mind that I'm not firm on that last possibility . I note no nitrogen peak on the EDX graphs, and cyanates are one of the components of urethane polymers, so I'd need Sunstealer to tell me if the lack of such a N peak falsifies my line of inquiry. Regardless, there are indeed classes of paint that do not dissolve in butanone, so Jones et. al. draw far too broad conclusions in their simple butanone-soaking experiment to completely eliminate paints, primers, or other sorts of anticorrosion-protective coatings.

[George152]

You fail to understand that these scientists found thermite. You lose.

The 'thermite' claim came from only one source and that is so discredited.
Jones is not and never was a scientist.
Steven E. Jones was a 20-year professor of physics until he lost his job for being wrong.

[ElMondoHummus]

Now, regarding Bentham. It's fun to slam Bentham, but let's be clear on one point: Just because it's in Bentham doesn't mean its conclusions are wrong. Those are indeed wrong, but don't confuse the messenger with the message.


Correct. I only pointed this out because the argument put forth by Galileo implied that Bentham's peer review was validation of the paper's contents. That assertion betrayed a severe misunderstanding of what exactly peer review does, as well as completely ignores what you yourself discovered about their refereeing "process" last year. Yes, it ended up being a sort of a guilt-by-association argument, but those were the terms established by Galileo; he attempted to make a validation-by-association claim. So in that narrow sense, pointing out the flaw in Bentham's process was merely rebutting the argument at hand.

But you're right: Above and beyond the venue of publication, the paper must ultimately be judged by its contents. That's the real bottom line.

[dtugg]

You know, even if these hacks did prove that it the chips are super duper therm*te (which they didn't of course), I still don't think that there is any reason to believe that super duper therm*te was used to destroy the towers. Well, not unless you are a twoofer moron that wants to believe that. For me to consider that as even a remote possibility, they need to explain how this was supposedly done and prove that it could be done.

Explain how the many tons of super duper ther*te was smuggled into the buildings and attached to columns with nobody noticing. How all the super duper therm*te devices survived the plane crashes and subsequent fires. Explain why no very bright light was observed. And most importantly, they need to prove that super duper them*te can even cut through vertical columns like they claim.

I won't hold my breath.

[1337m4n]

if the Truth Movement thinks Bentham's blessing is so important, then obviously they must also think, by virtue of the above endorsement from Bentham, I'm qualified to review this paper.

Have you forgotten the Truth Movement's super-power: the ability to conjure double-standards out of nothing?

[ElMondoHummus]

Ok, just to put this paper to bed for tonight: There are some issues that, even ignoring the choice of venue or quality of the authors previous works, are bothersome. Mackey's already identified one of them: Their "elimination" of paint as a possibility. It's such a broad conclusion they drew, but it's made from far too limited an "experiment" to justify the breadth. If you want to eliminate paint as a possibility, handwaving past the fact that not all paints share the same solubility in the solvent selected suggests that it's more an experiment to give a fig leaf to believers than one to genuinely address the issue.

Another handwave is the one about the energy released by the chips. The writers make hay about the energy released by the chips compared to pure thermite, TNT, etc. (figure 30 in the paper). This is meant to be impressive, indicating that there's something about the material that suggests it's a specially engineered version of "nanothermite", and Jones et. al. really sells this up with their citations of the Gash et. al papers from Lawrence Livermore laboratories. This is an utterly silly - and very deliberate - handwave: if your substance is releasing more energy per mass from the chips than from a pure rust-aluminum redox reaction (compare chips 3 and 4 to the Al/Fe2O3 "Energy by mass" in fig. 30... and ignore the fact that the chips aren't consistent for now), then you're getting energy from another chemical reaction. You have less "thermite" reactant per gram due to the presence of other materials, yet you get more energy released. Something else above and beyond the aluminum/iron oxide redox is occuring. If this is a thermite sol-gel suspension, then you'd better think about eliminating the thermite, because you seem to be getting a better energy release from the medium your suspending your thermite in. Either that, or they're not seeing an Al/iron oxide redox reaction in their calorimeter tests to begin with. Either way, this doesn't argue that this is any kind of weaponized material.

I can go on - for example, the microspheres argument is reintroduced :rolleyes:, and I still think there's something to be found by questioning whether the reactants were indeed found in the stoichiometrically correct ratios - but I want to watch Formula One news, then go to sleep. Enough's been said for now. Ryan's already made some pretty good points, I think I've added another one... the point is that this paper is, like previous ones, makes much noise but has little real validity. It's a pretty show of spectroscopy, but the conclusions are still too handwaved. In the absence of any gross effects on the steel, nothing they find or insinuate changes the narrative any.

[Christopher7]

This has been covered before. Jones et. al. publishing in vanity publications is nowhere near the equivalent of publishing in established, legitimate scientific journals. Vanity publications?

Sorry to hear about you reading disability. The name of the journal is: The Open Chemical Physics Journal.

The highly regarded scientist R. Mackey, who recently proved that a 757 traveling at 500 mph will not bounce off a building, has stated that the Open Chemical Physics Journal is just a vanity publication.

BTW: What are R. Mackey's qualifications? Does he have a PhD in physics?

[John Blonn]

Wait, am I still in 2009?

[911files]

Argue the evidence.

Okay, I will. I am not a Chemist, but I have worked with optics since I rebuilt my first telescope at age 12. So I know a thing or two about spectral analysis. Below I have created a composite of the spectra from page 8 of Dr. Jones paper (Fig 7) for the red dust and the spectra (http://www.amazingrust.com/Experiments/how_to/Images/Thermite/TiO2/3/EDAX/TiO2_Thermite_EDAX.html) for thermite.

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

The spectra for thermite extends only to 5 keV, so lets just talk about that segment shall we? Galileo, please show me the spectra signature for thermite in any of the four spectra presented by Dr. Jones. I am open to the evidence, but I simply don't see the 4.5 keV peak for titanium in any of the spectra above or elsewhere in his paper. Show me the thermite Galileo.

Perhaps Dr. Jones is talking another flavor of thermite. If so, please post the spectra for it so that we can compare.

http://aal77.com/jref/fig25_jones.jpg

Although there is similar spectra in the case of Fig 25 on page 18, the peaks are simply not proportionate. In thermite, titanium is 70% and aluminum around 25%. The 4.5 keV peak for titanium should be higher than the one for aluminum. That is not the case and as a matter of fact, the aluminum peak is significantly higher in Fig 25. I would think a more reasonable hypothesis is that the trace amount of titanium observed in the Fig 25 sample came from another source. I'm sure among the computers and other office equipment in the WTC, titanium was present somewhere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanium).

Titanium commercial aerospace requirements (including engine components such as blades, discs, rings and engine cases as well as airframe components including bulkheads, tail sections, landing gear, wing supports and fasteners) can account for a substantial proportion of the mass of modern aircraft, for example:

The four engines alone on the Airbus A380 use about 26 metric tons (57,000 pounds) of titaniumBoeing (including both the airframes and engines)

B787 – 134 metric tons (295,000 lb) of titanium
B777 – 59 metric tons (130,000 lb) of titanium
B747 – 45 metric tons (99,000 lb) of titanium
B737 – 18 metric tons (40,000 lb) of titanium

Please resolve this for us Galileo. Inquiring minds want to know.

[MIKILLINI]

It says in the report thay found unreacted thermite. You are wrong.

Unreacted thermite? :dl:

[beachnut]

You fail. They published in a legitimate scientific journal. They found proof of explosives. You lose.
Vanity journal, they paid to be published, you fell for lies. Pure junk. Lol big time as I polish off a cab and a zin you post lies. cool

It is friday go out on a date

[Panoply_Prefect]

Vanity publications?

Sorry to hear about you reading disability. The name of the journal is: The Open Chemical Physics Journal.

The highly regarded scientist R. Mackey, who recently proved that a 757 traveling at 500 mph will not bounce off a building, has stated that the Open Chemical Physics Journal is just a vanity publication.


Well isn't it? Vanity press afaik means press that prints your work for money.


A vanity press or vanity publisher is a publishing house that publishes books at the author's expense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanity_press


An article-processing fee payable by the author/ author's institution applies for every accepted article, to cover the costs incurred by open access publication. Members of Bentham Open are entitled to discounted article - processing fees.

Bentham Open offers affordable article -processing fees ranking amongst the lowest as compared to those of other open access journal publishers.
http://www.bentham.org/open/IOJournals.htm

Souns like vanity press to me.

BTW; wasn't the name The Open Physical Chemistry journal?

EDIT: Nope. It appears Bentham has an Open Chemical Physics Journal (http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/) as well as an Open Physical Chemistry journal (http://www.bentham.org/open/topcj/index.htm),

[240-185]

Hmmmm, I'm bored.

Galileo, as you're convinced that 9/11 was an inside job, write here how exactly the towers fell, what are the evidences that the towers fell anormally (I've at least one: thermite), what happened exactly to the Pentagon and what happened in Shanksville.

Go Crackpot Index go!

[metamars]

If this is true, how likely are you to get that, here? I would suggest taking the paper to your friendly, neighborhood university that has a Materials Science department (or two - you might find one group in the physics department, and another Materials Science department in the college of engineering.).




Anybody asking material scientists for criticism and comments, as I suggest, please also ask 2 questions:

1) what is the plausibility of a paint on nano-thermitic being used to create column weakness via asymmetric pressures resulting from asymmetric application? In other words, if you have a a spliced column, and you paint on nano-thermite on one side only, and then ignite it, will the differential in size between the heated side and the non-heated side cause the splice to crack? What if applied on one side of a 3.8 m length of unspliced column? Will the differential in size cause the column to noticeably bend?

BTW, the first mention I ever saw regarding the possibility of WTC tilts being similar to that of a bimetallic strip was by Dr. Greening, at physforum.com. If I understood him correctly, his line of inquiry assumed differential heating of entire segments of columns towards one side of the WTC towers, relative to heating of entire segments of columns on the opposite side. (Not differential heating of the same column segment.)

Also, this page (http://mathcentral.uregina.ca/QQ/database/QQ.09.05/jim2.html)gives the thermal expansion of the steel as 0.00000645in/in/deg F. For a 1 inch length of steel, increasing it's temperature to 2463 deg F ( = melting point of steel, < 4,500 deg F. of thermite), gets you only .016 inches. For cold steel, say 1/2 inch thick, that hardly seems like enough to cause failure. However, as the steel approaches it's melting point, it's yield point is going to drop. So, I guess the question should not just be about differential pressures due to differential thermal expansions, but about differential pressures relative to yield points, due to differential thermitic heating.


2) What is the plausibility that paint on nano-therm*te was used to provide an 'impressive' fireball, in the moments of first impact?

[Macgyver1968]

What the hell is the International Center for 9/11 Studies?

Does it list an address? I live in Dallas, and that zip code isn't to far from me. I could go check it out. :)

[BigAl]

What the hell is the International Center for 9/11 Studies?

Some investigative Googling for anything 9/11-related in that zip finds only this.

9-11 Hair & Nail Salon
10340 Ferguson Rd
Dallas, TX 75228
(214) 327-9609

[Macgyver1968]

So... just curious... suppose it actually was thermite, instead of red (iron-pigmented) paint chips. A layer of thermite the thickness of a thick coat of paint--given something as massive as a steel beam, is the paint-thickness thermite likely to heat the beam up enough to make it too warm to pick up without gloves? Weaken steel? Liquify?

I have no expertise whatsoever on this, but every thermite video I have seen has used substantial amounts of thermite to attack a fairly small amount of metal. A paint-chip thickness seems... insignificant. Obviously, though, I could be wrong. Does anybody here know?


I would agree. You need alot of thermite to cut through steel.

Here is a video of a few actual thermite reactions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrCWLpRc1yM

Pay attention to the second part of the video, where they burn a hole in the hood of a crappy french car.

Notice how much thermite they have to use just to make a small hole. Notice how the hole is only where the flower pot held the thermite in place long enough to fully react. Notice how the thermite was set off..with a blasting cap. Notice how the entire hood of the car, made of thin sheet metal is completely covered with molten iron at one time, but it just runs off and only scorches the metal...the only hole is where the thermite was held in place. Notice how f-ing energetic the reaction is and how much molten iron is created, and how bright it burns. Notice how long the reaction takes.

If it takes a flower pot full of thermite just to burn a hole in a car...how much does it take to cut through steel beams? How do you get it to flow sideways?

[Macgyver1968]

Some investigative Googling for anything 9/11-related in that zip finds only this.

9-11 Hair & Nail Salon
10340 Ferguson Rd
Dallas, TX 75228
(214) 327-9609

LOL..a hair salon. I know where that is too. Ferguson road isn't too far from me. That's kinda a shady part of town.

[BigAl]

I would agree. You need alot of thermite to cut through steel.

Here is a video of a few actual thermite reactions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrCWLpRc1yM


These are my two best Thermite videos.

Mythbusters Toast 1/2 Ton of Thermite
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPAYZMzGMwQ
(notice slag falling off hood and that the SUV isn't melted into a puddle of liquid steel.)

4 pounds of thermite doesn't even melt a PC chassis
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-4147847319296070400
(Fast forward the first 0:2:30)

[Macgyver1968]

Wow..BigAl ..ive never seen that mythbusters one before...that was cool. 1000 lbs of thermite going off. Not even bags of the stuff was able to cleanly cut through the roof of the suv. Took a really long time too. I wonder how the insiders managed to hide all that extra smoke when the thermite when off in the tower?

[16.5]

Vanity publications?

Sorry to hear about you reading disability. The name of the journal is: The Open Chemical Physics Journal.

The highly regarded scientist R. Mackey, who recently proved that a 757 traveling at 500 mph will not bounce off a building, has stated that the Open Chemical Physics Journal is just a vanity publication.

BTW: What are R. Mackey's qualifications? Does he have a PhD in physics?

Wow, hey Chris, next time yourself a favor and read the thread before you post, m-kay? Because you just got freaking owned.

Did you see Mackey's post where freaking Bentham asked Mackey "Based on your eminent contributions in the field of space technology, we would like to consider your possible nomination to the Editorial Board Membership of the journal."

As the kids say PWNED!

I'm still waiting for an explanation of how the tons of Super Thermite works sideways. I see Metamars had a fantastic suggestion that super thermite paint could be used to heat up one side of a beam. Hey metamars, just how thick is this paint, six inches? Further, your hero knucklehead jones disagrees, please see his very scientific bic lighter experiment (snicker)

[RedIbis]

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

I predict that debunkers will mostly ignore the detailed results from the Differential Scanning Calorimeter, the two Figures with DSC plots, which show that the energy release from two chips in kJ/gram EXCEEDS the maximum output available from THERMITE alone.

And let's see if they address our evidence for NANO-thermite (as opposed to the straw-man arguments against ordinary thermite). In the past, NIST and others seem to have been incapable of acknowledging that we have evidence for super-thermite (nano-thermite), not just thermite!
http://911blogger.com/node/19761?page=1

[Pardalis]

Has he presented his data to the scientific community yet?

[BigAl]

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


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

I predict that debunkers will mostly ignore the detailed results from the Differential Scanning Calorimeter, the two Figures with DSC plots, which show that the energy release from two chips in kJ/gram EXCEEDS the maximum output available from THERMITE alone.

And let's see if they address our evidence for NANO-thermite (as opposed to the straw-man arguments against ordinary thermite). In the past, NIST and others seem to have been incapable of acknowledging that we have evidence for super-thermite (nano-thermite), not just thermite!

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



My investigoogling of energetic nano-compounds finds that they are all described in one way or another as having high values of brisance. That means they go "boom". I welcome any reality check by anyone that actually knows something about this.

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

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

[Seymour Butz]

"it is expected that all of the board members will publish one article each year in the journal which will be published after the routine reviewing process. The first article received from the EBMs each year will be published free of charge while the subsequent ones will be entitled to a 50% discount off the publication fees for submission of their manuscripts to the journal."

OH. MY. STARS!

That is ridiculous!


Publish the free one to get a free year, then tell them to get stuffed after that.

Maybe he'll get lucky and learn for sure what kind of a sham they are and be able to provide evidence/ instances of just that.

[Pardalis]

Maybe he should focus on what other chemists think instead of worrying about "debunkers".

[RedIbis]

My investigoogling of energetic nano-compounds finds that they are all described in one way or another as having high values of brisance. That means they go "boom". I welcome any reality check by anyone that actually knows something about this.

For instance:

Are you sure about that?

[BigAl]

are you sure about that?

boom

[R.Mackey]

My investigoogling of energetic nano-compounds finds that they are all described in one way or another as having high values of brisance. That means they go "boom". I welcome any reality check by anyone that actually knows something about this.

Yup. The article that Dr. Jones references to nano-thermite suggests its use in precision gas generation, i.e. as a microexplosive or one-shot microthruster, with high resistance to external temperature. There's nothing about that technology that suggests suitability for large-scale demolition or weakening of any kind.

The fact that the energy content is significantly higher than any ordinary thermite is, in fact, one of the arguments that proves the stuff is not thermite. Dr. Jones is a funny man.

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

It's comments like these which make this paper nearly indistinguishable from those extolling the dangers of oxidane (http://www.chemindustry.com/chemicals/486674.html). Poe's Law strikes again.

[16.5]

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

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

Yeah, too bad you are not, because in fact that has been addressed in this thread.

Hey Dr. Jones, couple of questions: 1. how much did you pay to have this published or was this your freebie?

2. please share with us the comments from your peer reviewers.

3. what other Journals did you submit this article to and what were their responses.

[Galileo]

Fail. They didn't publish in the the legitimate Chemical Physics (http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/505699/description) journal or the Journal of Chemical Physics (http://jcp.aip.org/) (yes, they are two different ones). They published in the Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal (http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/openaccess2.htm). See R.Mackey's posts on their editorial policies to understand why this is a fail.

Mackey's posts have not been published in a legitimate scientific journal.

The findings in the other journals you cite are consistent with what is found in this paper.

[Pardalis]

Mackey's posts have not been published in a legitimate scientific journal.

He's not the one making the claims.

[ElMondoHummus]

Mackey's posts have not been published in a legitimate scientific journal.

The findings in the other journals you cite are consistent with what is found in this paper.

:confused:

Neither Chemical Physics (http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/505699/description) nor Journal of Chemical Physics (http://jcp.aip.org/) have any articles which speak towards Jones's paper.

Galileo, it's important not to make things up in debate. If I were feeling meaner, I could've asked you for a specific citation knowing that you couldn't provide any. But that's too snarky, and I don't feel like being snippy right now. Instead, some advice: What you post should be supportable in some reasonable fashion. In what I've posted so far, I've either indicated where I'm unsure or based what I've written on verifiable sources. You should to the same, unless it's your goal here to never be taken seriously. Now please, from here on out don't just pull things from your backside in order to make a point refutation. Address substance. And do your best to avoid committing logical fallacies (http://www.logicalfallacies.info/), such as unsupported appeals to authority. We all fail at this at some moments in our lives, but it's important to make the effort. All right?

[Galileo]

He's not the one making the claims.

He is making claims, and people here are citing his nutball claims that have not been peer reviewed.

[Pardalis]

He is making claims, and people here are citing his nutball claims that have not been peer reviewed.

His claims are the peer review.

Maybe you can provide the (real) peer review of Jonesey's paper?

[boloboffin]

So ordinary thermite is now a straw man argument? In other words, Jones proposes it, it gets debunked, Jones comes up with something wackier and says his opponents only have straw men arguments.

[Galileo]

:confused:

Neither Chemical Physics (http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/505699/description) nor Journal of Chemical Physics (http://jcp.aip.org/) have any articles which speak towards Jones's paper.

Galileo, it's important not to make things up in debate. If I were feeling meaner, I could've asked you for a specific citation knowing that you couldn't provide any. But that's too snarky, and I don't feel like being snippy right now. Instead, some advice: What you post should be supportable in some reasonable fashion. In what I've posted so far, I've either indicated where I'm unsure or based what I've written on verifiable sources. You should to the same, unless it's your goal here to never be taken seriously. Now please, from here on out don't just pull things from your backside in order to make a point refutation. Address substance. And do your best to avoid committing logical fallacies (http://www.logicalfallacies.info/), such as unsupported appeals to authority. We all fail at this at some moments in our lives, but it's important to make the effort. All right?

That's right, they don't have any peer reviewed papers that claim there wasn't any thermite at ground zero. Hence these journals, although not as authoritative on the topic, are consistent with this paper.

[Pardalis]

So ordinary thermite is now a straw man argument? In other words, Jones proposes it, it gets debunked, Jones comes up with something wackier and says his opponents only have straw men arguments.

Kind of like Creationism who changed their theory to Intelligent Design, typical strategy of kooks.

[Galileo]

So ordinary thermite is now a straw man argument? In other words, Jones proposes it, it gets debunked, Jones comes up with something wackier and says his opponents only have straw men arguments.

you are the one who has been debunked by a peer reviewed paper, bolobuffoon.

Do not alter usernames as an insult.

[RedIbis]

boom

From a quote in the paper:

At this point in time, all of the
military services and some DOE and academic
laboratories have active R&D programs aimed
at exploiting the unique properties of nanomaterials
that have potential to be used in
energetic formulations for advanced explosives….
nanoenergetics hold promise as useful
ingredients for the thermobaric (TBX)
and TBX-like weapons, particularly due to
their high degree of tailorability with regards to
energy release and impulse management [20].

[parky76]

You fail. Mass murder is not a joke. You lose. The days of the debunkers are numbered.

I'm shaking in my Merrills.

Oh what will you do with us....great master?

Put us in a concentration camp? Forced re-education?

Firing squad?

[ElMondoHummus]

That's right, they don't have any peer reviewed papers that claim there wasn't any thermite at ground zero. Hence these journals, although not as authoritative on the topic, are consistent with this paper.

Worst. Tortured. Logic. Ever.

[BigAl]

From a quote in the paper:

You left out the good bit:

"equivalent to those of high explosives."

That means that pound-for-pound nano-thermite makes a an explosive noise as loud as any explosive compound used for man-made demolition.

It appears to me that nano-thermite is used for igniters and actuators, tiny devices that are used to set off a big conventional explosive.

[parky76]

The age..of the debunker..is over.

The time..of the truther...has begun!!!!!

:D

http://thm-a03.yimg.com/image/4beb9842eb378232

Be honest "Galileo", you want to see us all imprisoned or killed.

[Alt+F4]

They found proof of explosives.

No, they did not.

[twinstead]

I'm shaking in my Merrills.

Oh what will you do with us....great master?

Put us in a concentration camp? Forced re-education?

Firing squad?

Force us to write "I will not ask those accusing people of mass murder for actual evidence" on the chalkboard 1000 times

[parky76]

Force us to write "I will not ask those accusing people of mass murder for actual evidence" on the chalkboard 1000 times

No, I think he wants to see us put in prison or shot dead.

[Galileo]

No, I think he wants to see us put in prison or shot dead.

not unlike what you want done to bin Laden and KSM.

[Galileo]

No, they did not.

They did, it is in the paper. When you get home, have your mom explain it to you.

[beachnut]

They did, it is in the paper. When you get home, have your mom explain it to you.
No, they exposed gullible people like you believe whatever nut case idea they put out. You are following the nut case ideas of a group of dolts who make up whatever they like and you push it as gospel without checking the facts and evidence.

Not very Galileo of you; as you grasp delusions instead of science and the irony is this is a skeptic forum. You are not a skeptic; you are a follower of nut case ideas. It could use science to cure your affliction. Why have you failed again?

I see you are using your best science with your fancy retort.

[1337m4n]

Galileo, please address posts #62, #71, and #74.

[WildCat]

not unlike what you want done to bin Laden and KSM.
And Jeff Dahmer, and John Gacy, and Richard Speck, etc etc.

Know what these people all have in common?

[AZCat]

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

Know what these people all have in common?

None of them has ever been in my kitchen?

[stilicho]

Oh, my, what a laugh that gave me. They need me to submit and pay for papers (at a discount, natch) to verify that I'm a "potential productive scientist??" Why the heck are they extending the offer if I'm not? Why don't they look at my other publications to make this determination?

I participate in peer review all the time. Just last week I reviewed a paper for the ASME, and I'm not even a member there; I got hit up out of the blue for my actual contributions which were similar to the paper under consideration. Next week I'm going to AIAA Infotech to present, and our paper there was reviewed properly. This stunt Bentham is pulling is a scam. I have never run into anyone professionally associated with them, and if I do, it will lower my respect for them enormously.

I love reading your stuff, Mackey. This is pure comedy gold. It's almost as though the plot is being ghost-written as a screenplay. I just wonder what thought processes are going on in the minds of these Bentham people. They latch on to the fact that you are a scientist because you question them about their peer review P&P. So the light bulb goes on:

Hey, this guy seems sciency. Let's hit him up for some money!

Ever get the feeling you're trapped in an Evelyn Waugh novel?

[beachnut]

Mods:

Please move this to the mental pygmies section.

The people here have no interest in rational or scientific discussion.

I am very disappointed in the quality of the James Randi forum.
What I say is backed up by peer reviewed science.
No it is backed up with money to pay for published tripe. You 911Truth delsion believers need to think for yourself and stop posting a paper in a vanity journal for woo.


You can't see fraud when it is pointed out. Skeptic forum and you post junk. Why are you the non-skeptic at this forum; you can’t figure out simple fraud by Jones? Good luck

[parky76]

not unlike what you want done to bin Laden and KSM.

Are you comparing me to a terrorist who murdered 3,000 innocent people?

What did I do??

Honestly, Galileo. What do you want to see done to debunkers?

Put on trial for aiding and abetting the "criminal conspirators"??

Put on trial for treason?

Lynched??

You can be honest Galileo. Tells us the truth.

[Brainster]

Ah, but when they looked closer at the red and gray chips, what did they discover?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_977749d7a1a6c16e9.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=15918)

9-11 was a Vegas job!

[R.Mackey]

I love reading your stuff, Mackey. This is pure comedy gold. It's almost as though the plot is being ghost-written as a screenplay. I just wonder what thought processes are going on in the minds of these Bentham people. They latch on to the fact that you are a scientist because you question them about their peer review P&P. So the light bulb goes on:

Hey, this guy seems sciency. Let's hit him up for some money!

Ever get the feeling you're trapped in an Evelyn Waugh novel?

It gets even worse. :D

Bentham's Open Chemical Physics Journal has, in its brief lifespan, produced (http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/openaccess2.htm) exactly two issues. With a total of 12 articles between them, so far.

Their Editorial Advisory Board, on the other hand, has an astounding (http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/EBM.htm) 100 members.

As you saw from the e-mail they sent me, they expect each of these people to pop out a paper every year. Apparently, these individuals are of such high caliber that less than half can even do that, assuming a rather high five authors per article and no overlaps, even if the entire publication history of the Journal comes from its own editors. I don't have to tell you that this isn't what "editor" usually means -- typically they review works submitted by other people. Otherwise, you have a closed community, reviewing each other, each with a mutual stake in success. That's not peer review. That's advocate review.

ETA: Out of the 12 articles published so far, only five do not have at least one Editorial Board Member as a co-author. These are the first four articles (suggesting they may have been on the Editorial Board, but since departed or been kicked out) and Dr. Jones's article. Damn.

ETAII: I missed this the first time -- they did not latch onto me because I complained about their reviewing process before. I did that on my own time from my home e-mail. Their invitation to me went to my work e-mail. I have about 40 articles of my own out there, I'm not hard to find.

Tell me, O Truth Movement faithful, was this Journal Dr. Jones's first choice?? Why?

Apparently, you really can fool some of the people all of the time. :cool:

[Pipirr]

I was going to suggest that some forum members put together a response to the paper and get it published in the original journal. Journals do occasionally publish crap papers, and a quick response that points out the errors will often be welcome. It shows integrity.

But... the journal doesn't have a reputation to maintain, let alone an impact factor, and, thanks to its very shady business model, getting a response published would put anyone so inclined to in a thousand dollar hole. It's not worth it.

And there's a giant sized problem with Bentham's model, right there. It encourages vanity publishing by locking people in with memberships and promising discounts on their publications. If journal editors feel an obligation to publish someone's work because that person's membership entitles them to publication rights, quality will be the first thing to go. And as pay to publish is a formidable barrier, the likelihood of anyone outside the journal's walls wanting to critique an article within will surely be very low.

All Jones managed to achieve here was a publication in an inbred, pay to publish rag with a reputation for spamming scientists with requests to edit in a desperate attempt for legitimacy. Peer reviewed my naked arse.

[Pipirr]

Their Editorial Advisory Board, on the other hand, has an astounding (http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/EBM.htm) 100 members.

There could be a good reason for that (http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/04/some-background-on-bentham-open-but.html)...

For others, the experience of being targeted by Bentham proved even more frustrating. When Professor John Furedy, Emeritus Professor of Psychology at the University of Toronto, received an invitation to be editor-in-chief of the Open Behavioral Science Journal he initially accepted. But after doing so he found himself being bombarded with further invitations. And when Bentham failed to reply to the questions he raised about the new role he had taken on he decided the best course of action was to withdraw his acceptance, reluctant to be associated with a company that behaved in this way. Even though he had resigned, however, Furedy was surprised to see that his name had been added to the list of editors on the journal's web site. And despite repeated requests to Bentham to remove it his name remains there to this day.

[R.Mackey]

I was going to suggest that some forum members put together a response to the paper and get it published in the original journal. Journals do occasionally publish crap papers, and a quick response that points out the errors will often be welcome. It shows integrity.

But... the journal doesn't have a reputation to maintain, let alone an impact factor, and, thanks to its very shady business model, getting a response published would put anyone so inclined to in a thousand dollar hole. It's not worth it.

Exactly. That was what I attempted to do the first time (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3637492#post3637492) this happened. (ETA: Not publish a response, though, simply point out to the editors that they'd made a grave mistake in putting out such a shoddy paper.) What I found, of course, was that the Journal is just a website being run out of Pakistan, with absolutely no clue what they're doing. If that kind of publishing is worth $600 to you, then by all means, go ahead.

There could be a good reason for that (http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/04/some-background-on-bentham-open-but.html)...

I've seen a lot of complaint about Bentham, and as noted above I've also been targeted by their spam from time to time, but this is yet another wrinkle I didn't know about. I repeat: Damn.

Rather reminds me of multi-level-marketing, in fact.

[ElMondoHummus]

This is sad. Without commenting on the vanity press aspect of Bentham, I actually think the ideal of an open access (http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm) journal is not a bad one. But the way Bentham is operating is destroying the concept. From here on out, who's goinig to trust open access scholarship, even if it's from some future house that's trying to achieve a high quality of work?

It's sad.

[firecoins]

You are unable to think for yourself, and merely rely on what others tell you.
I am thinking alot about what you posted. Why should I believe what you tell me? Why shoul i believe what Steven Jones tells me?

[R.Mackey]

This is sad. Without commenting on the vanity press aspect of Bentham, I actually think the ideal of an open access (http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm) journal is not a bad one. But the way Bentham is operating is destroying the concept. From here on out, who's goinig to trust open access scholarship, even if it's from some future house that's trying to achieve a high quality of work?

I agree completely. As I noted the first time this happened, last year, I like the concept of an open journal. But, if you do this, you need to uphold the very highest quality standards. That clearly is not happening here.

I've helped others start new conferences. I know how it's done. This is not how it is done. It saddens me to see professionals from second-tier institutions, desperate for recognition, get sucked into these kinds of scams, but ultimately it's their own fault. There's plenty of information on Bentham in particular to let you make an informed decision.

[parky76]

You are unable to think for yourself, and merely rely on what others tell you. That is the mentality at JREF. Your "conspriracy" forum is going down.

LOL!!

How is that gonna happen? 9-11 truthers are gonna launch a cyber-attack and shut down the servers?

You know, Josef Stalin and Adolf Hitler and Mao ALSO told people "you are unable to think for yourself and merely rely on what people tell you".

All corrupt leaders say such nonsense.

So, Galileo, how is JREF gonna be shut down? What do you want to see done with us debunkers?

Stop evading the question like a coward and answer.

[Galileo]

LOL!!

How is that gonna happen? 9-11 truthers are gonna launch a cyber-attack and shut down the servers?

You know, Josef Stalin and Adolf Hitler and Mao ALSO told people "you are unable to think for yourself and merely rely on what people tell you".

All corrupt leaders say such nonsense.

So, Galileo, how is JREF gonna be shut down? What do you want to see done with us debunkers?

Stop evading the question like a coward and answer.

you ain't gonna unleash the JREF brownshirts on me, eh?

:jaw-dropp

[parky76]

you ain't gonna unleash the JREF brownshirts on me, eh?

:jaw-dropp

You're the one who says our days are numbered.

What do you want to see done to us? Treason charges?

Prison?

Death?

You said "your days our numbered". You said "the conspiracy forum of JREF is going down".

I think we have the right to know exactly what you mean.

If you don't answer I will assume you are just too chicken to answer.

=)

[twinstead]

I would imagine that Galileo's definition of "not thinking for yourself" is "not thinking like me" because that's obviously what he is saying.

[dudalb]

I agree completely. As I noted the first time this happened, last year, I like the concept of an open journal. But, if you do this, you need to uphold the very highest quality standards. That clearly is not happening here.

I've helped others start new conferences. I know how it's done. This is not how it is done. It saddens me to see professionals from second-tier institutions, desperate for recognition, get sucked into these kinds of scams, but ultimately it's their own fault. There's plenty of information on Bentham in particular to let you make an informed decision.

Agreed.
This is the problem I have with Wikipedia. There is little or no quality control,and "accuracy" becomes a matter of who can rewrite and edit the fastest.

[Galileo]

You're the one who says our days are numbered.

What do you want to see done to us? Treason charges?

Prison?

Death?

You said "your days our numbered". You said "the conspiracy forum of JREF is going down".

I think we have the right to know exactly what you mean.

If you don't answer I will assume you are just too chicken to answer.

=)

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

[parky76]

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

big deal.

i thought you had something in mind that would really matter or would really bother me.

[Galileo]

Are you comparing me to a terrorist who murdered 3,000 innocent people?

What did I do??

Honestly, Galileo. What do you want to see done to debunkers?

Put on trial for aiding and abetting the "criminal conspirators"??

Put on trial for treason?

Lynched??

You can be honest Galileo. Tells us the truth.

Perky76;

I would like to see the debunkers hounded by Truth Squads and WeAreChange for the next 20-odd years!

It is already starting to happen, as Truth-Seeker Galilei and his band of merry men continue to hound those who dwell here.

Do not alter usernames as an insult.

[parky76]

Perky76;

I would like to see the debunkers hounded by Truth Squads and WeAreChange for the next 20-odd years!



Oh thats good. Cause some truthers want to see us all put on trial for treason and killed.

[kookbreaker]

Perky76;

I would like to see the debunkers hounded by Truth Squads and WeAreChange for the next 20-odd years!

It is already starting to happen, as Truth-Seeker Galilei and his band of merry men continue to hound those who dwell here.

In every troother beats the heart of a Zampolit.

[Galileo]

Oh thats good. Cause some truthers want to see us all put on trial for treason and killed.

It would be better if you copped a plea and testified against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Giuliani, and Silverstein.

[parky76]

It would be better if you copped a plea and testified against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Giuliani, and Silverstein.

Guiliani? He is part of the massive conspiracy too??

How about Henry Stern? He had personnel at OEM in WTC 7 on 9-11.


:D

The JREF forum is gonna be around for a long, long time. But you know what internet forum is really dead? Loose Change. They get about 1 post a day. That tells you something about the health of the "9-11 truth" movement.

[beachnut]

...
I would like to see the debunkers hounded by Truth Squads and WeAreChange for the next 20-odd years!

It is already starting to happen, as Truth-Seeker Galilei and his band of merry men continue to hound those who dwell here.


Nice to tell us you are just a troll presenting second hand lies from Jones and his band of fringe failed professional 911Truth delusion manufacturers.

His paint chip from rusted steel is cute and very interesting to a kid but I have found the same junk in a fire. Good golly, Jones has a piece of junk with paint and rust on it and he says it is thermite and you spread his lie for him insulating him against being a liar; he implies and you lie.

Wake up and figure out no rational person makes up thermite four years after 911 and then tries and fails to “back in” the evidence.

What is the story not, the thermite was painted on the steel? How thick? This gets more ridicules each time Jones’ delusions and nut case ideas are resurrected from the pit of ignorance at 911blogger where dumb kids repeat insane bat crazy ideas from 911Truth junk dealers.


Big clue the paper is trash is the fact they had to pay to publish it because real science journals will not publish lies and bias tripe! Second big clue are the 911Truth sources cited in the paper. Bad news. For a big laugh drop by an engineering school and present this to the engineering department. Make my day, do it and report back oh great 911Truth expert Galileo.

[911files]

I would like to see the debunkers hounded by Truth Squads and WeAreChange for the next 20-odd years!


Galileo, you or Dr. Jones have yet to present spectral evidence consistent with thermite. How can you claim thermite is present when the spectra does not show the 4.5 keV titanium marker? I thought you wanted to talk evidence?

[RedIbis]

Galileo, you or Dr. Jones have yet to present spectral evidence consistent with thermite. How can you claim thermite is present when the spectra does not show the 4.5 keV titanium marker? I thought you wanted to talk evidence?

At least give Jones credit for predicting that so called debunkers such as yourself would employ the strawman of referring to the paper's conclusions as deriving from thermite:

I predict that debunkers will mostly ignore the detailed results from the Differential Scanning Calorimeter, the two Figures with DSC plots, which show that the energy release from two chips in kJ/gram EXCEEDS the maximum output available from THERMITE alone.

And let's see if they address our evidence for NANO-thermite (as opposed to the straw-man arguments against ordinary thermite). In the past, NIST and others seem to have been incapable of acknowledging that we have evidence for super-thermite (nano-thermite), not just thermite!

[911files]

At least give Jones credit for predicting that so called debunkers such as yourself would employ the strawman of referring to the paper's conclusions as deriving from thermite:

RedIbis, this is basic science. If a material exists, then so will its elemental fingerprint in a spectral analysis. So please, you or Dr. Jones please show me the control spectra for this material so I can compare it to the samples. If you can't, then you are just blowing smoke.

[T.A.M.]

OMG!

Is another truther bringing up the old Bentham Publishing BS again. Did we not go over this TWICE???

TAM:)

[parky76]

Well, if this really is that big a deal, they should contact all the major news outlets immediately. Someone, somewhere, will put it on the news.

Maybe Press TV? Russia Today? =)

[boloboffin]

Niels Harrit, an associate professor at the University of Copenhagen, published this article on WTC 7 (http://www.911truth.dk/first/en/art_Harrit.htm) in 2007.

I wonder if he's made full professor yet? Well, he's been an associate prof for 37 years at UC. Maybe that means something different than here in the States.

A thread here about Harrit before:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=102718

[boloboffin]

Jeff Farrer is the guy that runs BYU's electron microscope. I don't see that he teaches any classes there.

http://www.physics.byu.edu/directory.aspx?personID=23

[ElMondoHummus]

At least give Jones credit for predicting that so called debunkers such as yourself would employ the strawman of referring to the paper's conclusions as deriving from thermite:

:confused:

Red, "nano" thermite is thermite. The energy available in the redox reaction does not change simply because someone processed it to a finer degree. The amount of joules, kilocalories, or whatever unit you want to use per unit of mass doesn't change. The amount that's released in a classic reduction-oxidation reaction is set by the reactants, not by their processing.

If he's getting more energy than what should be available in a given amount of thermite, then either he's discovered the muon catalyzed cold fusion he's been searching for in the last two decades, or he's seeing something above and beyond a Fe2O3-Al redox reaction. It's that simple. This isn't a strawman; it's a statement of the obvious. I take his statement less to be a prediction of how someone can misinterpret his work and more a statement to give you believers cover to say "Look, the expert saw you coming!". He must answer why he's getting more energy out of the system than what's to be expected from a standard thermite redox. It's that simple.

Really, Red, I thought even you were a more critical thinker than that. Color me disappointed.

[Sunstealer]

So... just curious... suppose it actually was thermite, instead of red (iron-pigmented) paint chips. A layer of thermite the thickness of a thick coat of paint--given something as massive as a steel beam, is the paint-thickness thermite likely to heat the beam up enough to make it too warm to pick up without gloves? Weaken steel? Liquify?No. Assuming a 100% efficient thermite reaction and 100% of all the heat generated (after heating the Fe and Al203) is going to melt the steel with a final temperature of 1540°C the perfect scenario would allow 1g of thermite to melt 1.88g of steel. Funnily enough this comes from a paper by a truther - It's not a bad way to get a theoretical upper limit and I think the chemistry and mathematics is good - shame about alot of the rest. http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JLobdillThermiteChemistryWTC.pdf

This is obviously not a real world scenario and you'd have lots of factors to add in that would reduce this upper limit by a significant amount. Even using the upper limit, paint of this thickness couldn't possibly melt through the thickness of material inherent in a steel beam.

Obviously, Dr. Jones and company are aware that there's more than one kind of paint, or else they wouldn't have suggested the mystery substance could be "paint." I noticed this on my first read through. I was expecting data and the source of the paint they use for comparison so waited until I had read the entire paper, but none turns up. This is very sloppy to say the least. There are hundreds of different types of paint. This doesn't need further comment it's that bad.


Keep in mind that I'm not firm on that last possibility . I note no nitrogen peak on the EDX graphs, and cyanates are one of the components of urethane polymers, so I'd need Sunstealer to tell me if the lack of such a N peak falsifies my line of inquiry. Unsure about the N peak to be honest, it depends on the machine and the detector/window and the KeV. They do state that they use a SiLi detector. You can google the SEM model number "FEI XL30-SFEG" and have a look.

30 second google looks like it can but bear in mind that specs change and there are usually different customisation options - http://www.matsci.ucdavis.edu/MatSciLT/Appendices/Files/FEI-XL30-SFEG.pdf

Anybody asking material scientists for criticism and comments, as I suggest, please also ask 2 questions:

1) what is the plausibility of a paint on nano-thermitic being used to create column weakness via asymmetric pressures resulting from asymmetric application? In other words, if you have a a spliced column, and you paint on nano-thermite on one side only, and then ignite it, will the differential in size between the heated side and the non-heated side cause the splice to crack? What if applied on one side of a 3.8 m length of unspliced column? Will the differential in size cause the column to noticeably bend?Interesting idea to try a thermal shock method which is what i think you are asking, but you are not going to be able to crack steel in that fashion because you require a number of cycles to produce that effect. http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/eserv/UQ:10040/Price_sif04.pdf

Also bear in mind the temperature of thermite, how fast it reacts and how it's unable to sustain temperatures for any length of time with the fact that the steel will oxidise heavily then the likelyhood is that all you are going to do is spall off a thin layer of rust.


2) What is the plausibility that paint on nano-therm*te was used to provide an 'impressive' fireball, in the moments of first impact?I think the plausibility is 0%. An airliner full of fuel exploding is going to give a big enough fireball.

[911files]

I noticed this on my first read through. I was expecting data and the source of the paint they use for comparison so waited until I had read the entire paper, but none turns up. This is very sloppy to say the least. There are hundreds of different types of paint. This doesn't need further comment it's that bad.

I was trying to keep it simple for Red and Galileo, but that is exactly what my point is. There are no control spectra for comparison. The only thing I see that Dr. Jones has demonstrated in this paper is that there was NO thermite present in the samples he did spectral analysis on. So, if there is some super-thermite, nano-thermite, or whatever, give us a control spectra so that we can see its signature.

[ElMondoHummus]

:blush: Umm... not to be picky, especially since you were kind enough to answer my questions patiently... but because some here like to jump on nitpicky details instead of allowing for casual language, I thought I'd better offer the following. Along with a statement of full understanding that you weren't trying to be specific, but rather were just making an offhand remark. Anyway:

I think the plausibility is 0%. An airliner full of fuel exploding is going to give a big enough fireball.

Flights 175 and 11 weren't full. A Boeing 767 is capable of holding just under 24,000 gallons of fuel. AA11 - the one that hit the North tower - was estimated to have had around 9,000 gallons of fuel at the time of impact. UA175 was estimated to have around 8,200 gallons.

Not trying to be nitpicky or overly pedantic myself. Just wanted to steel you for the inevitable, apoplectically incredulous "full of fuel??" cheap shot some others might have decided to take. Best to head that off, and save you the trouble of explaining to a truther that you were just speaking informally.

[beachnut]

OMG!

Is another truther bringing up the old Bentham Publishing BS again. Did we not go over this TWICE???

TAM:)
The dolts at Jones institute for dumb 911 ideas did it again. A new pay for your woo to be published journal article.

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM (http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM)

The use references from their own failed journal articles and online 911Truth work.

At least they are dumb enough to pay for this after being rejected by real journals. How stupid does it get?

[1337m4n]

I would like to see the debunkers hounded by Truth Squads and WeAreChange for the next 20-odd years!

It is already starting to happen, as Truth-Seeker Galilei and his band of merry men continue to hound those who dwell here.

Moderators, please take note: Galileo outright admits that his intention is to troll.

[Galileo]

Moderators, please take note: Galileo outright admits that his intention is to troll.

good one, giving facts does not a troll make.

maybe the hijackers brough super thermite or supern thermate onto the planes, along with their box-cutters?

[Galileo]

The dolts at Jones institute for dumb 911 ideas did it again. A new pay for your woo to be published journal article.

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM (http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM)

The use references from their own failed journal articles and online 911Truth work.

At least they are dumb enough to pay for this after being rejected by real journals. How stupid does it get?

scientific facts are dependent on where they are published?

Good one!

the truth will not be kept down for long!

[parky76]

s

the truth will not be kept down for long!

um...didn't they say this in 2006?

I predict they will still be saying this in 2015.

Galileo, deal with it. Your side lost. The facts defeated you.

[T.A.M.]

um...didn't they say this in 2006?

I predict they will still be saying this in 2015.

Galileo, deal with it. Your side lost. The facts defeated you.

yes, and that is the point. Gal knows the truth movement is all but dead. That is why it is clear he is trolling with his "it won't be long now" antics.

TAM:)

[16.5]

scientific facts are dependent on where they are published?

Good one!

the truth will not be kept down for long!

Facts? C'mon champ, it is a typical Jones special. Got about as many facts as his Jesus came to America "Peer Reviewed" Article (snerk!)

Super Thermite! It is Super!

[beachnut]

scientific facts are dependent on where they are published?

Good one!

the truth will not be kept down for long!
It is true you can publish dirt dumb ideas in pay as you go journals of stupid and get dirt dumb followers to rise up and post stupid stuff on the Internet. What action can you see 911Truth doing but post the next smoking gun.

If not bad enough paying to publish tripe only incredibly stupid people can believe, you have the no feedback hearsay expert making up extremely stupid scenarios for 911.

The new ceiling tiles with embedded thin-film explosives and wireless ignitors are installed throughout every other floor of the Tower starting just below the planned crash zone. The South Tower gets the same treatment above the 95th floor. In all, each Tower gets 500,000 of the large tiles and 400,000 of the small tiles.
With workers swapping in new tiles at an average rate of ten tiles per minute per worker, it takes a team of twenty workers 50 hours to retrofit an entire Tower. The work is performed in a week and week-end of night shifts, emptying one truckload per night, with the truck parking inconspicuously in the WTC subterranean parking garage. ... http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/blasting_scenario.html

The 911Truth guru Hoffman now manufactures pathetically doltish ideas as he writes more fictional delusions on 911. Dr Jones and Hoffman continue to apologize for 19 terrorists. Nut case ideas don’t die, they find new hosts too dumb on 911 issues and topics so they repeat the nut case ideas and rejoice that this is it, the new super smoking gun to solve 911 and bring the bad guys to justice.

The irony is Hoffman based his factual tripe on the nut case made up work of Dr Jones.

Hoffman adds twenty new workers to the list of murderers. Thank you so very much Jones and Hoffman for apologizing for terrorism and spitting on those who died on 911 by making up lies and fictional accounts so you can mislead the ignorance and gullible on 911 issues.

Dr Jones is not crazy, he is the expert of experts and his new paper is the Messiah in a vanity journal article paid for with other nut case idea believer money. There is money in selling dirt dumb ideas on 911 but how can you be so disrespectful and take those who are ignorant on 911 issues, how can you take their money?

From Dr Jones (at least the poster calls himself jones)

I welcome SCIENTIFICALLY-BASED comments and scrutiny of this published paper.
As you see attacks, please note them here so that I can follow and respond (as I have time). My experience from a newspaper article on the "Fourteen Points" paper published in 2008 may be relevant. That article (in Deseret News) was published on a SATURDAY and there were hundreds of comments. But the comments were nearly all positive UNTIL THE NEXT MONDAY MORNING, then the negative comments poured in, mostly from "anonymous" persons who used mocking and straw-man arguments. That was an eye-opener for me.
This paper was published on FRIDAY, and I predict that the comments will turn negative mostly after the weekend, because I suspect from experience that there are "paid mercenaries" who will mount the attack when they get back to "work" after the weekend... And I predict that they will not have scientifically-sound rebuttals to this paper, just as they lacked scientifically-sound rebuttals to the FOURTEEN POINTS paper. They will attack the peer-review, the origins, etc.; maybe it's just paint (although THAT fallacious argument is rebutted already in the TOCPJ paper in detail) -- but they will lack solid SCIENTIFIC rebuttals. We'll see -- but let's keep track of the negative or scurrilous reports and the ratio of these to positive comments... Should be interesting.



2. Second author is Dr. Jeffrey Farrer of BYU. http://www.physics.byu.edu/images/people/farrer.jpg (http://www.physics.byu.edu/images/people/farrer.jpg)
3. Dr. Farrer is featured in an article on page 11 of the BYU Frontiers magazine, Spring 2005: “Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, lab director for TEM” (TEM stands for Transmission Electron Microscopy). The article notes: “The electron microscopes in the TEM lab combine to give BYU capabilities that are virtually unique… rivaling anything built worldwide.” The article is entitled: “Rare and Powerful Microscopes Unlock Nano Secrets,” which is certainly true as regards the discoveries of the present paper.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/19761?page=1

Wow, we are in trouble now, they have “real evidence” of nano nano super thermite! Oh noes. AHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[metamars]

I'm still waiting for an explanation of how the tons of Super Thermite works sideways. I see Metamars had a fantastic suggestion that super thermite paint could be used to heat up one side of a beam. Hey metamars, just how thick is this paint, six inches?


I didn't double-check this - caveat emptor. I also made no attempt to figure out any diluting effects inherent in sol-gel therm*te. It's just a rough calculation.


From http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/Sudden_collapse_initiation_impossible.pdf (Legge and Szamboti), max yield is decreased by over 50% at 600 deg C.

The specific heat of steel is 500 J/(Kg*K).


So, 1 kg steel, w/temperature raised by 600 deg C, needs 500 * 600 Joules
= 300,000 J


I guesstimate that we only need 1/4 of this this 1 kg of steel heated to 600 C, to get differential heating, sufficient to cause a tilt, as I outlined. So, I'll assume that we need ~ (300,000 J/ 4) = 75,000 J.

Energy density of thermite is 4MJ/kg. So we need 75 / 4,000 kg = 0.01875 kg thermite per kg of steel.

That's about 2%, by weight.

Since the mass density of steel is 7850 kg/m^3, and the mass density of thermite is 3474 kg/m^3, the volume ratio is roughly 4% thermite to steel.

(See http://physics911.net/thermite)


Say that a box column side is 1 inch thick, and x meters high, and y inches wide. Applying 4% thermite, by volume, to just this one side, over x meters times y inches, obviously is 4% of 1 inch, thick. (Applying over all 4 box column sides would give you just 1% for each side.)

4% of 1 inch is about 1 millimeter.

[metamars]

I think the plausibility is 0%. An airliner full of fuel exploding is going to give a big enough fireball.

Color me skeptical. There are lots of plane crashes every year. Ignoring military crashes of jets carrying napalm and/or exotic fuels and/or bombs that blow up at the instant of impact, if fireballs were the rule, any rare survivors would still be badly burned.

Plowing through a building with lots of columns to help aerosolize the kerosene jet fuel will change things, but how much?

Like I said, color me skeptical.

[beachnut]

I
I guesstimate that we only need 1/4 of this this 1 kg of steel heated to 600 C, to get differential heating, sufficient to cause a tilt, as I outlined. So, I'll assume that we need ~ (300,000 J/ 4) = 75,000 J.
Please how much heat is needed to do the whole job in joules and how much thermite is use. The totals please. Can't do it can you?

Just more tripe and lies? How much total super thermite is needed, how much heat is needed in joules? Produce the numbers. You can't?

[Mr.D]

Okay, I will. I am not a Chemist, but I have worked with optics since I rebuilt my first telescope at age 12. So I know a thing or two about spectral analysis.

IIRC, Inconsistent and wildly misinterpreted spectra was one of Jones' major achilles heels for his original Cold Fusion claim way back when.

[metamars]

Please how much heat is needed to do the whole job in joules and how much thermite is use. The totals please. Can't do it can you?

Just more tripe and lies? How much total super thermite is needed, how much heat is needed in joules? Produce the numbers. You can't?

If my calculation of 2% therm*te to steel mass ratio is correct, then calculating the thermite weight is trivial, given the weight of columns in however many stories you want to calculate. (I'd probably go with 10, or reread Kevin Ryan's paper about the 'work' done on the towers to see what floors were mentioned.)

As for Joules, multiply 75,000 J by that same column weight in kg, and you'll have your answer.

What's so hard about doing that?

[BigAl]

If my calculation of 2% therm*te to steel mass ratio is correct, then calculating the thermite weight is trivial, given the weight of columns in however many stories you want to calculate. (I'd probably go with 10, or reread Kevin Ryan's paper about the 'work' done on the towers to see what floors were mentioned.)

As for Joules, multiply 75,000 J by that same column weight in kg, and you'll have your answer.

What's so hard about doing that?

As a practical test, 1,000 pounds of thermite doesn't do all that much damage to a SUV.

Mythbusters Toast 1/2 Ton of Thermite
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPAYZMzGMwQ
(notice slag falling off hood and that the SUV isn't melted into a puddle of liquid steel.)

It appears that most of the thermite burns off with no effect. Any thermite not in contact with steel is wasted and that would be a limiting factor for how much damage could be done to a beam.

[beachnut]

If my calculation of 2% therm*te to steel mass ratio is correct, then calculating the thermite weight is trivial, given the weight of columns in however many stories you want to calculate. (I'd probably go with 10, or reread Kevin Ryan's paper about the 'work' done on the towers to see what floors were mentioned.)

As for Joules, multiply 75,000 J by that same column weight in kg, and you'll have your answer.

What's so hard about doing that?
You can't do it! You failed to present the total joules of heat needed in your failed delusion world.

You can't do it! You failed to present the total amount of super duper thermite needed to do what you said happen in your failed pathetic delusion world of thermite junk ideas.

You can't do it! Why? Math a problem? Why can’t you guys in 911Truth do anything right? Why are you failing for over 7 years?

Do the numbers present the work or your junk ideas are exactly that, pure junk.

Do nothing 911Truth comes out and can't produce the totals. Math chanllenges or just failed frauds?

Answer the simple questions or be seen as the delusional nut case idea pushers of the failed 911Truth movement. Got math?

[metamars]

You can't do it! You failed to present the total joules of heat needed in your failed delusion world.

You can't do it! You failed to present the total amount of super duper thermite needed to do what you said happen in your failed pathetic delusion world junk ideas.

You can't do it! Why? Math a problem? Why can’t you guys in 911Truth do anything right? Why are you failing for over 7 years?

Do the numbers present the work or your junk ideas are exactly that, pure junk.

Do nothing 911Truth comes out and can't produce the totals. Math chanllenges or just failed frauds?

Answer the simple questions or be seen as the delusional nut case idea pushers of the failed 911Truth movement. Got math?

Can I make a suggestion? Why don't you put a link to your last 2 posts in your sig, and have the hyperlinked text read something like "Beachnut spanks deluded, math-challenged, 911 Truther"? A scintillating intellect such as yours is nothing to hide. I think that newcomers to JREF would appreciate the ability to quickly see a stellar JREF intellect, such as yours, in action against a lesser light, such as myself.

[beachnut]

Can I make a suggestion? Why don't you put a link to your last 2 posts in your sig, and have the hyperlinked text read something like "Beachnut spanks deluded, math-challenged, 911 Truther"? A scintillating intellect such as yours is nothing to hide. I think that newcomers to JREF would appreciate the ability to quickly see a stellar JREF intellect, such as yours, in action against a lesser light, such as myself.
You can’t calculate the amount of thermite you said was needed to do the job; you posted the stuff, but you can’t say the total joules you need, or the amount of thermite needed because it is a fantasy and you can’t do the numbers and total it up! Try to do some math.

You are the one who said this!
If my calculation of 2% therm*te to steel mass ratio is correct, ...
As for Joules, multiply 75,000 J by that same column weight in kg, and you'll have your answer.

What's so hard about doing that?
But you can't do it! Failure is 911Truth for 7 plus years of stupid ideas. Post the total super thermite needed, and the amount of heat needed. Else you are spewing junk science and you can't do the math.

Simple, what is hard about doing that? You can't do it; that is what is hard for you.


Your lack of totals is self-critiquing like all of 911Truth a bunch of talk and failed ideas; your lack of ability to do what you say is not hard debunks your failed repeat of junk science by 911Truth expert guys who spew nut case ideas on 911.

too hard for you? totals; waiting for totals from 911Truth.

[metamars]

As a practical test, 1,000 pounds of thermite doesn't do all that much damage to a SUV.

Mythbusters Toast 1/2 Ton of Thermite
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPAYZMzGMwQ
(notice slag falling off hood and that the SUV isn't melted into a puddle of liquid steel.)

It appears that most of the thermite burns off with no effect. Any thermite not in contact with steel is wasted and that would be a limiting factor for how much damage could be done to a beam.

Painting it on would give a much better coupling of thermite and steel (I should think). Ironically, the key limiting factor may be one that Professor Jones has missed. Professor Jones has talked about the steel frame wicking away the heat, but as Schneibster at physforum pointed out (I've also seen him post at JREF), steel isn't that good a conductor. The office fires would probably outpace any wicking effect.

In the case of thermite painted on steel, even with better coupling, a similar limiting factor may apply. Perhaps most of the heat energy will be lost via radiation and convection before it can penetrate the steel, via conduction.

Of course, the NWO has quite a budget, owning all the printing presses, as they do. Splashing another couple of millimeters of nanothermate should be no problem, financially speaking.

Some other differences with the video (which I enjoyed, btw), is we are talking nanotherm*te, and we are not trying to burn our way through metal, but rather differentially weaken metal which is already under enormous stress, to the point where a tilt would occur.

(Unless we're just trying to ignite splattering jet fuel, so it makes a big fireball. :D )

Finally, this video mentioned a strong UV output. I wonder if a similar effect in the case of nanotherm*te should leave a detectable trace in surviving WTC debris. It shouldn't penetrate steel, beyond a narrow skin depth, but if it can harm human eyes, maybe it'll leave traces in paper, and such.

[metamars]

But you can't do it!

Actually, I can do it. In fact, I've written a computer program utilizing Gregory Urich's data, which I can quickly tweak to tell me the column mass between any 2 floors. Indeed, I've posted the C# source code (http://the911forum.freeforums.org/numerical-analysis-software-list-from-nist-t140.html)(with some errors, which I subsequently pointed out), so anybody with programming skills can do this.

You didn't get the hint, so I'll speak more bluntly - STOP, because you're making a fool out of yourself. If you really think, though, that somebody with a degree in math and physics, like myself, can't multiply by 75,000 on the one hand, and 0.01875 on the other, then go ahead - tell the JREF board members more about what dummies we 911 Truthers are.

[beachnut]

Painting it on would give a much better coupling of thermite and steel (I should think). Ironically, the key limiting factor may be one that Professor Jones has missed. Professor Jones has talked about the steel frame wicking away the heat, but as Schneibster at physforum pointed out (I've also seen him post at JREF), steel isn't that good a conductor. The office fires would probably outpace any wicking effect. ...
Why not present the formula for the paint. lol

You can't even specify the total heat required or the amount of super thermite needed.

How truthy of you.

Got math, not in 911Truth; they use hearsay, lies and produce delusions? Paint?

Can't calculate the totals, no one in 911Truth can answer questions on their own delusions because they are... delusions.

[beachnut]

Actually, I can do it. In fact, I've written a computer program utilizing Gregory Urich's data, which I can quickly tweak to tell me the column mass between any 2 floors. Indeed, I've posted the C# source code (http://the911forum.freeforums.org/numerical-analysis-software-list-from-nist-t140.html)(with some errors, which I subsequently pointed out), so anybody with programming skills can do this.

You didn't get the hint, so I'll speak more bluntly - STOP, because you're making a fool out of yourself. If you really think, though, that somebody with a degree in math and physics, like myself, can't multiply by 75,000 on the one hand, and 0.01875 on the other, then go ahead - tell the JREF board members more about what dummies we 911 Truthers are.
Please produce the total amount of super thermite needed in your delusion.

Please present the total heat in joules required.

You say it is simple but you can't do it. Is this called failure on you part?

Why can't you post the total heat in joules and the total super thermite? errors in your program?


Actually, I can do it. ...
Called; do it! So simple we will have now instantly metamars present the total heat needed in joules and the total amount of super thermite to do his specified scenario. He is an expert at this with a degree in math and physics. Cool, simple totals coming in...

Do it.

[Sunstealer]

:blush: Umm... not to be picky, especially since you were kind enough to answer my questions patiently... but because some here like to jump on nitpicky details instead of allowing for casual language, I thought I'd better offer the following. Along with a statement of full understanding that you weren't trying to be specific, but rather were just making an offhand remark. Anyway:



Flights 175 and 11 weren't full. A Boeing 767 is capable of holding just under 24,000 gallons of fuel. AA11 - the one that hit the North tower - was estimated to have had around 9,000 gallons of fuel at the time of impact. UA175 was estimated to have around 8,200 gallons.

Not trying to be nitpicky or overly pedantic myself. Just wanted to steel you for the inevitable, apoplectically incredulous "full of fuel??" cheap shot some others might have decided to take. Best to head that off, and save you the trouble of explaining to a truther that you were just speaking informally.Thanks - it was an off hand remark, because I was trying not to make a snide comment towards a post that seemed to be a joke, seeing as he had been polite. I'm never sure - Poe's Law and all that.. but the "benefit of the doubt goes to the batsmen" (cricket).

I'm sadly aware that this sort of comment can be picked upon and misconstrued, but it's difficult to keep tabs all the time. Thanks for the detail with regard to fuel loads - I now have roughly a 1/3 capacity in my brain. ;)

Now is that US or Imperial gallons? :D

[metamars]

Called; do it! So simple we will have now instantly metamars present the total heat needed in joules and the total amount of super thermite to do his specified scenario.

I'll make you a deal. If I calculate the two quantities, as I say I can, then you will put me on ignore, forever, and I will do likewise.

Agreed?

[beachnut]

I'll make you a deal. If I calculate the two quantities, as I say I can, then you will put me on ignore, forever, and I will do likewise.

Agreed?
Your failed efforts at making up delusions about 911 is not funny, it is sad after your claim of two degrees in math and physics.

Now you can't produce the total heat needed to do what you say happened at the WTC towers. You can't produce the total thermite used, or how it was used at the WTC. But the total is fine; when can you run that super program you have from the other web site were maj tom helps you make your delusions more truthy?

Was it paint, or was it in the ceiling tiles; which delusion of 911Truth is the true fantasy for all of 911Truth. This becomes real sad after your claims of higher education.

Post the total heat to make your story come true, and the total thermite needed to complete your latest delusion. What happen to your beam weapon junk?

But even when you post your numbers, your super thermite is and always will be pure delusional claptrap.

Are you using paint and ceiling tiles? This gets better each time Dr Jones makes up a new back-in the evidence smoking gun revelation.
Got those totals yet?

[BigAl]

Rawstory has posted an uncritical version of the Jones paper.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Scientists_find_active_superthermite_in_WTC_0404.h tml

People might want to post responses in the comments section.

[Galileo]

Your failed efforts at making up delusions about 911 is not funny, it is sad after your claim of two degrees in math and physics.

Now you can't produce the total heat needed to do what you say happened at the WTC towers. You can't produce the total thermite used, or how it was used at the WTC. But the total is fine; when can you run that super program you have from the other web site were maj tom helps you make your delusions more truthy?

Was it paint, or was it in the ceiling tiles; which delusion of 911Truth is the true fantasy for all of 911Truth. This becomes real sad after your claims of higher education.

Post the total heat to make your story come true, and the total thermite needed to complete your latest delusion. What happen to your beam weapon junk?

But even when you post your numbers, your super thermite is and always will be pure delusional claptrap.

Are you using paint and ceiling tiles? This gets better each time Dr Jones makes up a new back-in the evidence smoking gun revelation.
Got those totals yet?

please seek help. Does JREF have a 12-step program? I know you feel boxed in. Everything will be OK.

:boxedin:

[stilicho]

ETAII: I missed this the first time -- they did not latch onto me because I complained about their reviewing process before. I did that on my own time from my home e-mail. Their invitation to me went to my work e-mail. I have about 40 articles of my own out there, I'm not hard to find.

That makes a little more sense. This is like a call centre or a collection agency that looks through the phone book and markets their services that way. Now, if that's the case, it's possible that Jones or his pals got exactly the same email that you got. So the light bulb that went on was in their heads:

Some sciency journal wants us to join up and write some things and maybe show them that thing we scooped up in some lady's apartment. Woo-hoo! Peer review and all that there kinda thing! Hey Griffin, where's your chequebook?

So I was wrong. You're trapped in a Faulkner novel instead.

[Galileo]

Rawstory has posted an uncritical version of the Jones paper.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Scientists_find_active_superthermite_in_WTC_0404.h tml

People might want to post responses in the comments section.

Rawstory is a good journalistic outfit. They have better coverage on this than the New York Times and ABC News combined.

[dtugg]

Rawstory is a good journalistic outfit. They have better coverage on this than the New York Times and ABC News combined.

Well, the New York Times and ABC News have zero coverage on this because it isn't even a story. Only complete idiots believe super duper thermite was used to destroy the WTC.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Rawstory is a good journalistic outfit. They have better coverage on this than the New York Times and ABC News combined.

If it ain't Fox News, it ain't journalism.

[beachnut]

please seek help. Does JREF have a 12-step program? I know you feel boxed in. Everything will be OK.

:boxedin:
Wow, you present junk science from Dr Jones and you can't product the amount of heat needed or the amount of thermite needed to do it either.

Why are you 911Truth lie presenters short on math and physics but claim to have degrees and so smart that 99.999 percent of all engineers who understand 911 are wrong?

That is correct, you are supported by 0.001 percent of all engineers; your credibility posting this paper of woo is almost as good as zero. Math, you got to love the math!

[UNLoVedRebel]

Wow, you present junk science from Dr Jones and you can't product the amount of heat needed or the amount of thermite needed to do it either.

Why are you 911Truth lie presenters short on math and physics but claim to have degrees and so smart that 99.999 percent of all engineers who understand 911 are wrong?

That is correct, you are supported by 0.001 percent of all engineers; your credibility posting this paper of woo is almost as good as zero. Math, you got to love the math!

Using some very complicated mathematics, I derived the following formula.

CM+I=T

Where CM means Complete Moron. I means Internet. And T means Truther. Thus, if you give a Complete Moron (CM) the Internet (I), you will get a Truther (T).

[Sunstealer]

Your original question was

2) What is the plausibility that paint on nano-therm*te was used to provide an 'impressive' fireball, in the moments of first impact?

I replied

I think the plausibility is 0%. An airliner full of fuel exploding is going to give a big enough fireball. (Please note the casual phrasing of "full of fuel")

And you said.

Color me skeptical. There are lots of plane crashes every year. Ignoring military crashes of jets carrying napalm and/or exotic fuels and/or bombs that blow up at the instant of impact, if fireballs were the rule, any rare survivors would still be badly burned.

Plowing through a building with lots of columns to help aerosolize the kerosene jet fuel will change things, but how much?

Like I said, color me skeptical.I'm really left quite dumbfounded, because I'm not sure how to react: I know this is not Poe's Law because of metamar's post count and posting history. Is this really the sort of logic that truther's employ? Sadly it seems so.

Yes, there are "lots" of "plane crashes" every year.

Does anyone know about military aircraft that carry, napalm/exotic fuels/bombs that explode on impact, as a matter of course? How about current US military operations? Is napalm being carried and used?

If fireballs were the rule, any rare survivors would still be badly burned."Fireballs" aren't the rule. Even when there are horrific "fireballs" some people emerge without severe burns. This may come as a surprise, but there is plenty of evidence, but you won't spend 60 seconds looking for it, but will ask myself and others to do so.

Unfortunately the people onboard the flights that hit the WTC towers weren't as fortunate as you in being able to theorise without any evidence whether it was going to be the fireball that killed them or the deceleration from approximately 500mph. It saddens and sickens me that you can equivocate aircraft crashes that happen due to a number of accidental factors, which are bad enough, but then compare them to the deliberate crashes on 9/11 and then debate the intensity of the fireball, all the while proposing the possibility that this gruesome event wasn't spectacular enough so additional measures were required.

And then you compound the <searching for an appropriate word) of your post with the following.

Plowing through a building with lots of columns to help aerosolize the kerosene jet fuel will change things, but how much?Aerosolize? This just shows how sick your thinking is. I'm lost for words.

[metamars]

Your failed efforts at making up delusions about 911 is not funny, it is sad after your claim of two degrees in math and physics.

Now you can't produce the total heat needed to do what you say happened at the WTC towers. You can't produce the total thermite used, or how it was used at the WTC. But the total is fine; when can you run that super program you have from the other web site were maj tom helps you make your delusions more truthy?

Was it paint, or was it in the ceiling tiles; which delusion of 911Truth is the true fantasy for all of 911Truth. This becomes real sad after your claims of higher education.

Post the total heat to make your story come true, and the total thermite needed to complete your latest delusion. What happen to your beam weapon junk?

But even when you post your numbers, your super thermite is and always will be pure delusional claptrap.

Are you using paint and ceiling tiles? This gets better each time Dr Jones makes up a new back-in the evidence smoking gun revelation.
Got those totals yet?

If I was Paul Krugman, than you would be Timothy Geithner, with your blah, blah, blah (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOYAuk809fY).

Well, you lost your chance to waste yet another 15 minutes of my time. Welcome to my ignore list. You'll have to do the simple math and programming tweaks, all by your lonesome.

Happy driveling.

[JamesB]

OK, someone please tell me if I am understanding this correctly. I do not have much of a scientific background, but I do have a military background, so I have at least a basic understanding of explosives. Jones continues to straddle the line where thermite is both an incendiary and an explosive, depending on what characteristic he needs at the time, but he seems to be suggesting this super magic nanothermite is an explosive, meaning it was not used to melt the steel columns, but to blow through them with force.

He, however, also suggests that this substance was painted on in a thin layer on the beams. Explosives used to cut through steel though, like a shaped charge, work by focusing their force on a very small area, painting an entire beam with a thin layer would have no effect other than blowing all the sheetrock off. There needs to be some sort of compression. It is like with gunpowder, if you pack it into a pipebomb, it makes a big explosion, if you were to spread it out over your driveway and throw a match on it, it would make a big "woomf" and and a flash and do nothing more than burn your eyebrows off.

Am I missing something?

[beachnut]

Well, you lost your chance to waste yet another 15 minutes of my time. Welcome to my ignore list. You'll have to do the simple math and programming tweaks, all by your lonesome.

...
As expected 911Truth fails to do math and present the total thermite used, and they can't produce the total joules required to do what metamars loosely tried to say happened on 911.

Failure to come up with what metmars said he could do, but he can't because of some unknown learning impediment. Guess he does not have degrees in math and physics but just like to post claptrap from Dr Jones.

There goes another failed idea and 911Truth believers who can’t produce the numbers to prove their delusional ideas. Galileo can’t produce the numbers and he presented the paper of woo published in a vanity journal.

No numbers produce means what? 911Truth has no clue what they are talking about again.

[911files]

Am I missing something?

I guess I am too, because at this point no one has shown me the spectral signature for titanium in the "paint". I consider this important since 70% of thermite is titanium. So Jones has proved there was no thermite and we all knew that already.

So, I guess this is supposed to be some super-thermite that uses only rust and aluminum. I have made a simple request, show me the spectra for this super-thermite made of oxided iron and aluminum only so that I can evaluate the evidence. So far, I'm obviously missing something too.

[metamars]

Your original question was



I replied

(Please note the casual phrasing of "full of fuel")

And you said.

I'm really left quite dumbfounded, because I'm not sure how to react: I know this is not Poe's Law because of metamar's post count and posting history. Is this really the sort of logic that truther's employ? Sadly it seems so.

Yes, there are "lots" of "plane crashes" every year.

Does anyone know about military aircraft that carry, napalm/exotic fuels/bombs that explode on impact, as a matter of course? How about current US military operations? Is napalm being carried and used?

"Fireballs" aren't the rule. Even when there are horrific "fireballs" some people emerge without severe burns. This may come as a surprise, but there is plenty of evidence, but you won't spend 60 seconds looking for it, but will ask myself and others to do so.

Unfortunately the people onboard the flights that hit the WTC towers weren't as fortunate as you in being able to theorise without any evidence whether it was going to be the fireball that killed them or the deceleration from approximately 500mph. It saddens and sickens me that you can equivocate aircraft crashes that happen due to a number of accidental factors, which are bad enough, but then compare them to the deliberate crashes on 9/11 and then debate the intensity of the fireball, all the while proposing the possibility that this gruesome event wasn't spectacular enough so additional measures were required.

And then you compound the <searching for an appropriate word) of your post with the following.

Aerosolize? This just shows how sick your thinking is. I'm lost for words.

If it makes you feel any better, I am also dumbfounded, but by your response. You agree that ""Fireballs" aren't the rule.", but because there are fireballs, sometimes, I'm supposed to assume that they are as spectacular as the 911 ones. Is that it?

And because I don't, it "sickens and saddens" you?

Am I in the right ballpark, here?

It's equally befuddling to me as to why, in trying to present a counter-argument to my own, in mentioning the aerosolizing effect of passing through a building with over 300 columns, you claim that this shows "how sick your thinking is"?

How does that work, exactly? The reason that I am suspicious of the fireball is because it seems to encompass all of the fuel that made it outside the building. My assumption is that, absent an igniting agent (e.g., essentially thermite matches painted onto columns), the only non-conspiratorial mechanism that might explain this is an aerosolizing effect due to collisions with columns (and other building contents), which increases the surface area to volume ratio of the droplets of fuel. Maybe that would allow fuel droplets that ignited near hot jet engines to spread a flame to fuel droplets far from hot jet engines, in the space of a second, or so.

Maybe.

[beachnut]

...
2) What is the plausibility that paint on nano-therm*te was used to provide an 'impressive' fireball, in the moments of first impact?
Zero; what a dumb idea.

FUEhNKBi4DY

Fireball, just jet fuel. Busted; A 180 mph impact, the WTC were at 470 and 590; or is your delusions plane free?

any chance you can do the simple math and come up with totals for you super duper thermite delusion; both heat and kg of thermite used? Can 911Truth do the math?

[AJM8125]

Am I missing something?

Yes, superdoopernanotherm*te not only has the properties of an incendiary and an explosive, it's also apparently silent.

[metamars]

I guess I am too, because at this point no one has shown me the spectral signature for titanium in the "paint". I consider this important since 70% of thermite is titanium.


No, not necessarily. Where did you get this idea? From wikipedia:

Thermites can be a diverse class of compositions. The fuels are often aluminium, magnesium, calcium, titanium, zinc, silicon, and boron. The oxidizers can be boron(III) oxide, silicon(IV) oxide, chromium(III) oxide, manganese(IV) oxide, iron(III) oxide, iron(II,III) oxide, copper(II) oxide, and lead(II,II,IV) oxide. [1]
The most common thermite is aluminium-iron(III) oxide.
The aluminium reduces the oxide of another metal, most commonly iron oxide, because aluminium is highly combustible:
Fe2O3 + 2Al -> 2Fe + Al2O3 + Heat

Now, I'm sending you to bed with no bananas!

[Trojan]

I'm still trying to figure out how they make this conclusion - "The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic."

Not that I read many scientific journals, but is there something inherently flawed with this conclusion?

[911files]

Oh yes, we know if it is in Wikipedia it must be true. Scroll back to where I compared the spectra, you'll find a link there. I'm asking for the SPECTRA of the thermite compound you are asserting, because Dr. Jones did not provide this and that is basic science.

So provide the spectra for this super-thermite or shut up.

[Galileo]

Wake Up and Smell the Aluminothermic Nanocomposite Explosives

As Documentation of Thermitic Materials
in the WTC Twin Towers Grows,
Official Story Backers Ignore, Deny, Evade, and Dissemble

by
Jim Hoffman
Version 1.0, April 3, 2009

Introduction

The obliteration of the Twin Towers was the centerpiece of the event that launched the 'War on Terror'. Shocking on multiple levels, the events were especially traumatic for Americans, being the first bombing on the US mainland in modern history that killed thousands of people -- civilians -- in one day. Given the collective psychological trauma of the attack, it is not surprising that public discourse would remain free of observations that the destruction of the Twin Towers bore obvious features of controlled demolitions. Early candid public remarks by reporters and demolition experts where quickly retracted or forgotten. Passage of the USA PATRIOT Act and the invasion of Afghanistan would proceed apace.

By 2003 the United States had two occupations, and an international reputation as a rogue state all resting on a shaky-at-best collapse theory whose principle alternative hypothesis -- controlled demolition with pre-planted pyrotechnics -- had not even been tested by the straightforward forensic analysis of debris for residues of such materials.

By early 2009, the residue testing that NIST refused to do had been done by independent researchers, and published in a chemistry journal. Small bi-layered chips, found consistently in dust samples, have layers of red nano-engineered material that is clearly aluminothermic: it has sub-micron-diameter particles of largely of elemental aluminum, and smaller crystalline grains of primarily Fe2O3. On ignition, the chips produce temperatures above the melting point of iron, leaving tiny iron droplets matching the residues of commercial thermite pyrotechnics.

READ MORE

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosives_evidence_timeline.html

[UNLoVedRebel]

Here's a feature of a controlled demolition alright! :wackyrolleyes:
http://i625.photobucket.com/albums/tt332/JREFImages/InwardBowing.jpg

[beachnut]

Wake Up and Smell the Aluminothermic Nanocomposite Explosives

...
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosives_evidence_timeline.html
A 911Truth delusion pusher pushes the newest smoking gun by Jones. A software engineer backs the nut case theory of Jones; this is old junk just the dirt dumb movement making up more lies.

He does it with ceiling tiles with thermite and paint of thermite. What new dirt dumb ideas will 911Truth post next year to keep the gullible fooled?

[Galileo]

A 911Truth delusion pusher pushes the newest smoking gun by Jones. A software engineer backs the nut case theory of Jones; this is old junk just the dirt dumb movement making up more lies.

He does it with ceiling tiles with thermite and paint of thermite. What new dirt dumb ideas will 911Truth post next year to keep the gullible fooled?

All you do is whine and complain.

Wa Waa Waaa.

Do you hate America?

Mods - please move this thread over to politics. It is no longer a theory anymore.

Now we need to find out who put the explosives there, and who set them off.

[911files]

A 911Truth delusion pusher pushes the newest smoking gun by Jones. A software engineer backs the nut case theory of Jones; this is old junk just the dirt dumb movement making up more lies.

He does it with ceiling tiles with thermite and paint of thermite. What new dirt dumb ideas will 911Truth post next year to keep the gullible fooled?

And Beach....why can't anyone provide me with a spectra for this super-duper thermite :con2:

[parky76]

Do you hate America?
.

Look who's talking.

[Mr.D]

And let's see if they address our evidence for NANO-thermite (as opposed to the straw-man arguments against ordinary thermite). In the past, NIST and others seem to have been incapable of acknowledging that we have evidence for super-thermite (nano-thermite) (http://911blogger.com/node/19761?page=1)


Jones is being disingenuous of course.

The reason nobody is specifically addressing his Nano/Super-thermite is because his refusal to define anything about this mysterious substance is a necessary component of his "theory."

Put another way; By definition, the properties he proposes that Nano/Super-thermite do NOT have are those that have been shown to be ruled out.

Jones continues to straddle the line where [Nano/Super-]thermite is both an incendiary and an explosive, depending on what characteristic he needs at the time

It can't be noisy like an explosive, but it has to burn like thermite. It must not be installed like dynamite or C4, but it has to have a much higher energy density and heat transfer qualities than thermite. It must leave some of the residual compounds that thermite does, but it must not leave any of the trace evidence ... etc.


So, I guess this is supposed to be some super-thermite that uses only rust and aluminum
And Beach....why can't anyone provide me with a spectra for this super-duper thermite :con2:

And now I predict that this "missing" titanium will turn out to be a "feature" of this "Nano/Super-thermite," thus negating the request for the missing control spectra.

[metamars]

Oh yes, we know if it is in Wikipedia it must be true. Scroll back to where I compared the spectra, you'll find a link there. I'm asking for the SPECTRA of the thermite compound you are asserting, because Dr. Jones did not provide this and that is basic science.

So provide the spectra for this super-thermite or shut up.

I, personally, don't have this spectra, nor even dust samples. Why don't you ask Professor Jones for spectra, who either has it, or can get it?

As for your wikipedia comment, I found that kind of silly, since thermite has been around for over 100 years. Here's a quote from an interesting master's degree thesis on nanoaluminotherics (http://etd.lib.ttu.edu/theses/available/etd-06012007-132204/unrestricted/Watson_Kyle_Thesis.pdf):

This study compares the propagation behaviors of Al/Teflon, Al/MoO3/Teflon, and Al/ MoO3 in an effort to determine the effects that the replacement of oxygen with fluorine (Teflon is 75% by weight fluorine) has upon the reaction characteristics in both open and confined configurations. Data was collected from pressure sensors and high speed recording of the reactions. The mass percent of Al was varied from 10% – 90% for each composite to study the effects of composition.

The word "titanium" doesn't even appear in the thesis.

[dtugg]

Now we need to find out who put the explosives there, and who set them off.

Super duper them*te is an explosive?

[beachnut]

And Beach....why can't anyone provide me with a spectra for this super-duper thermite :con2:
Their super thermite has more energy than the chemical reaction has. Wait no it has less, no more, and less. Funny as hell, they have four chips that had different energy releases than thermite. Could they have found some paint with hydrocarbon like petroleum-based paint to get the higher energy released? What did these clowns do wrong? I could use chocolate chip cookies and get more energy relapsed. What is the spectrum for cookies?

Their new thermite also light ups at a low temperature.

The funniest interview was Jones and Robertson. Robertson was tricked into a debate on the bat crazy ideas of Jones. Robertson basically called Jones’ ideas bat crazy; but Jones persisted with his nut case ideas and ignored the chief structural engineer of the WTC towers calling his idea absurd.

Where is the Pulitzer Prize? Is there a dumb delusion category for the Pulitzer Prize?

[beachnut]

I, personally, don't have this spectra, nor even dust samples. Why don't you ask Professor Jones for spectra, who either has it, or can get it?

As for your wikipedia comment, I found that kind of silly, since thermite has been around for over 100 years. Here's a quote from an interesting master's degree thesis on nanoaluminotherics (http://etd.lib.ttu.edu/theses/available/etd-06012007-132204/unrestricted/Watson_Kyle_Thesis.pdf):



The word "titanium" doesn't even appear in the thesis.
Gee, Ca and Si are not in that paper but they are in the woo paper by Jones as is Ti. Why?

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

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

Never?

[911files]

I, personally, don't have this spectra, nor even dust samples. Why don't you ask Professor Jones for spectra, who either has it, or can get it?

As for your wikipedia comment, I found that kind of silly, since thermite has been around for over 100 years. Here's a quote from an interesting master's degree thesis on nanoaluminotherics (http://etd.lib.ttu.edu/theses/available/etd-06012007-132204/unrestricted/Watson_Kyle_Thesis.pdf):

The word "titanium" doesn't even appear in the thesis.

Well, obviously you did not read the spectra comparison post. If you don't have the control spectra, and Dr. Jones did not include it in his paper, then small wonder it was published in a "pay-to-play" journal and not a serious scientific publication. You cannot post specta for a sample and then claim it is thermite without one of a control sample of actual thermite, and then assert the sample is thermite.

I'm not going to ask Dr. Jones (and yes, I have his email address). I'm not the one promoting the idea of thermite in the samples, you are as his proxy. If you can't present the evidence to support Dr. Jones conclusions, then shut up or go get the spectra that I ask for from Dr. Jones or somewhere else to make your case. If the spectra for a control sample of thermite matches the sample spectra, then case closed. If not, then you are out-of-business.

[metamars]

I'm not going to ask Dr. Jones (and yes, I have his email address). I'm not the one promoting the idea of thermite in the samples, you are as his proxy.


Nonsense. I am not "promoting" thermite. I have argued for and against thermite, as well as other CD methodologies, plus I have mentioned the fact that I'm mostly agnostic about WTC 1/2, these days. (Not so about WTC 7; I still consider the notion of an unassisted collapse to be laughable.)

When I see an argument (for or against), that strikes me as wrong, sometimes I get interested in it enough to post a reply. E.g., your notion that thermite is 70% titanium is wrong. It could be, but usually ain't.


If you can't present the evidence to support Dr. Jones conclusions, then shut up or go get the spectra that I ask for from Dr. Jones or somewhere else to make your case.

What are you, a thought policeman? And one who doesn't even know that most thermites don't have a grain of titanium in them? When I want you to give me orders, I'll let you know.


If the spectra for a control sample of thermite matches the sample spectra, then case closed. If not, then you are out-of-business.
I still say, it's better to ask domain experts, such as materials scientists at universities, about Jones' paper.

[boloboffin]

Wake Up and Smell the Aluminothermic Nanocomposite Explosives

As Documentation of Thermitic Materials
in the WTC Twin Towers Grows,
Official Story Backers Ignore, Deny, Evade, and Dissemble

by
Jim Hoffman
Version 1.0, April 3, 2009

Introduction

The obliteration of the Twin Towers was the centerpiece of the event that launched the 'War on Terror'. Shocking on multiple levels, the events were especially traumatic for Americans, being the first bombing on the US mainland in modern history that killed thousands of people -- civilians -- in one day. Given the collective psychological trauma of the attack, it is not surprising that public discourse would remain free of observations that the destruction of the Twin Towers bore obvious features of controlled demolitions. Early candid public remarks by reporters and demolition experts where quickly retracted or forgotten. Passage of the USA PATRIOT Act and the invasion of Afghanistan would proceed apace.

By 2003 the United States had two occupations, and an international reputation as a rogue state all resting on a shaky-at-best collapse theory whose principle alternative hypothesis -- controlled demolition with pre-planted pyrotechnics -- had not even been tested by the straightforward forensic analysis of debris for residues of such materials.

By early 2009, the residue testing that NIST refused to do had been done by independent researchers, and published in a chemistry journal. Small bi-layered chips, found consistently in dust samples, have layers of red nano-engineered material that is clearly aluminothermic: it has sub-micron-diameter particles of largely of elemental aluminum, and smaller crystalline grains of primarily Fe2O3. On ignition, the chips produce temperatures above the melting point of iron, leaving tiny iron droplets matching the residues of commercial thermite pyrotechnics.

READ MORE

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosives_evidence_timeline.html

Jesus Christ. Hoffman thinks we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan because the buildings fell down?? As if we would have just taken our losses if everything BUT the towers and Building 7 collapsing had happened?

How bent do you have to be to think this?

[beachnut]

... (Not so about WTC 7; I still consider the notion of an unassisted collapse to be laughable.) ...
That is good you can't support thermite because you sure can't calculate the heat needed or the thermite needed, you were just pushing nothing around as usual.

And you have even less information for WTC7. Got evidence, no. You have nothing for WTC and you just threw Dr Jones under the bus. Good for you.

Guess you never were going to produce numbers so you dropped the scenario of Dr Jones thermite.

[dtugg]

(Not so about WTC 7; I still consider the notion of an unassisted collapse to be laughable.)

What do you think about the fact that the FDNY predicted the collapse? Are they in on it or complete morons? It has to be one or the other for your fantasy to be true.

[911files]

I still say, it's better to ask domain experts, such as materials scientists at universities, about Jones' paper.

In other words, you have no clue what you are talking about.

[Galileo]

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

by Josh Mitteldorf Page 1 of 1 page(s)

www.opednews.com

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

One of the strongest pieces of evidence that the Government's account of 9/11 is flawed has always been the way in which the Twin Towers fell. They fell straight down, not to the side. Therre was the sound of explosions in the basement reported by firefighters. And most crucially: the speed of the fall was so rapid that there could not have been any resistance. In other words, the "legs" of the building must have been pulled out from underneath long before the weight of the falling top part came crashing down upon them. In fact, the buildings fell in "free-fall" time, the same time it would have taken a baseball dropped from the top of the buildings to hit the ground.

Physicists and engineers point out thata building cannot fall straight down 'by accident'. The way the buildings fell was characteristic of controlled demolition, in which carefully-timed cutter charges sever the supporting members at just the right times to make the building fall inward and not topple to the side. The science of controlled demolition involves some very critical timing, and even small mistakes can lead to the building falling over sideways instead of straight down.

READ THE REST OF THIS WELL WRITTEN ARTICLE:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/New-Scientific-Study-Smok-by-Josh-Mitteldorf-090404-371.html

[TheDaver]

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

by Josh Mitteldorf Page 1 of 1 page(s)

www.opednews.com

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

One of the strongest pieces of evidence that the Government's account of 9/11 is flawed has always been the way in which the Twin Towers fell. They fell straight down, not to the side. Therre was the sound of explosions in the basement reported by firefighters. And most crucially: the speed of the fall was so rapid that there could not have been any resistance. In other words, the "legs" of the building must have been pulled out from underneath long before the weight of the falling top part came crashing down upon them. In fact, the buildings fell in "free-fall" time, the same time it would have taken a baseball dropped from the top of the buildings to hit the ground.

Physicists and engineers point out thata building cannot fall straight down 'by accident'. The way the buildings fell was characteristic of controlled demolition, in which carefully-timed cutter charges sever the supporting members at just the right times to make the building fall inward and not topple to the side. The science of controlled demolition involves some very critical timing, and even small mistakes can lead to the building falling over sideways instead of straight down.

READ THE REST OF THIS WELL WRITTEN ARTICLE:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/New-Scientific-Study-Smok-by-Josh-Mitteldorf-090404-371.html
Same old completely debunked garbage we’ve seen a hundred times.

For starters, anybody who says the towers fell in freefall time is quite frankly lying. I’ve crunched the numbers myself. It’s high-school Physics for crying out loud!

[boloboffin]

Oh, no. Galileo, your article uses pictures of beams proven over and over again to be cut during the cleanup as if they were samples of beams cut by thermi/ate, nano or otherwise, during the collapses.

My goodness. There is FAIL left in the evening.

[dtugg]

Same old completely debunked garbage we’ve seen a hundred times.

For starters, anybody who says the towers fell in freefall time is quite frankly lying. I’ve crunched the numbers myself. It’s high-school Physics for crying out loud!

Jeez, they are still saying they fell at freefall?!?!?!?! Man, twoofers are freaking stupid. It isn't even neccesary to do any numbers! Here is a tip for any twoofer morons that still believe this:

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

[Galileo]

an angry crowd we got here.

I suggest relaxation exercises.

OK, 1, 2, 3, breathe, 4, 5, 6, breathe, 7, 8, 9, exhale, ....

You guys really have a lot of emotional energy tied up on this one, eh?

I know it is very frustrating when your whole world crumbles. Kinda sucks.

Stay on topic.

[Galileo]

Jeez, they are still saying they fell at freefall?!?!?!?! Man, twoofers are freaking stupid. It isn't even neccesary to do any numbers! Here is a tip for any twoofer morons that still believe this:

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


The WTC fell according the the free-fall laws of Aristotle!

[911files]

an angry crowd we got here.

I suggest relaxation exercises.

OK, 1, 2, 3, breathe, 4, 5, 6, breathe, 7, 8, 9, exhale, ....

You guys really have a lot of emotional energy tied up on this one, eh?

I know it is very frustrating when your whole world crumbles. Kinda sucks.

Darn, I'm just still waiting for you guys to present evidence of thermite.

[dtugg]

The WTC fell according the the free-fall laws of Aristotle!

Yes we all know that you are either really crazy or trolling (or both). There is no need to continually prove it.

[TheDaver]

Wow, gotta love the truther mentality: “If my conspiracy theory is at odds with Physics, then obviously Physics is wrong.”

[GlennB]

Jesus Christ. Hoffman thinks we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan because the buildings fell down?? As if we would have just taken our losses if everything BUT the towers and Building 7 collapsing had happened?

How bent do you have to be to think this?

I'd forgotten how loony Hoffman is until I followed that link and took another look at his "essays". Here's a priceless clip from one :

20"*20"*3/4" ceiling tile with embedded thin-film explosive and 2-channel wireless micro-detonator - 1,000,000
12"*12"*3/4" ceiling tile with embedded thin-film explosive and 2-channel wireless micro-detonator - 800,000

at http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/blasting_scenario.html

Close to 2 million explosive ceiling tiles, pre-installed. Plus loads more make-believe goodies if you dare read the whole gibberingly insane concoction.

"What job do you do buddy?"
"I make explosive ceiling tiles"

You couldn't make this up :D

[dtugg]

Wow. Almost 2 million separate devices? And twoofers wonder why normal people laugh in their faces.

[stilicho]

Close to 2 million explosive ceiling tiles, pre-installed. Plus loads more make-believe goodies if you dare read the whole gibberingly insane concoction.

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

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

[Curnir]

The WTC fell according the the free-fall laws of Aristotle!

Ok this must be a wierd joke. Or a wierd reference to the the twoofers forum name.

[Panoply_Prefect]

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

If I'll get the time, I'll try to make a translation. But from the glance of it, its a truther-dream.

[James Redford]

Some people on this forum have made incorrect statements regarding how open access journals such as the Bentham Open Access journals work.

Bentham Open Access journals are indeed peer-reviewed. Regarding the publication fees that many open access journals charge, closed-access journals often also charge publication fees. For example, the most prestigious American physics journal, Physical Review Letters, charges publication fees, as do some other American Physical Society journals. See, e.g., under the heading "Publication Charges" on the below page:

"Information for Authors--Journals of The American Physical Society" http://authors.aps.org

In particular, see:

"Publication Charges and Reprints in PRL [Physical Review Letters]" http://forms.aps.org/general/mastpubchg-prl.html

For more information on open access journals and the fees which they charge, see the below resources:

"Objection-reply: Whether the upfront payment model corrupts peer review at open-access journals," SPARC Open Access Newsletter, Issue #71, March 2, 2004 http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/03-02-04.htm#objreply

"Open Access Overview: Focusing on open access to peer-reviewed research articles and their preprints," Peter Suber, Last revised June 19, 2007 http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm

The below paper and topic of this thread, published in a peer-reviewed chemical physics journal and authored by nine scientists working in laboratories at multiple universities using state-of-the-art equipment, confirms the presence of large quantities of metal microspheres of reacted thermite, and flakes (chips) of unreacted (i.e., still active) super-thermite (also called nano-thermite, which is thermite which has been made even more reactive by decreasing the thermitic particle size down to the nanometer range), in different dust samples from the collapsed World Trade Center (W.T.C.) towers collected from multiple people at different sites even before cleanup operations began. The physical and chemical properties of these microspheres and flakes were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (S.E.M.), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (X.E.D.S.), and differential scanning calorimetry (D.S.C.), among other methods.

Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen, "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe," Open Chemical Physics Journal, Vol. 2 (2009), pp. 7-31. http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
http://visibility911.com/downloads/media/thermite-fingerprint.pdf
http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1874412500902010007
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/oxy_redchip_slow.mov (A video cited in the article.)

For more information on the background on this paper, including the extensive research that went into it and the rigorous peer-review process that it underwent, I highly recommend everyone here listen to the below interview of Dr. Steven E. Jones, one of the paper's authors. Also available below is an interview of Kevin R. Ryan, another author of the paper.

"Special Report: Thermite Fingerprint," Michael Wolsey, Visibility 9/11, April 3, 2009. http://visibility911.com/reports-thermite01.php
http://media.libsyn.com/media/visibility911/visibility911_drjones0309.mp3
http://cdn4.libsyn.com/visibility911/visibility911_drjones0309.mp3
http://media.libsyn.com/media/visibility911/visibility911_kevinryan0309.mp3
http://cdn2.libsyn.com/visibility911/visibility911_kevinryan0309.mp3

Below are two other peer-reviewed papers which also pertain to the presence of large quantities of thermite in the dust of the collapsed W.T.C. towers. The first paper is published in a closed-access journal.

Kevin R. Ryan, James R. Gourley and Steven E. Jones, "Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials," The Environmentalist, August 4, 2008. http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/fulltext.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/fulltext.html
http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10669-008-9182-4

Steven E. Jones, Frank M. Legge, Kevin R. Ryan, Anthony F. Szamboti and James R. Gourley, "Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction," Open Civil Engineering Journal, Vol. 2 (2008), pp. 35-40. http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM
http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1874149500802010035
http://hdl.handle.net/10.2174/1874149500802010035

In addition to the presence of large amounts of thermite in the dust of the collapsed W.T.C. buildings, another truly vital piece of evidence that provides definitive proof that the W.T.C. towers were brought down by controlled demolition are the videos of yellow-hot molten metal seen cascading off the South Tower (World Trade Center Tower 2).

That piece of evidence isn't merely a smoking gun: it's a smoking nuclear cannon. Those videos, alone and by themselves, are irrefragable proof that the South Tower (at the very least) had thermite-like ("like" in the sense of producing comparable temperatures) incendiary demolition charges with the ability to easily slice through structural steel going off within it. There is no innocent explanation for what those videos record.

That is to say, the only way to get around that it is thermite which is causing that yellow-hot metal to cascade off the South Tower before its collapse would be to posit that we are seeing a different form of extremely powerful incendiary with thermite-like temperatures at work in the videos. Of which, even if true, would be every bit as much damning, since no such powerful incendiaries can be accounted for without involving a sinister intent to plant them there.

Below are four videos which contain some of this footage:

"Shot from street level of South Tower collapsing," CameraPlanet, Google Video. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863

http://www.plunder.com/Video-of-Thermite-on-9-11-at-the-W-T-C-and-Physicist-Steven-Jones-Ph-D--download-84738.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20061213231413/http://www.supportthetruth.com/vids/thermite.wmv

http://web.archive.org/web/20071116045856/http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Molten+Metal+from+WTC.mpg

"Wtc 1, impact site close up, tower collapse close up, long shot, people shouting," CameraPlanet, Google Video. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8564772103237441151

From the color of the yellow-hot molten metal seen cascading off the South Tower, it had to be at least over 1000 °C (as the temperature of an incandescent object is exhibited by its color), yet jet fuel burns in open air at 260-315 °C; nor do burning office, building, or plane materials impart temperatures anywhere near that hot to structural members (indeed, it would present quite a hazard if such articles were constructed with such powerful incendiaries, and so designers of such objects go out of their way to make sure that they are not). Thus, if it wasn't molten iron from thermite that we are seeing come off the South Tower, then by necessity a reaction source with a heat intensity very much like thermite had to be present. Yet there is nothing in the U.S. government's account that can explain such a heat source; indeed, there's nothing innocent that could explain it, since it requires some sort of extremely powerful incendiary.

For more on this, see the below paper by Steven E. Jones (Ph.D.; physicist and archaeometrist; former professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University):

"Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?," Dr. Steven E. Jones, Journal of 911 Studies, Vol. 3 (September 2006). http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/Why_Indeed_Did_the_WTC_Buildings_Completely_Collap se_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/Papers/J6p2%20.doc (Older version.)

See also:

"Experiments to test NIST 'orange glow' hypothesis," Steven E. Jones, Ph.D., August 31, 2006 http://911review.com/articles/jones/experiments_NIST_orange_glow_hypothesis.html
http://stj911.org/jones/docs/Liquid_Aluminum_011.mpg
http://stj911.org/jones/docs/Liquid_Aluminum_012.mpg

"Experiments with Molten Aluminum," Steven E. Jones with Wesley Lifferth, Jared Dodson, Jacob Stevenson and Shannon Walch, circa June 2006. http://www.geocities.com/psyop911/ExptAlMelt.doc
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ExptAlMelt.doc

"A description of molten aluminum poured onto rusty steel," Wes Lifferth, Physics Shop, Brigham Young University, Journal of 9/11 Studies, Vol. 9 (March 2007). http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/Molten_Aluminum_Poured_onto_Rusty_Steel_by_Wes_Lif ferth.pdf

Moreover, even the official FEMA scientists Jonathan Barnett, Ronald R. Biederman, and R. D. Sisson, Jr. bolster the evidence that thermate (i.e., thermite with sulfur added, which causes it to slice through steel even faster by forming a eutectic alloy with it) was used to bring down the W.T.C. towers (see "Appendix C: Limited Metallurgical Examination" in World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations, Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA 403, May 2002 http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf ):

""
Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent inter granular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. ... No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown.
""

And in the below paper it is conclusively proved via chemical analysis using scanning electron microscopy (S.E.M.), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (X-E.D.S.), and wavelength dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (W.D.S.), that large quantities of thermite analogs (such as thermate) were used in the destruction of the World Trade Center towers:

"Revisiting 9/11/2001--Applying the Scientific Method," Dr. Steven E. Jones, Journal of 911 Studies, Vol. 11 (May 2007). http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf

See also the below on additional physical remains of thermite (in the form of unreacted flakes of thermite) from the demolished World Trade Center, collected even before clean-up operations began:

"Announcing a discovery: Red/gray bi-layered chips in the WTC dust," ProfJones (Steven E. Jones), 911Blogger.com, December 22, 2007. http://911blogger.com/node/13090

"Dr. Steven E. Jones Boston 911 Conference 12-15-07 Red chips Thermite.mov," Google Video, December 21, 2007. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4186920967571123147

Further, the below paper documents the connections between the people at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) responsible for investigating the collapse of the W.T.C. buildings and the rarefied military-intensive field of super-thermites. The glaring implication being that those responsible for executing the technical aspects of the controlled demolition of the W.T.C. (on behalf of those who control the U.S. government) are the same people in charge of investigating the cause of the collapses. Thereby killing two birds with one stone: using the same technical-echelon team which collapsed the towers to subsequently collapse any authentic investigation into what caused the collapse of the towers--as these people aren't going to tell on themselves. (To date NIST has refused to examine the remains of the W.T.C. for evidence of explosives or thermite, despite repeated requests for such an examination and despite such analysis being specified in NFPA 921, "Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations," National Fire Protection Association.)

"The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites," Kevin R. Ryan, Journal of 9/11 Studies, Vol. 22 (July 2, 2008). http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf

[Rika]

wall of text


1. Stop linkspamming.

2. See above posts - merely repeating false claims doesn't make it true.

[James Redford]

1. Stop linkspamming.

2. See above posts - merely repeating false claims doesn't make it true.

It's called presenting evidence. Nothing is being sold in those links, nor is it being sent via bulk distribution. So your claim regarding spam is false.

Not only is your above response factually incorrect, it's also the logical fallacy of a red herring, which is a tactic used by people who dislike the facts that are presented and wish to divert the issue.

[cyclonic]

Why do you truthers keep pushing the thermite theory?
did you miss the great 911 truth sign thermite experiment?

GYOHlJKcXrg

do you like bananas?

[911files]

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

[Panoply_Prefect]

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

If I'll get the time, I'll try to make a translation. But from the glance of it, its a truther-dream.

First, Jyllands Posten (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten) is afaik a respectable danish newspaper. Second, hell that was a long text. Enters my friend Google:

http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=sv&js=n&u=http%3A%2F%2Fjp.dk%2Fnyviden%2Farticle1654301.ec e&sl=da&tl=en

And here the original article from the danish site Videnskab.dk:

http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=sv&js=n&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.videnskab.dk%2Fcomposite-1945.htm&sl=da&tl=en

I think the automated translation gives the gist of it.

[James Redford]

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

Your above comment is the logically fallacy of non sequitur. A hyperlink can work just as any citation in a scholarly work, except more conveniently. So if a hyperlink contains relevant evidence, then of course it is evidence.

[dtugg]

I want these frauds to prove that super duper therm*te can indeed do what they claim. A demonstration of the super duper them*te cutting through a column the size used in the WTC would suffice. Something tells me that I will be holding my breath forever.

[911files]

Your above comment is the logically fallacy of non sequitur. A hyperlink can work just as any citation in a scholarly work, except more conveniently. So if a hyperlink contains relevant evidence, then of course it is evidence.

Don't give me that fancy crap....for 6 pages of thread now all I've seen is runaround avoidance and still nobody has provided me with a spectra for thermite. I don't want links to what someone thinks the evidence says, I want the EVIDENCE!

[Panoply_Prefect]

I read the original article at videskab.dk, which includes the following:


Det samme gør hans kollega på DTU, professor i mikroskopi Andy Horsewell. Efter en hurtig gennemlæsning tvivler Andy Horsewell til gengæld på, at artiklen påviser nanotermit i støvet.

»Forfatterne viser et indhold af ganske almindelige mineraler som aluminium og jernoxid, som ikke er overraskende i støv fra en bygningsbrand. Jeg vil ikke være overrasket, hvis de målte kemiske sammensætninger kom fra en hvilken som helst brandtomt, men jeg kan tage fejl, for jeg skal understrege, at jeg ikke ved noget om hverken termit eller nanotermit,« siger Andy Horsewell, som er medredaktør på det ansete tidsskrift Materials Science and Technology.
Transl.


The same does his colleague at DTU, professor of microscopic Andy Horsewell. After a quick readthrough he doubts that the article shows nanotermite in the dust.

'The authors show a content of ordinary minerals like aluminum and ironoxide, which is not surprising in dust from a building fire. I would not be surprised if the measured chemical compositions came from any burned building, but I could be wrong, for I must stress that I do not know anything about either termites nor nanotermite, "says Andy Horsewell, who is co-editor of the prestigious journal Materials Science and Technology.
Interesting, it might be that the elevation to "peer-review" means that someone actually will take Jones reports seriously. The effect might surprise Jones et al.

[jhunter1163]

To the Truthers; How did that thermite demonstration go at Burning Man?

(I know the answer, I just want to hear it from them)

[911files]

'The authors show a content of ordinary minerals like aluminum and ironoxide, which is not surprising in dust from a building fire. I would not be surprised if the measured chemical compositions came from any burned building, but I could be wrong, for I must stress that I do not know anything about either termites nor nanotermite, "says Andy Horsewell, who is co-editor of the prestigious journal Materials Science and Technology.

Interesting, it might be that the elevation to "peer-review" means that someone actually will take Jones reports seriously. The effect might surprise Jones et al.

Now that is exactly why I need these bozos to show me the spectra for thermite so that I can compare it with the sample spectra.

[tsig]

Wow. Almost 2 million separate devices? And twoofers wonder why normal people laugh in their faces.

Thirty workers each putting up one tile every six seconds with no breaks.

Must hire his workers from Rossom's Universal Robots.

[James Redford]

Don't give me that fancy crap....for 6 pages of thread now all I've seen is runaround avoidance and still nobody has provided me with a spectra for thermite. I don't want links to what someone thinks the evidence says, I want the EVIDENCE!

It would greatly help you if you had read the titular article of this thread.[1] In Figure 24 of the article is presented the X-ray energy dispersive spectrogram (X.E.D.S.) of commercial thermite, which you can then compare to the X.E.D. spectrogram of the red/grey chips of Figure 25.

-----

Note:

1. Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen, "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe," Open Chemical Physics Journal, Vol. 2 (2009), pp. 7-31. http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
http://visibility911.com/downloads/media/thermite-fingerprint.pdf
http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1874412500902010007

[911files]

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

Fig. (24). Spheres formed during ignition of commercial thermite, with corresponding typical XEDS spectrum.

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

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

[dtugg]

It would greatly help you if you had read the titular article of this thread.[1] In Figure 24 of the article is presented the X-ray energy dispersive spectrogram (X.E.D.S.) of commercial thermite, which you can then compare to the X.E.D. spectrogram of the red/grey chips of Figure 25.

-----

Note:

1. Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen, "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe," Open Chemical Physics Journal, Vol. 2 (2009), pp. 7-31. http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
http://visibility911.com/downloads/media/thermite-fingerprint.pdf
http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1874412500902010007

Hey twoofer, did you notice that those two are not the same?

[Drs_Res]

I want these frauds to prove that super duper therm*te can indeed do what they claim. A demonstration of the super duper them*te cutting through a column the size used in the WTC would suffice. Something tells me that I will be holding my breath forever.

I'd go one better than you. I want to see:

1. Take one steel column the size of a column in the WTC.

2. Encase said column in three layers (or however many layers it was) of sheet rock like the WTC columns.

3. They need to remove the sheet rock so that they can get to the columns. (And they have to do it in a manner that allows them to replace said sheet rock back onto the columns.)

4. Paint the super mega nano therm*te sol-gel paint onto the columns on all sides that they need it to be on and in the quantity they need it.

5. Set whatever kind of trigger device they think was used to start the threm*te burning.

6. Replace all of the sheet rock.

7. Wait the requisite amount of time needed for said therm*te to dry. (It was not painted on the day of 9/11/01 after all.)

8. Set off the threm*te and show what they say happened to have actually happened.

Opps, I forgot to mention, they need to time the operation from start (removal of the sheet rock) to finish (sheet rock fully back in place and dust and debris from the operation cleaned up).

[metamars]

In other words, you have no clue what you are talking about.

Compared to a domain expert, that's practically true.

Why don't you take your statement:

no one has shown me the spectral signature for titanium in the "paint". I consider this important since 70% of thermite is titanium. So Jones has proved there was no thermite and we all knew that already. (emphasis mine)

to a domain expert, and report back to us what he thinks about your state of knowledge on the subject? Make sure he doesn't use wikipedia to look anything up.....

[9/11-investigator]

Argue the evidence.

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

[metamars]

Ok this must be a wierd joke. Or a wierd reference to the the twoofers forum name.

Considering that the historical Galileo helped show that Aristotle's hitherto widely accepted assumptions about heavier bodies falling faster were nonsense, I can't help wonder if "Galileo" is a hoaxer, or even (gasp!) a disinfo agent.

[9/11-investigator]

The 'thermite' claim came from only one source and that is so discredited.
Jones is not and never was a scientist.
Steven E. Jones was a 20-year professor of physics until he lost his job for being wrong.

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

[dtugg]

Considering that the historical Galileo helped show that Aristotle's hitherto widely accepted assumptions about heavier bodies falling faster were nonsense, I can't help wonder if "Galileo" is a hoaxer, or even (gasp!) a disinfo agent.

I wonder the same thing. He is either a troll/hoaxer or really crazy. I am not sure which. But there are no disinfo agents. Since 9/11 wasn't an inside job, and there is zero evidence to suggest it was disinfo agents make no sense. Besides, the 9/11 twoof movement does a marvelous job of discrediting themselves.

Didn't you propose that some sort of imaginary energy beam device could have been used to destroy the towers? That's about as bat crap crazy as any idea. Maybe you are a disinfo agent?

[911files]

Compared to a domain expert, that's practically true.

Why don't you take your statement:

(emphasis mine)

to a domain expert, and report back to us what he thinks about your state of knowledge on the subject? Make sure he doesn't use wikipedia to look anything up.....

If you will read my initial post on the subject, you will find that I started out by saying I am not a Chemist. However, I was the process control team leader for DuPont Photomasks and very experienced in reading spectral analysis graphs. Our processes were chemical, and the way we checked the quality of the chemicals supplied to us by various manufacturers was to send them off for analysis. By using a "control" spectra, we could easily tell if the product sent to us was up to specification. So, I am limiting my discussion of Dr. Jones paper to what I am quite capable of evaluating.

The assertion by Dr. Jones is, he discovered thermic material (thermite) in the WTC dust. He presented the spectra of this thermic material as evidence, but did not present the "control" spectra for thermite for the reader to compare it to (if it is thermite, then the elemental signature will be the same in composition and proportion). I am asking for the "control" spectra. If you can't produce that, then you are just talking trash.

I know the reaction formula. What I don't know is whether the proportions in the spectra for the "flakes" are indicative of thermite. The only way we can tell is to examine it against the spectra of thermite. If you can do that, then I will consider the hypothesis. If not, then it is not even worth my time.