makeup of nano thermite

[tj15]

Quick question: What are the elements that are suppoed to be found in nano thermite? Did Jones find them all?

[DavidJames]

Quick question: What are the elements that are suppoed to be found in nano thermite? Did Jones find them all?
Ask him.

[beachnut]

Quick question: What are the elements that are supposed to be found in nano thermite? Did Jones find them all?
iron rust and Al; Fe2O3 or Fe3O4

The bad part for him, his samples have stuff in them that does not belong.

Jones made up the thermite scam 4 years after 911.

[ozeco41]

iron rust and Al; Fe2O3 or Fe3O4

The bad part for him, his samples have stuff in them that does not belong.

Jones made up the thermite scam 4 years after 911.

.. and, whether or not there was thermite on site or nearby or...

... there is simply no viable hypothesis as to how it could have been used.

So Jones position is little different to those who claim it was a mini nuke.

...even if somebody had one in their back pocket it wasn't used so debate may be of scientific interest. But it is totally irrelevant to the "Demolition or not?" question at WTC on 9/11.

[tj15]

iron rust and Al; Fe2O3 or Fe3O4

The bad part for him, his samples have stuff in them that does not belong.

Jones made up the thermite scam 4 years after 911.
What about barium nitrate? Is that in nano thermite?

[GodisEnergy]

no barium nitrate is in th4 military grade thermate grenades. You can make thermite with any metal oxide and aluminium powder, because aluminium is higher in the reactivity scale than other metals so it wants to steal the oxygen from the oxides
apart from flourine which is higher than aluminium
I think there was also flourine nanothermite used in the nanothermite.And some other highly advanced thermitic materials such as molybdenum trioxide nanothermites

ozeco its not possible for nanothermite to be near the wtc or used in cleanup operations,its only made in a couple of laboratorys around the world lol
what is it doing at the wtc.

steven jones has proved you jref cultists wrong ,how can you say he made it up ? how could he even make nanoscale thermite so advanced that only los alamos lab can make this stuff.

[16.5]

no barium nitrate is in th4 military grade thermate grenades. You can make thermite with any metal oxide and aluminium powder, because aluminium is higher in the reactivity scale than other metals so it wants to steal the oxygen from the oxides
apart from flourine which is higher than aluminium
I think there was also flourine nanothermite used in the nanothermite.And some other highly advanced thermitic materials such as molybdenum trioxide nanothermites

ozeco its not possible for nanothermite to be near the wtc or used in cleanup operations,its only made in a couple of laboratorys around the world lol
what is it doing at the wtc.

steven jones has proved you jref cultists wrong ,how can you say he made it up ? how could he even make nanoscale thermite so advanced that only los alamos lab can make this stuff.

And he discovered the fact that Jesus came to America! And he managed to completely embarrass himself by torching his samples in the open air.

C'mon GIE, he made a fool out of the entire twoof movement, but by all means hitch your wagon to that star!

[beachnut]

What about barium nitrate? Is that in nano thermite?
I don't think his sample had Ba(NO3)2
The barium nitrate would reduce the ignition temperature. But paper still beats this in puttting out heat and was present in the WTC whereas the super thermite was not in the WTC.

[tj15]

So, basically, this nano thermite looks like paint? So, the truthers say it's nano thermite and everyone else says it's paint?

I must be missing something. Nano thermite is different than paint.

My main question is what are Jones' samples missing, making what he has NOT nano thermite?

[ozeco41]

...ozeco its not possible for nanothermite to be near the wtc or used in cleanup operations,its only made in a couple of laboratorys around the world lol
what is it doing at the wtc..... Thanks. It only makes my point stronger. It wasn't used if it was there. So if it could not be there as you say it was less likely to be used and my English fails with no word for "more impossible than impossible" :) :rolleyes: :D

[tj15]

I don't think his sample had Ba(NO3)2
The barium nitrate would reduce the ignition temperature. But paper still beats this in puttting out heat and was present in the WTC whereas the super thermite was not in the WTC.
So, barium nitrate is not necessary for this nano themite theory to be correct?

[GodisEnergy]

not at all , nanothermite can be made from up to a thousand literally different substances.
copper oxide/aluminium, silicon oxide/aluminium , manganese oxide/aluminium etc are some of the more common types.

[GodisEnergy]

http://amazingrust.com/Experiments/how_to/Thermite_pics-videos.html

[tj15]

not at all , nanothermite can be made from up to a thousand literally different substances.
copper oxide/aluminium, silicon oxide/aluminium , manganese oxide/aluminium etc are some of the more common types.
So what is suspicious about what was found?

(Obviously, with all these questions, I don't know much about the nano thermite claim.)

[GodisEnergy]

well for a start its nano scaled. Its not as if you find nanotechnology just lying around in dust.

Secondly there is elemental aluminium , if you dont know aluminium is highly reactive and explosive especially if its nanoscaled.

thirdly there is nanoscaled aluminium with iron oxide , which is the most common form of thermite.

fourthly the nanothermite is more explosive than rdx so that makes it pretty suspicous know doesnt it...........

[tj15]

Anyone have a rebuttal to the nano technology thing?

[tj15]

Anyone know why there was nano technology in the samples? Is that naturally at the WTC site?

[GodisEnergy]

yes there was nanotechnology in the samples because it was used to blow up the towers.

Its not natural for any site,what natural occuring substance is nanosized Nothing.

[beachnut]

yes there was nanotechnology in the samples because it was used to blow up the towers.

Its not natural for any site,what natural occuring substance is nanosized Nothing.
Have you taken it to the Pulitzer Prize committee.

[GodisEnergy]

take a look at this picture .Amazing advanced nanotechnology definately not made in a cave in afghanistan.Good one so called skeptics, i mean how could you not be skeptical about some guys from a cave being able to defeat a multitrillion dollar air defense system

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

[tj15]

yes there was nanotechnology in the samples because it was used to blow up the towers.

Its not natural for any site,what natural occuring substance is nanosized Nothing.
What exactly was nano sized?

Does anything else that was present at the WTC also have nano sized "stuff?"

[ozeco41]

Anyone have a rebuttal to the nano technology thing?

I have multiple times and on other forums rebutted the inference that it was used at WTC which is the key issue for me. If it wasn't used no point arguing whether it was there or not.

There may have been laser weapons in outer space but they were not used to collapse WTC.

There may have been a mini nuke or two in back pockets wandering around the site, But they were not used in demolition of WTC.

Jones has never to my knowledge made any suggestion as to how the thermate was or could have been used to assist collapse of WTC.

As far as I can analyse the situation there is on;y one point (location and time) when use of thermate could be a reasonable hypothesis. That one requires suicide workers in fireproof suits placing the material in the fire burning area of the impact zone.

[GodisEnergy]

no the nanothermite was placed on the exact floors of the fires during a fireproofing upgrade ironic yes.

The planes were then remote controlled to hit the exact spot.

ozeco if you can rebutt nanothermite i will pay the 800 dollars for you to get your paper peer reviewed by bentham
you interested

[beachnut]

no the nanothermite was placed on the exact floors of the fires during a fireproofing upgrade ironic yes.

The planes were then remote controlled to hit the exact spot.

ozeco if you can rebutt nanothermite i will pay the 800 dollars for you to get your paper peer reviewed by bentham
you interested
Who makes up these lies?

No thermite was in the WTC. You are telling a lie and have no evidence.

No the planes were flown by terrorists after they killed the pilots. Who made up this insane lie for you?

The vanity journal paper is junk.

[tj15]

What elements were nano sized and what other possibilities could the samples be?

[Grizzly Bear]

Jones has never to my knowledge made any suggestion as to how the thermate was or could have been used to assist collapse of WTC.

As far as I can analyse the situation there is on;y one point (location and time) when use of thermate could be a reasonable hypothesis. That one requires suicide workers in fireproof suits placing the material in the fire burning area of the impact zone.

I tend to question more if such a thin layer would be enough to efficiently use the energy output enough to do any damage at all... Regardless of that, GIE ain't gonna be a reliable informant as it seems something clicked and he's completely lost it...

[tj15]

Can someone end this debate and say what else has nano sized elements at the WTC site?

[jhunter1163]

You might want to read this thread, especially the last few pages:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=139293

In it, poster Sunstealer conclusively demonstrates that Jones' samples cannot be thermite or thermate, nano-, super- or otherwise.

That's the trouble with asking for evidence around here: someone is liable to give it to you. I now fully expect GiE and tj15 to stick their fingers in their ears and say "that isn't evidence what does he know LALALALALALA!!!!!!"

[tj15]

You might want to read this thread:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=139293

In it, poster Sunstealer conclusively demonstrates that Jones' samples cannot be thermite or thermate, nano-, super- or otherwise.

That's the trouble with asking for evidence around here: someone is liable to give it to you. I now fully expect GiE and tj15 to stick their fingers in their ears and say "that isn't evidence what does he know LALALALALALA!!!!!!"
I'm not a truther. Sorry if I sound like one, but I'm just trying to get the facts to use in my debates with truthers.

[Arus808]

GIE is making up the crap as he goes. remmeber, he just lied in this very thread. he said he was "going" yet 2 posts later, continues to post here

HE is a fraud and liar like his idol Jones

There was nothing 'nano" in any of the debris at Ground Zero, that is another unsubstantiated claim by the ignoramous

nano technology?
only on the floors that the fire was on?
please, can the fraud known as God is Energy provide how the terroists knew exactly what floors to aim for on the WTC towers, going at about 500 mph in the air?

Again, another lie by the fradulent 911 troof movement

[boloboffin]

Nanothermite is only thermite that has been ground down really tiny.

Thermite is basically a mix of iron oxide and aluminum. You grind them down separately, mix them together, and now you've got thermite.

There are many other ways of making it by adding different compounds to slow the reaction, speed up the reaction, make an nice lemony odor while it reacts if you want, but the dread nanothermite is only smaller in particle size than ordinary thermite. That makes it release its energy more quickly, but it has exactly the same overall energy and other properties as the regular thermite with the same ingredients. Jones et al. are using nanothermite as sciency sounding words to hype up their act, like priests donning a surplice.

[jhunter1163]

TJ15:

Sorry to tar you with that brush. That thread I linked, though, leaves no doubt that Jones' samples are not thermitic in nature. Sunstealer does a much better job of explaining why that is so than I possibly could.

[tj15]

Nanothermite is only thermite that has been ground down really tiny.

Thermite is basically a mix of iron oxide and aluminum. You grind them down separately, mix them together, and now you've got thermite.

There are many other ways of making it by adding different compounds to slow the reaction, speed up the reaction, make an nice lemony odor while it reacts if you want, but the dread nanothermite is only smaller in particle size than ordinary thermite. That makes it release its energy more quickly, but it has exactly the same overall energy and other properties as the regular thermite with the same ingredients. Jones et al. are using nanothermite as sciency sounding words to hype up their act, like priests donning a surplice.
Thank you for the information. My next question is what else at the WTC site could have nano sized particles (this might be a stupid question)?

[tj15]

TJ15:

Sorry to tar you with that brush. That thread I linked, though, leaves no doubt that Jones' samples are not thermitic in nature. Sunstealer does a much better job of explaining why that is so than I possibly could.
No problem. I will look at the link.

[Arus808]

dont be stuck on this "nano" crap. its a red herring since Jones can't provide any evidence of his claims beyond the crap he made up.

There are tiny size particles of dust (that contained various materialsk, INCLUDING human remains) that can only be observed under a microscope, but that's about it


TJ, dont be drawn into the "nano- wathever" argument.

[beachnut]

I'm not a truther. Sorry if I sound like one, but I'm just trying to get the facts to use in my debates with truthers.
nano tech stuff is 100 or 90 nanometers or less. The samples Jones has are big compared to nano tech sizes, 1000 times bigger and he claims the stuff in his sample is at the 100 nanometer size. So in the sample he says there is nano stuff; looks like simple rust on burnt paint; or anything from a fire.

Jones claims his stuff could be sprayed on to the steel in a thin layer. All the steel in the WTC had insulation so the project would take years. The thin layer would make the steel get slightly warm; Jones is a fraud.


http://www.unitconversion.org/length/nanometers-to-microns-conversion.html

Here is converter to get some ideas on size; nano is 100 to 90 nanometers or smaller in particle size. BTW, the size does not change the reaction, that is basic chemistry; but the loons say they have samples with more energy per gram than thermite, and less energy than thermite.

For an example jet fuel has ten times the energy per gram than thermite.

Paper has more energy per gram than thermite. So why use thermite when the jet fuel alone was enough to beat thermite; and the office contents did the real damage in the fire. So Jones is crazy at best, and worse he is using his very personable persona to mislead those who lack knowledge for now.

[tj15]

nano tech stuff is 100 or 90 nanometers or less. The samples Jones has are big compared to nano tech sizes, 1000 times bigger and he claims the stuff in his sample is at the 100 nanometer size. So in the sample he says there is nano stuff; looks like simple rust on burnt paint; or anything from a fire.

Jones claims his stuff could be sprayed on to the steel in a thin layer. All the steel in the WTC had insulation so the project would take years. The thin layer would make the steel get slightly warm; Jones is a fraud.


http://www.unitconversion.org/length/nanometers-to-microns-conversion.html

Here is converter to get some ideas on size; nano is 100 to 90 nanometers or smaller in particle size. BTW, the size does not change the reaction, that is basic chemistry; but the loons say they have samples with more energy per gram than thermite, and less energy than thermite.

For an example jet fuel has ten times the energy per gram than thermite.

Paper has more energy per gram than thermite. So why use thermite when the jet fuel alone was enough to beat thermite; and the office contents did the real damage in the fire. So Jones is crazy at best, and worse he is using his very personable persona to mislead those who lack knowledge for now.
Maybe I missed something and you already answered my question, but is the size of the particles suspicious? Are particles of the size Jones claims present already in the WTC site?

Sorry if my questions are annoying or stupid or have already been answered. Thanks for your help.

[beachnut]

Maybe I missed something and you already answered my question, but is the size of the particles suspicious? Are particles of the size Jones claims present already in the WTC site?

Sorry if my questions are annoying or stupid or have already been answered. Thanks for your help.
Jones has pieces that are 500 microns in size; from those samples of dust that looks like rust on the back of a painted surface burnt up some; he takes a sample and says bingo 911 was an inside job.

Jones says his large 500 micron dust samples are of nano size super thermite. It looks like metal foil with rust and some paint in the middle. It was dust that floated away from the WTC. It could be parts of the aircraft, or what the people had on the planes, or magazines that got burned up. Gee, it is dust from the WTC where terrorists killed Americans and now Jones is making up stupid ideas and some who can't do their own research believe his idiotic ideas out of sheer ignorance.

I knew Jones was a fraud in September 2005 when he first made up delusions about 911 by dropping a cement block to study the dust. He is pure nuts on 911 and anyone who can't figure it out is not very good at logic, knowledge on 911 issues, physics, and other topics related to the events of 911.


1. My own analysis of the "pancaking" floors model (the FEMA/NIST model) combined with Conservation of Momentum considerations gives a much longer time for the fall (over 10 seconds) than that which was actually observed for WTC-7 (about 6.3 seconds, just over the free-fall time of 6.0 seconds). I find no evidence in their reports that government researchers (FEMA, NIST, 9-11 Commission) included Conservation of Momentum in their analyses.
His first paper on 911 and it was not backed with numbers or real work.


5. I conducted simple experiments on the "pancaking" theory, by dropping cement blocks from approximately 12 feet onto other cement blocks. (The floors in the WTC buildings were about 12 feet apart.) We are supposed to believe, from the pancaking theory, that a concrete floor dropping 12 feet onto another concrete floor will result in PULVERIZED concrete observed during the Towers' collapses! Nonsense! My own experiments, and I welcome you to try this yourself, is that only chips/large chunks of cement flaked off the blocks -- no mass pulverization to approx. 100-micron powder as observed. Explosives, however, can indeed convert concrete to dust --mostly, along with some large chunks-- as observed in the destruction of the Twin Towers on 9-11-01.
His dustification period. He teamed up initially with beam weapon Judy and Fetzer.


6. The observations of molten metal (I did not say molten steel!) in the basements of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 and 7 is consistent with the use of the extremely high-temperature thermite reaction: iron oxide + aluminum powder --> Al2O3 + molten iron. Falling buildings are not observed to generate melting of large quantities of molten metal -- this requires a concentrated heat source such as explosives. Even the government reports admit that the fires were insufficient to melt steel beams (they argue for heating and warping then failure of these beams) -- but these reports do not mention the observed molten metal in the basements of WTC1, 2 and 7. Again we have a glaring omission of critical data in the FEMA, NIST and 9-11 Commission reports.
His thermite scam. Explosives are not concentrated heat sources, nor is thermite, but office contents are. oops, the dolt side of Jones is shining through his thermite lie

[Heiwa]

Quick question: What are the elements that are suppoed to be found in nano thermite? Did Jones find them all?

Just read the Niels H Harrit & Co. paper:

"The thermite reaction involves aluminum and a metal oxide, as in this typical reaction with iron oxide:
2Al + Fe2O3 becomes Al2O3 + 2Fe (molten iron), delta H = - 853.5 kJ/mole.
Commercially available thermite behaves as an incendiary when ignited [6], but when the ingredients are ultra-fine grain (UFG) and are intimately mixed, this “nano-thermite” reacts very rapidly, even explosively, and is sometimes referred to as “super-thermite” [20, 22].

...

The evidence for active, highly energetic thermitic material in the WTC dust is compelling.

...

We observe that the spheroidal residues from ignition of red chips (Figs. 25, 26) possess a strikingly similar chemical signature to a typical XEDS spectrum from a spheroid generated by commercial thermite (Fig. 24). This similarity supports our hypothesis that the red chips are indeed a form of thermite.

...

Ordinary thermite ignites at a much higher temperature (about 900 °C or above) and gives a significantly broader trace than super-thermite [21]. All these data suggest that the thermitic material found in the WTC dust is a form of nanothermite, not ordinary (macro-) thermite. We make no attempt to specify the particular form of nano-thermite present until more is learned about the red material and especially about the nature of the organic material it contains.

...

It is striking that some of the red/gray chips release more energy in kJ/g than does ordinary thermite, as shown in the blue bar graphs above. The theoretical maximum for thermite is 3.9 kJ/g [27]. We suggest that the organic material in evidence in the red/gray chips is also highly energetic, most likely producing gas to provide explosive pressure.

...

Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material."

[Myriad]

Further investigation by Jones and his colleagues will soon reveal that the entire wtc complex, and all its contents, was made of small clusters of atoms combined together by high-tech electromagnetic and quantum forces into very tiny (nano-scale) particles which I suggest be named "nanocules."

The unprecedented fabrication of such enormous amounts of nanocular materials and structures, in the 1970s, could only have been accomplished by secret military technology (most likely derived from extraterrestrial alien sources).

Nanocules have a known weakness: their structures can often be disrupted (that is to say, recombined into different configurations that lack the useful properties of the originals) by means of energetic interactions with other nanocules. This is called DNR, short for Discombobulative (or Destrutive) Nanocular Reconfiguration (or Rearrangement). Many of the events of 9/11, such as the emission of nanosmoke, exhibited distinctive features of DNR. Since, as we've established, only secret government military science has access to active nanocules, this is absolute proof that the destruction of the wtc complex was indeed a government conspiracy.

The motive may still remain unclear, however. Perhaps it was simply to prevent knowledge of nanocules from falling into the wrong hands.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[ozeco41]

I tend to question more if such a thin layer would be enough to efficiently use the energy output enough to do any damage at all... Regardless of that, GIE ain't gonna be a reliable informant as it seems something clicked and he's completely lost it...

Sure that is true but that is why my broader statement/challenge encompasses yours as one option.

There are few at most attempts by truthers to explain HOW explosives could be used. All of them run into one of three problems: They would result in a different collapse THEREFORE they were not used at WTC on 9/11; They would not produce demolition assisted collapse even if used; ANd They are logistically so outrageous as to be for all practical purposes impossible.

[KreeL]

Jones has proved he can fool idiots with his idiotic delusions. He has some burnt dust, maybe burnt paint. But you have nothing to support his failed ideas save some hearsay, lies and more delusions.

No superthermite was at the WTC on 911 and Jones is making it up as he goes. He was caught because the thin layers he and his delusion helpers used was not enough to heat up the steel to failure. So Jones failed and you lack the knowledge and research to understand your Jones junk is just that.

If superthermite was great energy source we would use it in our cars; but gee the office contents of the WTC had more energy per pound than you idiotic thermite delusion would. Oops, the office fires did it; Jones has a problem making up stupid ideas and trying to fool others with his failed delusions. Did you fall for his failed ideas?

The gig is up, beachnut. If Jones were the only one saying it...but no..now it has been independently verified. Haven't you read the paper? Haewa pwns you again apx 10 posts up.:cool:

[beachnut]

The gig is up, beachnut. If Jones were the only one saying it...but no..now it has been independently verified. Haven't you read the paper? Haewa pwns you again apx 10 posts up.:cool:Heiwa posted Jones' failed paper published in a vanity journal; good job; did you take chemistry? Jones' paper proves he found Fe, Si, Al, O, C, Ca, S, Zn, Cr, K. Not thermite, just dust from the WTC being destroyed by terrorists who you apologize for as not a single thing 911Truth has done in 7 years amounts to more than spreading delusions. How much did he have to pay in that vanity journal?

I read the paper, there is Ca in your thermite. Sorry, it is a fraud and you are not knowledgeable enough to know you are fooled.

spectrum was acquired from an area of the red-layer surface. The resulting spectrum, shown in Fig. (14), produced the expected peaks for Fe, Si, Al, O, and C. Other peaks included calcium, sulfur, zinc, chromium and potassium.
Oh noes your thermite looks a lot like paint. Gee, sorry, but it proves Jones is cherry picking and your apologies for terrorists on 911 are weak due to your gullibility or ignorance in science.


who cares you freemason scumbag this forum is gay and im not wasting my time anymore debunking debunkers ,i just come here for a laugh seeing people in denial is funny.

This is your best effort at presenting evidence? Got chemistry?

Still drinking the guvtard kookade{sp}?:p
LOL The best post you made, it sums up all your knowledge on thermite.

GIE for evidnece and knowledge on thermite ...beachnut has proved hes an idiot ...
GiE on thermite.


Oops, why was Phosphorus in a sample?

Oops, why was Na in a sample?

What is Chlorine in thermite for?

Did you find it strange the particles in the paper are 10 times, 100 times and 1000 times larger than nano-technology? And this is nano-thermite? Or did they mean micro-thermite? Or was it super-nanonano-thermite? (save your google crap, 100 nanometers defined in the paper of woo thermite dust; but I think they will be happy to adopt the 2500 nanometers and a few other goal post moving definitions)

They found dust with elements in it. Lucky they did not find cookies fragments we would have energy levels peaked and they discover a new high energy source; butter! eleven times more energy than TNT; 11! ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[Redtail]

Ok, since you tried to answer one of the questions....

Simple. Everything the government is withholding from YOU is knowledge they don't want YOU to know.

Yeah.

All you have is a half-baked farce of a story that they want you to believe. Look at your gov't theory straight up. NONE of it makes any sense.

The above is just... wrong. First off, there is a LOT of physical evidence.

They want you to believe things that they could simply show you and you would believe it. ALAS, they don't show you squat! Why is that?:confused:
You have missed out on a lot of info.

If they wanted to prove to you that certain planes hit certain buildings or crashed into the ground, why don't they show you the serial numbers from the black boxes?...or the landing gear?...or even a wheel rim?

You do know there were passengers on these planes right? Also, for many of them DNA was recovered. These passengers families think that their loved ones are dead. Using your logic these passengers are either in hiding or they were killed by the Government, transferred to different planes, and then those planes were crashed into buildings/the ground. Why switch planes?

If they want YOU to believe that FL77 struck the Pentagon, then why don't they show you a video?...a picture?

How many cameras were pointed at the Pentagon? Of those, how many could catch a plane going by at close range?

If they want YOU to believe in an impossible top down gravity driven global collapse, then why don't they show you their models?

What?

What are they hiding? If they want YOU to believe hijackers got on the planes, then why not show YOU video or pictures of THEM boarding the aircraft? There were cameras in the boarding lounges...

How many and where were they placed?

.so where's the proof? YOU JUST BELIEVE THAT MALARKEY BECAUSE THEY SAY SO?

ROFL -- that's what I thought...:p

No, I don't. See, quite often in the past 5 years, I've worked as a college professor (at least part time). I teach theatre and speech which doesn't have much to do with the physical aspects of 9/11 granted, but... I'm very personable and I tend to make friends easily. Many of these friends are professors of architecture, physics, engineering, etc.... When I first became interested in 9/11 conspiracy, I asked them what they thought. They all said the CTs were crap so I trusted their judgement . Why would they have reason to lie to me?

Now then... What will you Cters be doing with this info this...Proof?

[bofors]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=139293

In it, poster Sunstealer conclusively demonstrates that Jones' samples cannot be thermite or thermate, nano-, super- or otherwise.


Really?

Then please explain the source of the iron-rich microspheres.

Where did they come from?

[beachnut]

Really?

Then please explain the source of the iron-rich microspheres.

Where did they come from?
ash; do you know what the print on paper is? look it up 911Truth delusion believer.

BTW, iron-rich micro spheres are all over; go get a magnet; you can find a real strong one in your hard drive; need instructions?

[Redtail]

Really?

Then please explain the source of the iron-rich microspheres.

Where did they come from?


:eye-poppi... Steel...

[metamars]

Nanothermite is only thermite that has been ground down really tiny.

If you literally mean "ground down", this is false.



There are many other ways of making it by adding different compounds to slow the reaction, speed up the reaction, make an nice lemony odor while it reacts if you want, but the dread nanothermite is only smaller in particle size than ordinary thermite. That makes it release its energy more quickly, but it has exactly the same overall energy and other properties as the regular thermite with the same ingredients.
(emphasis mine)
False.

Jones et al. are using nanothermite as sciency sounding words to hype up their act, like priests donning a surplice.
Considering the fact that you couldn't get the above right, I'll refrain from trusting in your ESP or other means by which you might claim to know the minds of Jones, et. al.

[bofors]

:eye-poppi... Steel...

What?

The question how in the Sunstealer "theory" do the red chips generated iron-rich microspheres when ignited.

Note, there is no steel in the red-chips.

[beachnut]

...
Jones et al. are using nanothermite as sciency sounding words to hype up their act, like priests donning a surplice.
This is the truth. They find dust with elements, they wave their hands and explain away the elements they don't want, then they declare victory, they found rust and Al.

Knowing Jones made up the thermite scam 4 years after 911 out of thin air is priceless.

This was once Jones' proof of thermite, but is was clean up cut made after 911.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/Joneslie-1.jpg
What a liar. How can a physicist be so dumb?

Now he turns dust into thermite. Each year there is a new smoking gun, oops, he now has a loaded gun; dust with rust.

[Redtail]

What?

The question how in the Sunstealer "theory" do the red chips generated iron-rich microspheres when ignited.

Note, there is no steel in the red-chips.

Steel is fairly iron rich...

[beachnut]

Steel is fairly iron rich...
He must of missed the Fe in the sample. No steel; is he serious?

[bofors]

Steel is fairly iron rich...

No kidding....


One more time:

How does Sunstealer explain that the red chips generated iron-rich microspheres when ignited?

Note, there is no steel in the red-chips.

[ozeco41]

...Knowing Jones made up the thermite scam 4 years after 911 out of thin air is priceless.

This was once Jones' proof of thermite, but is was clean up cut made after 911.
....Now he turns dust into thermite. Each year there is a new smoking gun, oops, he now has a loaded gun; dust with rust.
Around the time that the oxy cut column photo was being used there were even truthers getting "thermite" and "thermic" mixed up. As in "thermic lance".

And IIRC the source of the slant cut column in its original context had the man shown cutting it in the next photo in sequence.

Naturally the "truther" explanation was that the "Man" was a holographic fake to disguise the evidence or some such ruse...:D

[beachnut]

rust and Al

darn all I can find in Jones samples is rust, just Fe rust

[Redtail]

No kidding....


One more time:

How does Sunstealer explain that the red chips generated iron-rich microspheres when ignited?

Note, there is no steel in the red-chips.


Rust.

[beachnut]

No kidding....


One more time:

How does Sunstealer explain that the red chips generated iron-rich microspheres when ignited?

Note, there is no steel in the red-chips.
Steel is made of Fe; Better read that paper.

And wowzer; I found some tubes that failed and here is a spectrum of ALUMINIZED steel tubes which Jones would call super thermite products.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/steeltubewithAl.jpg
Not thermite, not burnt thermite, just ALUMINIZED STEEL HEATER TUBES suffering damage from heat.

Here is Jones thermite; burnt up. (with some glass? and paint?)
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/Jonesburntthermite.jpg
Looks just like a steel tube with Al after heat damage. lol, but with paint stuff! Super duper stuff...

Did Jones find steel with Al that was damage in the WTC disaster?

Steel tubes suffering heat damage a twin for thermite products?

It is too easy to debunk Jones; he made up the thermite scam in 2005.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/CrSteelOrThermite.jpg
Some corroded stainless steel with super thermite! NOT!
Corrosion of stainless steel, but sure looks like Jones super thermite with some Cr, oops, some Cl, some Si. Just like Jones save the extra Cr to make the steel stainless.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/sscorproducts.jpg
Corrosion of stainless steel; is this thermite?

[Cuddles]

A lot of posts have been split to AAH. Keep it civil or further mod action will follow.

Edit: I also note that there is a moderated thread here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140017) for discussion of the recent article by Jones and Sunstealer's analysis of it. Do not bring that discussion here in an attempt to avoid the moderation on that thread.

[Sunstealer]

no the nanothermite was placed on the exact floors of the fires during a fireproofing upgrade ironic yes.

The planes were then remote controlled to hit the exact spot.

ozeco if you can rebutt nanothermite i will pay the 800 dollars for you to get your paper peer reviewed by bentham
you interestedI'll take that challenge. You can look at my sig and read that or you can read my posts in that thread or you can go to the moderated thread on the paper where I show that the samples are not from the same source therefore some of them cannot be thermite. Your choice. There are more holes in Jones' paper than swiss cheese - I suggest you comment in the moderated thread.

[Sunstealer]

Anyone know why there was nano technology in the samples? Is that naturally at the WTC site?Nano technology is a certain type of engineering. Truthers love the nano bit because they don't understand what nano means but think it sounds cool or is top super sekrit or something.

We've been using materials with nano properties for hundreds of years. A lot of them occur naturally like in talc and china clay. Virtually any powder will have particles that are under close to 100nm.

Thermite requires nothing except Aluminium powder and hematite Fe2O3. Make the particles smaller by all means but this means they will have a certain characteristics under the SEM and will be easily identified as well as give a more defined EDS spectrum - we see neither from Jones' samples. He talks about finding "elemental Al" but the sample he uses is not the same as samples a-d) therefore there is no continuity across the paper. The MEK sample has a red layer with an EDS spectra that contains all the elements for Tnemec primer paint, talc, zinc and chromium compounds. Samples a-d contain Kaolinite and not elemental Al.

Jones also burns these samples in air in the DSC which is a monumental mistake. Thermite doesn't need air to burn because the reaction uses the Oxygen from Fe2O3 so it should combust under an inert atmosphere. Truthers lap it up but haven't read the paper or aren't technically educated enough to understand the difference - it's important. All Jones did was burn some chips of paint.

If you want a proper discussion go to the moderated thread http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140017

[Sunstealer]

Can someone end this debate and say what else has nano sized elements at the WTC site?Did you know theres this amazing website called Google. It's called a "search engine" and allows you to search for things! Isn't that brilliant? Wow. All you do is type the words associated with your question into the "search box" and press go. Give it a try some time.

After more than twenty years of basic and applied research, nanotechnologies are gaining in commercial use. Nanoscale materials now are in electronic, cosmetics, automotive and medical products. But it has been difficult to find out how many “nano” consumer products are on the market and which merchandise could be called “nano.”

While not comprehensive, this inventory gives the public the best available look at the 800+ manufacturer-identified nanotechnology-based consumer products currently on the market.

http://www.nanotechproject.org/inventories/consumer/browse/products/

There are thousands of sites that will give you good information just like this one http://nanoparticles.org/

Wow, google sure is great it took me less than 30 seconds to find the information.

[Sunstealer]

The gig is up, beachnut. If Jones were the only one saying it...but no..now it has been independently verified. Haven't you read the paper? Haewa pwns you again apx 10 posts up.:cool:You are not listening - Heiwa just quotes from a poor paper - go to the grown ups moderated thread here http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140017 and play with the big boys. I bet you don't last more than 3 posts.

[Sunstealer]

If you literally mean "ground down", this is false.


(emphasis mine)
False.


Considering the fact that you couldn't get the above right, I'll refrain from trusting in your ESP or other means by which you might claim to know the minds of Jones, et. al.Not posting in the big boys moderated thread on the subject metamars? Come and look at the evidence that shows Jones' paper to be not very good - there is a long list of growing questions like

Why did you test your DSC samples in air when thermite doesn't need it.
Why do you claim thermite when Zn, Mg, Si, Ca, K and Cr (note how Jones doesn't label the K and Mg peaks - see the grown up thread for a better evaluation) are all found in one thermite sample when they shouldn't be there - umm Fig 14 gives a pretty good spectra for paint. Why are all those funny elements in thermite?

[Sunstealer]

Steel is fairly iron rich...Iron Fe - steel is made from a minimum of 98% Fe. Look at the following diagram. Point E is @ 2% carbon. Technically everything with a carbon content below 2% is a steel and everything above is a cast iron (or an iron, which is confusing because the alpha phase - slim area on the x axis below 800°C is alpha iron or ferrite it's often referred to as iron).

http://steel.keytometals.com/Articles/images/articles/Fig153_1.jpg

The iron microspheres do not come from steel - if you look at Jones' paper, in Figs 8 & 9 you can see bright white crystals - these are in a rhomboidal shape and the corresponding EDS spectra show predominantly Fe and O. Given that information we can now say that those particles are Fe2O3. It's these particles that are forming the microspheres when the sample is burnt in air. When you are dealing with such small particles the energy required to transform the crystal is not that much. However, it's not surprising that if

Material 1 contains A and B - and lots of other things
Material 2 contains A and B

then when you burn the two that particles comprising A and B are found in both samples. I'm sure that if you combust anything with very fine particles of Fe or Fe2O3 that you will end up with "iron-rich microspheres"

This thread will run to 40 pages, degenerate and then get closed down so it's bets to post in the moderated thread.

[twinstead]

This thread will run to 40 pages, degenerate and then get closed down so it's bets to post in the moderated thread.

Hey, if we were good thread parents and put some limits on it, it wouldn't degenerate. For example, the thread will need a set curfew--in bed at 9pm on school nights and 11pm on weekends. Homework will be done BEFORE the thread goes out to play, as will room cleaning. Dinner is promptly at 7pm. If the thread is going to be late for any reason it is to call and let us know where it is going and when it will be back.

Now, when the thread gets a job and has more of its own money, some of the rules may be relaxed, but that all depends on its attitude. This is the only way to raise a thread.

**Sorry Sunstealer; it had to be done, and who better than somebody approaching 5000 posts of barely-relevant tripe, expressions of moral outrage, and one liners, huh? ;)

[tj15]

Did you know theres this amazing website called Google. It's called a "search engine" and allows you to search for things! Isn't that brilliant? Wow. All you do is type the words associated with your question into the "search box" and press go. Give it a try some time.
Sorry if I was not clear earlier in the thread, but I am not a truther. When I have questions about 9/11, I come to this forum to find the answers because the members here know a lot more about 9/11 than I do.

[Dumb All Over]

Sorry if I was not clear earlier in the thread, but I am not a truther. When I have questions about 9/11, I come to this forum to find the answers because the members here know a lot more about 9/11 than I do.
Repectfully, tj15, most of the questions you ask here and in other threads have been asked and fully debated before. Might I suggest you search the 911 CT sub-forums before creating threads that only re-hash old questions and answers?
...but i am not a truther.
:rolleyes:

[boloboffin]

If you literally mean "ground down", this is false.


(emphasis mine)
False.


Considering the fact that you couldn't get the above right, I'll refrain from trusting in your ESP or other means by which you might claim to know the minds of Jones, et. al.

If I'm wrong about the properties of nanothermite, etc., I'll be happy to withdraw the statements after seeing the evidence. I was probably just overgeneralizing in a post where I talked about a nice lemony odor. But I know when charlatans are using nice, big words as a tactic to dizzy the masses.

[alexi_drago]

Are nano scale sized particles of iron oxide red?

[Red3]

Are nano scale sized particles of iron oxide red?

Yes.A browny red.

Edit: Actually, I'm not sure. Bit too quick in posting there...

[Sunstealer]

Sorry if I was not clear earlier in the thread, but I am not a truther. When I have questions about 9/11, I come to this forum to find the answers because the members here know a lot more about 9/11 than I do.Please accept my apology. Most of them don't search before they ask questions answered a few hundred times. I was out last night so bit tetchy this morning.

[ktesibios]

Are nano scale sized particles of iron oxide red?

Well, the oxide particles used in magnetic recording tape are generally <1 micron in size, and the old-fashioned tapes that used Fe2O3 as the magnetic material, like dear old Scotch 111, were the browny-red color of iron rust, as were the deposits of powdered oxide they left on the machine. Not surprising since those tapes were basically Scotch tape coated with ground-up rust.

[Mr.D]

There are many other ways of making it by adding different compounds to slow the reaction, speed up the reaction, make an nice lemony odor while it reacts if you want, but the dread nanothermite is only smaller in particle size than ordinary thermite. That makes it release its energy more quickly, but it has exactly the same overall energy and other properties as the regular thermite with the same ingredients.
(emphasis mine)
False.


So what properties does nano-thermite have anyway? Has anyone pinned Jones down on this? Otherwise it's nothing but an "appeal to magic."

[tsig]

So what properties does nano-thermite have anyway? Has anyone pinned Jones down on this? Otherwise it's nothing but an "appeal to magic."

Nano magic!!

Nano just means 10 to the minus 9

[Wolrab]

"Nano" is the new "quantum". Sounds all sciencey and stuff.

[Sunstealer]

"Nano" is the new "quantum". Sounds all sciencey and stuff.They asked Scott Bakula if he would do a continuation series called "nano jump", but he said it sounded lame and was doing other things anyway.

[INRM]

Since when did Thermite become nanotechnology?

[Mr.D]

Since when did Thermite become nanotechnology?

Not Thermite.

"Super Thermite" or "Nano Thermite," and until Jones et al. explain what it is or define what properties it has, it can be anything he wants it to be: nanotech, unicorn dust or keebler elf poop. I'd be willing to bet that he's already writing a "paper" to describe how his own graphs that Sunstealer and others have used to debunk him don't apply to "super thermite."

[metamars]

Since when did Thermite become nanotechnology?

You have a very good shot of figuring this out by typing "nanothermite" into the Search box at scholar.google.com. Do let us know what you find out, won't you?

While you're at it, why don't you contact one of the many authors you'll come across, and ask them if there's any good reason for using the term "nanothermite", other than conveying the fact that the size of at least some of the particles involved are in the nanometer range, and nanothermite will react more quickly than an equal mass of the equivalent micron sized thermite? Is nanothermite just a smaller, quicker version of micron sized thermite, or are there other differences, as well?

I already know the answer to that, but many people here don't.

[Redtail]

Iron Fe - steel is made from a minimum of 98% Fe. Look at the following diagram. Point E is @ 2% carbon. Technically everything with a carbon content below 2% is a steel and everything above is a cast iron (or an iron, which is confusing because the alpha phase - slim area on the x axis below 800°C is alpha iron or ferrite it's often referred to as iron).

http://steel.keytometals.com/Articles/images/articles/Fig153_1.jpg

The iron microspheres do not come from steel - if you look at Jones' paper, in Figs 8 & 9 you can see bright white crystals - these are in a rhomboidal shape and the corresponding EDS spectra show predominantly Fe and O. Given that information we can now say that those particles are Fe2O3. It's these particles that are forming the microspheres when the sample is burnt in air. When you are dealing with such small particles the energy required to transform the crystal is not that much. However, it's not surprising that if

Material 1 contains A and B - and lots of other things
Material 2 contains A and B

then when you burn the two that particles comprising A and B are found in both samples. I'm sure that if you combust anything with very fine particles of Fe or Fe2O3 that you will end up with "iron-rich microspheres"

This thread will run to 40 pages, degenerate and then get closed down so it's bets to post in the moderated thread.

Ok I see. Fe2O3 is used in some ceramics IIRC.

[metamars]

Not posting in the big boys moderated thread on the subject metamars?

Are you going to produce a coherent rebuttal to the Jones, et. al., paper, or aren't you? (Say within the next 3 weeks.). If you can do that, I could print out a copy and give it together with a copy of the Jones paper, when I hit up a material scientist or two for their opinion. I assume your finished work will be free of ad hominems, suitable for a technical reader who isn't used to stuff like that in scientific journals. If it makes you happy, you can also produce an unabridged version, suitable for JREF, with all the ad hominems you could ever wish for.

Whatever your answer to the above is, why don't you ask the moderators to move your thread to the science forum? I requested that in a post to your moderated thread, but apparently the moderators saw fit to not approve it.

According to a poll in the science forum, 48% of the posters who responded are "qualified scientists". I'd say that's more of a big boy place than the entertainment- and meaningless-snark- heavy 911 conspiracy theories forum, wouldn't you?

[T.A.M.]

Are you going to produce a coherent rebuttal to the Jones, et. al., paper, or aren't you? (Say within the next 3 weeks.). If you can do that, I could print out a copy and give it together with a copy of the Jones paper, when I hit up a material scientist or two for their opinion. I assume your finished work will be free of ad hominems, suitable for a technical reader who isn't used to stuff like that in scientific journals. If it makes you happy, you can also produce an unabridged version, suitable for JREF, with all the ad hominems you could ever wish for.

Whatever your answer to the above is, why don't you ask the moderators to move your thread to the science forum? I requested that in a post to your moderated thread, but apparently the moderators saw fit to not approve it.

According to a poll in the science forum, 48% of the posters who responded are "qualified scientists". I'd say that's more of a big boy place than the entertainment- and meaningless-snark- heavy 911 conspiracy theories forum, wouldn't you?

Try not to hand him a copy of DRG's "A New Pearl Harbor" when you hand your friend the copies of the two papers.

I mean, I know you would not in ANY WAY, influence the scientists opinion, right?

TAM:)

Oh, and by the way, I am one of those "scientists" who posts over in the science section, as are many of the other debunkers here, so do not be so fast as to judge this subforum as a crowd of illiterate brawlers, simply because they can at times be inflammatory.

[defaultdotxbe]

i think the biggest hole in jones' thermite theory is that any aluminum thermite produces large amounts of aluminum oxide when it reacts

all the paint chips he keeps showing would be unreacted thermite if hes correct, if it was used to bring down the WTC shouldnt a large amount of be REACTED?

so i ask you, where is all the aluminum oxide?

[Dog Town]

i think the biggest hole in jones' thermite theory is that any aluminum thermite produces large amounts of aluminum oxide when it reacts

all the paint chips he keeps showing would be unreacted thermite if hes correct, if it was used to bring down the WTC shouldnt a large amount of be REACTED?

so i ask you, where is all the aluminum oxide?

To steal a twoofer term.WoW a smoking gun!

[Mr.D]

You have a very good shot of figuring this out by typing "nanothermite" into the Search box at scholar.google.com. Do let us know what you find out, won't you?


Why should anybody here do Jones' homework for him?

[beachnut]

Are you going to produce a coherent rebuttal to the Jones, et. al., ...
Jones conclusion is wrong; there are thousands of things his dust particle could be from, none of them are thermite. Sorry, but you can't figure out the amount of thermite required yet you have a fancy program that can do it for you. Go sell your delusions at a forum that likes woo; ATS.

Who needs a coherent rebuttal for ceiling tiles with thermite? Only a few idiots in 911Truth; you better help them understand their delusions have failed; now what do you guys do the rest of the year?

I wonder when Jones will find some copper wire and discover copper oxide/aluminum nanothermite; oh noes. This fraud could go on for years as each year there is a new "loaded gun" instead of the old "smoking gun".

... According to a poll in the science forum, 48% of the posters who responded are "qualified scientists"....
Go ahead and post your junk science in the science forum! Make my day when the scientist dump your delusions into the bit bucket. All your failed ideas on 911 fail to qualify as science. Good for you!

[metamars]

Try not to hand him a copy of DRG's "A New Pearl Harbor" when you hand your friend the copies of the two papers.

I mean, I know you would not in ANY WAY, influence the scientists opinion, right?


TAM:)


No, I wouldn't. What would be the point of that? It's mostly for my own temporary enlightenment, anyway. At the end of the day, you hope for a large community of scientists, agreeing one way or the other. It's quite possible to have a large community of scientists sharply divided or undecided. Sorry to disappoint either debunkers or truthers who think that they can determine most everything about 911 with enough certainty to dispel all serious doubt.

Probably the worst case scenario, in terms of creating clarity, is a small community of scientists divided or undecided. To avoid this, I will again declaim that 911 truthers are fools if they run with the Jones paper to the media and government, at the expense of the scientific community. And the scientific community is not going to discover the Jones, et. al. paper, on their own. The Bentham journal is too new for anybody to expect it to be widely read. Probably nobody reads it, regularly.



Oh, and by the way, I am one of those "scientists" who posts over in the science section, as are many of the other debunkers here, so do not be so fast as to judge this subforum as a crowd of illiterate brawlers, simply because they can at times be inflammatory.


I finished my taxes 2 days ago, near a university. So, I walked over to see if any friendly, neighborhood physicist could answer my question about the temperature peak location variations observed via a DSC, versus micron DSC, which measures in Volts/mass, rather than energy/mass. I was put on the phone with a professor who, I was told, was my "best shot". (I didn't ask what that meant, exactly.) Well, while this guy knew what a calorimeter was, he didn't know what a DSC was. Needless to say, he couldn't answer my question about a DSC vs. micron DSC.

If the thermitic paper thread is in a forum where lots of scientists can see it, then we are more likely to get ones who have the specific knowledge needed to make sense of the various parts of the paper.

[metamars]

Why should anybody here do Jones' homework for him?

What makes you think this is about Jones' "homework"? Do you think every scientific paper begins with a historical survey of it's terminology, or a glossary? It's far more likely to give a brief review of the problem domain.

Please don't confuse the 'big issues' that debunkers conjure up, with ones of real, scientific concern. If a nitpick seems like a big issue to you, consulting a domain expert might be exactly what's needed to make that clear to you.

[Dog Town]

If the thermitic paper thread is in a forum where lots of scientists can see it, then we are more likely to get ones who have the specific knowledge needed to make sense of the various parts of the paper.

So do it already, start your own thread, what's stopping you? Wander on over, and see how it goes.
I predict a similar out come to your experiences with Dr.G.
What was it he called some of your ramblings,"out to lunch"?

[bofors]

Rust.

How?

Do you understand the word "how"?

How did the iron in the rust turn into iron-rich microspheres?

What was the chemical or physical reaction mechanism?

[Redtail]

How?

Do you understand the word "how"?

How did the iron in the rust turn into iron-rich microspheres?

What was the chemical or physical reaction mechanism?

Oh, I was wrong and Sunstealer corrected me on page 2.

Iron Fe - steel is made from a minimum of 98% Fe. Look at the following diagram. Point E is @ 2% carbon. Technically everything with a carbon content below 2% is a steel and everything above is a cast iron (or an iron, which is confusing because the alpha phase - slim area on the x axis below 800°C is alpha iron or ferrite it's often referred to as iron).

http://steel.keytometals.com/Articles/images/articles/Fig153_1.jpg

The iron microspheres do not come from steel - if you look at Jones' paper, in Figs 8 & 9 you can see bright white crystals - these are in a rhomboidal shape and the corresponding EDS spectra show predominantly Fe and O. Given that information we can now say that those particles are Fe2O3. It's these particles that are forming the microspheres when the sample is burnt in air. When you are dealing with such small particles the energy required to transform the crystal is not that much. However, it's not surprising that if

Material 1 contains A and B - and lots of other things
Material 2 contains A and B

then when you burn the two that particles comprising A and B are found in both samples. I'm sure that if you combust anything with very fine particles of Fe or Fe2O3 that you will end up with "iron-rich microspheres"

This thread will run to 40 pages, degenerate and then get closed down so it's bets to post in the moderated thread.

[bofors]

Oh, I was wrong and Sunstealer corrected me on page 2.

Ok... now we are getting somewhere.

Given that information we can now say that those particles are Fe2O3. It's these particles that are forming the microspheres when the sample is burnt in air.
...
I'm sure that if you combust anything with very fine particles of Fe or Fe2O3 that you will end up with "iron-rich microspheres"

Chemically, what Sunstealer is suggesting here is this:

2Fe2O3 => 4Fe + 3O2

That reaction at the temperature given appears to be a total impossibility. This process of producing iron from Fe2O3 (iron ore) is well known and described here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_ore#Smelting

"A common mistake is to think that the metal is obtained from the ore because at high temperature the metal just melts out of the ore. That is incorrect: if a blacksmith just heats up the ore without the proper reducing agent (carbon), they will just obtain molten ore."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_reduced_iron
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blast_furnace#Chemistry

So, a "reduction agent" such as carbon monoxide (CO) or pure carbon (C) is required to "reduce" (de-oxidize) Fe2O3 to Fe as indicated in the references above:

Fe2O3 + 3CO => 2Fe + 3CO2

or

2Fe2O3 + 3C => 4Fe + 3CO2


There obviously is not a source CO in the nanothermite to do this. There is no evidence that pure C is in the red chips either, let alone enough to reduce a significant portion of the Fe2O3, but let's assume there is for the moment.

The question would then become what temperature is required to do it (reduce Fe2O3 with pure C). I have yet find out exactly, but it seems like it would higher the temperature for Fe2O3 reduction with CO (because CO gas should be much reaction that solid C) and that is apparently at about 2000C:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraction_of_iron#Production_of_iron_from_iron_or e

The problem is of course that the nanothermite reacts at about 430C.

So what Sunstealer is proposing is pure bull on the basis of simple and well-known chemistry alone, I do not even need to bother dealing the physical aspects of iron-rich microsphere production.

[Arus808]

wow, two intellectually dishonest people trying to argue metallurgy and chemistry with those who are experienced in the field.

wonder why troofers have a hard time pushing their lies? its becuase of the likes of bofors and metamars, who claim to know everything but provide nothing in support of their claims. using big words doesn't mean that you know what they actually mean

[Redtail]

Ok... now we are getting somewhere.



Chemically, what Sunstealer is suggesting here is this:

2Fe2O3 => 4Fe + 3O2

That reaction at the temperature given appears to be a total impossibility. This process of producing iron from Fe2O3 (iron ore) is well known and described here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_ore#Smelting

"A common mistake is to think that the metal is obtained from the ore because at high temperature the metal just melts out of the ore. That is incorrect: if a blacksmith just heats up the ore without the proper reducing agent (carbon), they will just obtain molten ore."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_reduced_iron
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blast_furnace#Chemistry

So, a "reduction agent" such as carbon monoxide (CO) or pure carbon (C) is required to "reduce" (de-oxidize) Fe2O3 to Fe as indicated in the references above:

Fe2O3 + 3CO => 2Fe + 3CO2

or

2Fe2O3 + 3C => 4Fe + 3CO2


There obviously is not a source CO in the nanothermite to do this. There is no evidence that pure C is in the red chips either, let alone enough to reduce a significant portion of the Fe2O3, but let's assume there is for the moment.

The question would then become what temperature is required to do it (reduce Fe2O3 with pure C). I have yet find out exactly, but it seems like it would higher the temperature for Fe2O3 reduction with CO (because CO gas should be much reaction that solid C) and that is apparently at about 2000C:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraction_of_iron#Production_of_iron_from_iron_or e

The problem is of course that the nanothermite reacts at about 430C.

So what Sunstealer is proposing is pure bull on the basis of simple and well-known chemistry alone, I do not even need to bother dealing the physical aspects of iron-rich microsphere production.

Wait... So by "iron rich" you mean pure iron? (Or something like 99.6%)

[tsig]

How?

Do you understand the word "how"?

How did the iron in the rust turn into iron-rich microspheres?

What was the chemical or physical reaction mechanism?

Heat.

[beachnut]

There is no evidence that pure C is in the red chips either, let alone enough to reduce a significant portion of the Fe2O3, but let's assume there is for the moment.
I see carbon in the samples Jones has. Did you read the paper?

Source for nano thermite at 430 ????

[Dave Rogers]

While you're at it, why don't you contact one of the many authors you'll come across, and ask them if there's any good reason for using the term "nanothermite", other than conveying the fact that the size of at least some of the particles involved are in the nanometer range, and nanothermite will react more quickly than an equal mass of the equivalent micron sized thermite? Is nanothermite just a smaller, quicker version of micron sized thermite, or are there other differences, as well?

I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at here. It's clear that nanothermite reacts very much more quickly than thermite with a larger grain size, and also that a well-formulated nanothermite mixture can liberate a greater proportion of the chemical energy available. There are certain other inevitable consequences of this greater efficiency and reaction rate, in particular that, rather than a high temperature incendiary, nanothermite enters the class of low velocity explosives (an arbitrary distinction based entirely on combustion rate). Was there some other property you feel should be highlighted? Playing "I know something you don't" games won't convince anyone of the need for a new investigation.

Dave

[metamars]

wow, two intellectually dishonest people trying to argue metallurgy and chemistry with those who are experienced in the field.

wonder why troofers have a hard time pushing their lies? its becuase of the likes of bofors and metamars, who claim to know everything but provide nothing in support of their claims. using big words doesn't mean that you know what they actually mean

It's because of lies and/or ignorant statements such as this that this forum is so modest in value, and repellant to decent people who could make worthwhile contributions. Had you bothered to simply search on posts by myself, you would have seen that I did indeed refer to papers on nanothermite to support what I was saying, and pointed out, emphatically and more than once, that I am not a domain expert.

Or, maybe you did do this, and simply chose to lie through your teeth.

Anyway, you convinced me not to wait much longer for Sunstealer to move his thread. I will do as Dog Town suggests, and start a thread in the Science section, later on today. If Sunstealer moves his thread, later, he can always ask that it be merged.

[metamars]

I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at here. It's clear that nanothermite reacts very much more quickly than thermite with a larger grain size, and also that a well-formulated nanothermite mixture can liberate a greater proportion of the chemical energy available. There are certain other inevitable consequences of this greater efficiency and reaction rate, in particular that, rather than a high temperature incendiary, nanothermite enters the class of low velocity explosives (an arbitrary distinction based entirely on combustion rate). Was there some other property you feel should be highlighted? Playing "I know something you don't" games won't convince anyone of the need for a new investigation.

Dave

I've already given references, very recently, so my intent was to get people to do a modest amount of work before repeating things that aren't true. I'm only meagerly hopeful that there will ever be a serious re-investigation, and can't imagine that that happening would depend on what's said at JREF, anyway.

[zorro99]

I'm only meagerly hopeful that there will ever be a serious re-investigation, and can't imagine that that happening would depend on what's said at JREF, anyway.

Posting lots of stuff about conspiracies on JREF and other forums isn't going to help bring about a new investigation, either.

[bofors]

Wait... So by "iron rich" you mean pure iron? (Or something like 99.6%)

I do not think that anyone is stating that the iron-rich microspheres are anywhere near pure iron or even 99.6%. "Iron-rich" would implies they are not.

Chemically, the issue is whether or not the reaction produces metallic iron.

Again, what Sunstealer is proposing is not observed chemically, it does not happen.

When you simply heat up Fe2O3, you do not get iron-rich microspheres as a result.

[bofors]

Heat.

So you don't understand the what the word "how" means?

... and yet you are now an expert in materials characterization techniques and iron ore processing?

And you people wonder why nobody with a brain takes you seriously? Come on...

Did you read this quote from Wikipedia that I posted for intellectual zeros like you?:

"A common mistake is to think that the metal is obtained from the ore because at high temperature the metal just melts out of the ore. That is incorrect: if a blacksmith just heats up the ore without the proper reducing agent (carbon), they will just obtain molten ore."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_ore#Smelting

Do you get it now?

You do not get iron (or iron-rich microspheres) just by heating up Fe2O3.

[16.5]

The problem is of course that the nanothermite reacts at about 430C.

So what Sunstealer is proposing is pure bull on the basis of simple and well-known chemistry alone, I do not even need to bother dealing the physical aspects of iron-rich microsphere production.

I like to use the word Jones uses "SuperThermite."

Anyhow, you see you have to prove that what "reacted" at about 430C was Super thermite.

More importantly, the "test" that resulted in that 430C result was an absolute embarrassment, now wasn't it?

[beachnut]

I do not think that anyone is stating that the iron-rich microspheres are anywhere near pure iron or even 99.6%. "Iron-rich" would implies they are not.

Chemically, the issue is whether or not the reaction produces metallic iron. Again, what Sunstealer is proposing is not observed chemically, it does happen. When you simply heat up Fe2O3, you do not get iron-rich microspheres as a result.
Why do you bring failed ideas and made up thermite to a skeptic forum?
The failed delusions of 911Truth and Jones' new super thermite scam. With not enough heat energy of an office fire; the idiotic half-baked scenario (yep, Jones has not idea how it would work so he uses other delusion experts to make up his lies) made up by a cold fusion fired physics teacher and a delusional open loop software engineer. Skeptic?

Does Jones new "loaded gun" change the 911Truth nut case status in the world? No

Jones work published in the vanity journal? If you are going to support it you need to take the lead and find some evidence not act ignorant on the chemistry and thermite.

So what temperature does this super thermite ignite at and why is so much lower than real thermite?
Did you know Jones has not proved the dust rust he has is nano-thermite?
Did you know Jones has not shown the dust rust is mixed properly to qualify to be a mixture of thermite?
Did you read and comprehend his paper?
His paper makes his thermite conclusion the 0.0001 percent solution. Read the many qualifying statements Jones and his fellow delusions experts make in the paper.
When does Jones' delusions become the truth? never

Read Jones paper, it does not prove anything. For a big laugh read this junk Jones supports (crazy). http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/blasting_scenario.html

The best part this nano-thermite is placed in ceiling tiles. This fantasy junk is the conclusion you support? When will you become a skeptic?

[bofors]

wow, two intellectually dishonest people trying to argue metallurgy and chemistry with those who are experienced in the field.


Experience with metallurgy and chemistry? Do you not know that I studied and conducted research in the Material Science & Engineering department of the University of Michigan for about 8 years? Do you the University of Michigan, College of Engineering is currently rank #7 by US News: http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/college/spec-doct-engineering and that the Material Science & Engineering department is ranked #2: http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/college/spec-doct-materials

Here is the University of Michigan, Electron Microbeam Analysis Laboratory (EMAL): http://www.emal.engin.umich.edu/facilities.html I had keys to it, know how to use every instrument there and published my work in a quality peer-reviewed journal.

Intellectually dishonest? You can't argue with the science, so you decide to slander me instead? Does that about some it up?

[16.5]

Experience with metallurgy and chemistry? Do you not know that I studied and conducted research in the Material Science & Engineering department of the University of Michigan for about 8 years? Do you the University of Michigan, College of Engineering is currently rank #7 by US News: http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/college/spec-doct-engineering and that the Material Science & Engineering department is ranked #2: http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/college/spec-doct-materials

Here is the University of Michigan, Electron Microbeam Analysis Laboratory (EMAL): http://www.emal.engin.umich.edu/facilities.html I had keys to it, know how to use every instrument there and published my work in a quality peer-reviewed journal.

Intellectually dishonest? You can't argue with the science, so you decide to slander me instead? Does that about some it up?

AWESOME! The boldfed line is fan-freaking-tastic! You published in a "quality" "peer reviewed" "journal." Then you must know that Jones' spammer, vanity, pay to publish joke of a journal is none of those!

/say, bummer about your other thread going straight to AAH. I hope you got a chance to read my post in it!

[bofors]

Anyhow, you see you have to prove that what "reacted" at about 430C was Super thermite.

Nothing else that is composed of Al, Fe and O is known to react to form iron. That kind of narrows it down, doesn't?


More importantly, the "test" that resulted in that 430C result was an absolute embarrassment, now wasn't it?
I can only guess that you think 430C is not the right temperature for "superthermite" to react at. If so, please explain why in detail (hint: simply comparing it to regular thermite will not work).

[beachnut]

Nothing else that is composed of Al, Fe and O is know to react to form iron. That kind of narrows it down, doesn't?


I can only guess that you think 430C is not the right temperature for "superthermite" to react at. If so, please explain why in detail (hint: simply comparing it to regular thermite will not work).
Your other delusion believers have brought up the 430! You need to correct them or help them out. You are the one not being skeptic enough and supporting Jones with dirt dumb questions and tasks for the skeptics to do and you can't help Jones.

No matter what you do to thermite the chemical reaction only releases the same amount of heat per gram. Good luck with the thermite lie.

[16.5]

Nothing else that is composed of Al, Fe and O is know to react to form iron. That kind of narrows it down, doesn't?


I can only guess that you think 430C is not the right temperature for "superthermite" to react at. If so, please explain why in detail (hint: simply comparing it to regular thermite will not work).

"Nothing else that is composed of Al, Fe and O is know to react to form iron." Yup! It certainly does.... if we hand wave all the other stuff that was present, just like Jones did!

As far as the 430C, again, you are supposed to prove that what burned at 430 was SuperThermite. Jones, in his ridiculous open air, open torch test did not even bother to determine what he was burning. We can agree, can't we good buddy that his "Super Thermite" wasn't the only thing he torched in his little video, now was it??

[bofors]

AWESOME! The boldfed line is fan-freaking-tastic! You published in a "quality" "peer reviewed" "journal." Then you must know that Jones' spammer, vanity, pay to publish joke of a journal is none of those!


Sure, I agree that the Benthan "Open Chemical Physics Journal" is not a "quality" journal. It is perhaps one of the lowest class peer-viewed journal there is. However, the nano-thermite paper published by Harrit et al. is "quality" and it certainly could have been published in a better journal.

But describing Benthan "Open Chemical Physics Journal" as a "vanity press" is not completely right. It is highly unlikely that any JREF-derived "debunking" paper will be accepted by that journal, even you pay the fee. You have to get through peer-review, it is not just pay-to-play.


/say, bummer about your other thread going straight to AAH. I hope you got a chance to read my post in it!

Sorry, I missed it. Feel free to repost it here.

[16.5]

Sure, I agree that the Benthan "Open Chemical Physics Journal" is not a "quality" journal. It is perhaps one of the lowest class peer-viewed journal there is. However, the nano-thermite paper published by Harrit et al. is "quality" and it certainly could have been published in a better journal.

But describing Benthan "Open Chemical Physics Journal" as a "vanity press" is not completely right. It is highly unlikely that any JREF-derived "debunking" paper will be accepted by that journal, even you pay the fee. You have to get through peer-review, it is not just pay-to-play.

Hmm, that is not what Ryan Mackey learned when he thoroughly investigated the issue. In fact, Bentham does not do the peer review, the authors arrange it themselves.

Kinda, fishy, init?

[bofors]

No matter what you do to thermite the chemical reaction only releases the same amount of heat per gram.

Let's see if you are capable of learning something here:

Case #1:
Thermite components are separated so that they cannot react at all: 0% of the theoretical maximum energy per gram is released.

Case #2:
Thermite components are separated such that only 1% of the material react: 1% of the theoretical maximum energy per gram is released.

Case #3:
Thermite components are mixed normally: 50% of the theoretical maximum energy per gram is released. (Note I do not what the exact number here is, 50% is just a guess, but the actual number is certainly significantly less than the theoretical maximum).

Case #4:
Thermite components are mixed microscopic particle (nanothermite): 90% of the theoretical maximum energy per gram is released. (Note, again, I do not what the exact number here is, 90% is just a guess, but the actual number is certainly a lot higher than Case #3.).

In any chemical reaction, the question of efficiency or yield is important. Just because something will theoretical react does not mean the reaction will achieve any kind of theoretical result.

This is one thing real chemists do, they work to make reactions achieve high yields. Likewise, this is why biological systems have enzymes. Enzymes manipulate the reacting components at an atomic level to make the reaction efficient.

Materials or molecules used to make reactions more efficient are termed catalysts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalysis As is clear in the reference, catalysts (like automotive catalytic convertors) function by means surface area. Surface area is increased by making the catalyst porous or a mesh-like.

This same surface area effect applies to thermite. The surface area between the reaction components in a nanothermite is much higher than that of regular thermite. Hence, the nanothermite will have a higher yield (Case #4) than regular thermite (Case #3).

Any questions?

[defaultdotxbe]

Any questions?
yes, if 100% of the theoretical maximum energy release is still not enough to produce the desired effect how does differentiating between "normal" thermite and "nano" thermite make any difference?

[Disbelief]

Any questions?

Yeah, how does thermite or nanothermite cut horizontally?

[Dave Rogers]

Case #1:
Thermite components are separated so that they cannot react at all: 0% of the theoretical maximum energy per gram is released.

Case #2:
Thermite components are separated such that only only 1% of the material react: 1% of the theoretical maximum energy per gram is released.

Case #3:
Thermite components are mixed normally: 50% of the theoretical maximum energy per gram is released. (Note I do not what the exact number here is, 50% is just a guess, but the actual number is certainly significantly less than the theoretical maximum).

Case #4:
Thermite components are mixed microscopic particle (nanothermite): 90% of the theoretical maximum energy per gram is released. (Note, again, I do not what the exact number here is, 90% is just a guess, but the actual number is certainly a lot higher than Case #3.)

Case #5:
A bunch of incompetent truthers carry out the calorimetry tests. 200% of the theoretical maximum energy per gram is released.

Dave

[bofors]

Hmm, that is not what Ryan Mackey learned when he thoroughly investigated the issue. In fact, Bentham does not do the peer review, the authors arrange it themselves.

Kinda, fishy, init?

You seem to be getting hung-up on the word "arrange" here.

I do not know exactly what the procedure used by the Open Chemical Physics Journal is, but I would suspect that the authors merely nominate the peer reviewers and that the journal editors either accepts them as being qualified or not.

That would be the same procedure, peer nomination, used by Science magazine (which is one of the most prestigious scientific journals).

[beachnut]

Let's see if you are capable of learning something here:

This same surface area effect applies to thermite. The surface area between the reaction components in a nanothermite is much higher than that of regular thermite. Hence, the nanothermite will have a higher yield (Case #4) than regular thermite (Case #3).

Any questions? Are you trying to mess up chemistry? Did you get help making up this failed post?

Thermite has the same release of energy for the same weight; it is called chemistry. You should take chemistry before you make more posts.

You can make it smaller, you can do what ever you want but the thermite and the nano-thermite both give off the same energy per gram in heat.

Your post explains why you believe in Jones' delusion.



... I do not know exactly what the procedure used by the Open Chemical Physics Journal ... Which part of you pay they publish do you have a problem with? They let you publish anything no matter how stupid and wrong it is as long as you pay.

Pay the money and they publish your work; this has gone on for hundreds, if not thousands of years.

Jones paid to publish because his paper will not pass a real peer review in a real scientific journal. The vanity journal is out to make MONEY, not put out scientific papers. They love money, not the truth. They take money and you get published. And the nano-thermite is?

[bofors]

yes, if 100% of the theoretical maximum energy release is still not enough to produce the desired effect how does differentiating between "normal" thermite and "nano" thermite make any difference?

I am not sure what you mean by the "desired effect," but I am guessing you are talking about Greening's temperature calculations (where he tried to determine the increase of temperature of steel affected by a paint-like layer of nano-thermite and found it to be insignificant.)

Since Harrit et al. clearly state in the paper that they do not know how the nano-thermite was used:

"It may be that this material is used not as a cutter-charge itself, but rather as a means to ignite high explosives,product clearly must have been molten to form these shapes."

Greening's temperature calculations are pointless.

[bofors]

Thermite has the same release of energy for the same weight; it is called chemistry. You should take chemistry before you make more posts.

You can make it smaller, you can do what ever you want but the thermite and the nano-thermite both give off the same energy per gram in heat.

Please explain why the surface area between the reacting thermite components has absolutely no effect on the amount of energy produced.

[bofors]

Yeah, how does thermite or nanothermite cut horizontally?

I think you know there have been patents filed for such devices, but this yet another non-issue here.

Except for the perpetrators, I do believe anyone knows exactly how and where the thermite was used.

But to argue that there was not thermite is ridiculous.

[16.5]

You seem to be getting hung-up on the word "arrange" here.

I do not know exactly what the procedure used by the Open Chemical Physics Journal is, but I would suspect that the authors merely nominate the peer reviewers and that the journal editors either accepts them as being qualified or not.

That would be the same procedure, peer nomination, used by Science magazine (which is one of the most prestigious scientific journals).

Again you may wish to investigate the bolded part, because that is not the procedure that Bentham uses.

That is a particular concern here. Jones CLAIMED that he gave his samples to "independent" labs. It turned out that he sent it to his truther buddies. Sad.

[lapman]

You seem to be getting hung-up on the word "arrange" here.

I do not know exactly what the procedure used by the Open Chemical Physics Journal is, but I would suspect that the authors merely nominate the peer reviewers and that the journal editors either accepts them as being qualified or not.

That would be the same procedure, peer nomination, used by Science magazine (which is one of the most prestigious scientific journals).
You can name your own reviewers and they will accept anyone as a reviewer even if they have no experience or education in the topic. So the credibility of Bathams review process is nil.

[Disbelief]

I think you know there have been patents filed for such devices, but this yet another non-issue here.

Huge machines right? How would they have gotten in there?


Except for the perpetrators, I do believe anyone knows exactly how and where the thermite was used.

Except, there was no thermite used. Large planes did the damage and started the fires that brought down the towers.


But to argue that there was not thermite is ridiculous.

No, to argue thtat thermite was used is the ridiculous position. Eighth years, and with your "proof", you can not even say how it was used.

[bofors]

Case #5:
A bunch of incompetent truthers carry out the calorimetry tests. 200% of the theoretical maximum energy per gram is released.

Dave

So you are suggesting the DSC data is flawed? Please tell us how what your analytical experience is? How many DSC runs have you conducted? What exactly went wrong?

Otherwise, I now see that Harrit el al. do state that the nano-thermite exceeds the the 3.9 kJ/g theoretical maximum for thermite. I have to look at the reference for the 3.9 kJ/g, so I am not sure if it is valid number or not. But as is clearly stated in the paper and indicated by the EDS, the nano-thermite is not pure thermite. The authors indicate they believe the organic compounds in the nano-thermite may be explosive:

"One possibility is that the organic material in the red layer is itself energetic."

Your objection to this idea is what exactly?

[sebbiel]

Sorry if it was asked somewhere else:

I suppouse this "nanothermate" was used to cut or melt columns in the impact zone, where collapse "started" - right? So am I correct when I say that it is rather impossible for nanothermate to survive 56 and 102 minutes in such conditions (huge fire and after this impact and explosion)? Nanothermate seems to be highly sensitive to high temperatures, and it should have ignited right after impact, right (thus causing collapse soon after impact)?

Sorry for my English, I still have little problems with wrting in Shakespeare's language ;)

[bofors]

You can name your own reviewers and they will accept anyone as a reviewer even if they have no experience or education in the topic. So the credibility of Bathams review process is nil.

I really doubt that is true, but so what if is? Anybody with an undergraduate degree in materials science from a decent university can read the paper and see that there is nothing wrong with it.

Don't believe me?

Here are the top 10 materials science programs in the USA:
http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/college/spec-doct-materials

Including students, there are probably about 1000 people actively associated with these departments.

I bet you can not find 10% (100 people) of these who find any serious problem with the paper published by Harrit et al.

[defaultdotxbe]

"It may be that this material is used not as a cutter-charge itself, but rather as a means to ignite high explosives,product clearly must have been molten to form these shapes."
seeing as how thermite is much more difficult to ignite than explosives i highly doubt thats what it was used for

but if no one can explain how the thermite was used to bring down the buildings the theory is useless

[T.A.M.]

I really doubt that is true, but so what if is? Anybody with an undergraduate degree in materials science from a decent university can read the paper and see that there is nothing wrong with it.

Don't believe me?

Here are the top 10 materials science programs in the USA:
http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/college/spec-doct-materials

Including students, there are probably about 1000 people actively associated with these departments.

I bet you can not find 10% (100 people) of these who find any serious problem with the paper published by Harrit et al.

So as a "scientist", you find nothing wrong with:

1. Not eliminating, vigorously, other possible sources of the red/grey chips (testing one paint, and not even providing the name and composition does not count).

2. Providing no standard Spectra for the chemical/compound they have found for comparison.

Really? I thought you said you were a scientist, yet you have no issue with these glaring errors in the scientific investigative process?

TAM:)

[bofors]

I suppouse this "nanothermate" was used to cut or melt columns in the impact zone, where collapse "started" - right? So am I correct when I say that it is rather impossible for nanothermate to survive 56 and 102 minutes in such conditions (huge fire and after this impact and explosion)? Nanothermate seems to be highly sensitive to high temperatures, and it should have ignited right after impact, right (thus causing collapse soon after impact)?


Sure, but we do not know where the nano-thermite was placed in the buildings or how it was applied. Moreover, there is evidence of a thermite reaction taking place before the collapse:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmuzyWC60eE

[16.5]

Otherwise, I now see that Harrit el al. do state that the nano-thermite exceeds the the 3.9 kJ/g theoretical maximum for thermite. I have to look at the reference for the 3.9 kJ/g, so I am not sure if it is valid number or not. But as is clearly stated in the paper and indicated by the EDS, the nano-thermite is not pure thermite. The authors indicate they believe the organic compounds in the nano-thermite may be explosive:

"One possibility is that the organic material in the red layer is itself energetic."
Your objection to this idea is what exactly?

So in a "peer reviewed" paper speculates that the result they are getting may be due to material in the sample other than the materials they are supposed to be testing.

Jesus Christ what a bunch of incompetent morons. Thanks for hilighting this for EVERYONE, Bofors.

[bofors]

but if no one can explain how the thermite was used to bring down the buildings the theory is useless

Every heard of "probable cause"?

[Mr. Skinny]

I really doubt that is true, but so what if is? Anybody with an undergraduate degree in materials science from a decent university can read the paper and see that there is nothing wrong with it.

Don't believe me?

Here are the top 10 materials science programs in the USA:
http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/college/spec-doct-materials

Including students, there are probably about 1000 people actively associated with these departments.

I bet you can not find 10% (100 people) of these who find any serious problem with the paper published by Harrit et al.
Would you be willing to accept the opinions of government materials experts, or would you think their opinions somehow "tainted" due to the fact that they are employed by the US govt.?

[bofors]

So as a "scientist", you find nothing wrong with:

1. Not eliminating, vigorously, other possible sources of the red/grey chips (testing one paint, and not even providing the name and composition does not count).


No, I agree that other "possible" sources of the red chips, in particular the Tnemec primer, should be more thoroughly eliminated. But this is something that can be done in the future.


2. Providing no standard Spectra for the chemical/compound they have found for comparison.


No, I agree here too. XEDS spectra should be collected from "known" samples of nano-thermites for comparison. But again this is something that can be done in the future.

You seem to think that research must be completely summarized in a single paper. This is not how science works, researchers often answer their critics and improve the quality of their work in papers that follow.

Try reading the "What Future Studies are Contemplated?" section of the paper.


Really? I thought you said you were a scientist, yet you have no issue with these glaring errors in the scientific investigative process?


Like I said above, I challenge you to get 100 people (10%) actively affiliated with the top 10 material science departments in the USA to agree that there are any "glaring" errors in the paper.

I bet you can not even find 10 faculty members in these programs to agree with you.

[beachnut]

...
"One possibility is that the organic material in the red layer is itself energetic."

Your objection to this idea is what exactly?

Paper has more energy per gram than thermite. I could be paper, carbon, and other stuff you find in dust. My dust at my house burns with more energy per gram than thermite.

Guess why we use gasoline instead of thermite in our cars? It has more energy per gram. Bingo.

This is why the office fires destroyed the strength of steel and the WTC fell! Office fires have more heat then thermite! Dumb idea to bring in thermite to do an office fire job.


Please explain why the surface area between the reacting thermite components has absolutely no effect on the amount of energy produced. Chemistry!

per gram the heat energy released in the same. You failed to read the paper? It can make the thermite burn faster. Like little wood piece burn faster, big wood burns slower. Good analogy till a chemist comes and makes it better.

If you read and research Jones paper you can refute his findings as they relate to his final solution that someone planted thermite in the WTC.

Thermite would leave lots of evidence. There is no evidence. There are many combinations of debris that can have the exact things in them as Jones dust that are not thermite.

[lapman]

I really doubt that is true, but so what if is? Anybody with an undergraduate degree in materials science from a decent university can read the paper and see that there is nothing wrong with it.
Then read the complaints about the spam people have gotten. You have an economist being invited to be an editor of an education and sleep publications because he is a "leader in those fields." Since we don't know the names of the reviewers, there is no way to check the qualifications.

Don't believe me?

Here are the top 10 materials science programs in the USA:
http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/college/spec-doct-materials

Including students, there are probably about 1000 people actively associated with these departments.

I bet you can not find 10% (100 people) of these who find any serious problem with the paper published by Harrit et al.That's great, but they have to read it first. The "journal" is a non-entity in the scientific community. Add to that the fact that it would cost these students $600 to publish a rebuttal. What scientist, especially a student, would want to pay that type of money to not be read. So the real question is why did Jones, et al. have to resort to a pay-to-play rag instead of an established journal?

[T.A.M.]

No, I agree that other "possible" sources of the red chips, in particular the Tnemec primer, should be more thoroughly eliminated. But this is something that can be done in the future.



No, I agree here too. XEDS spectra should be collected from "known" samples of nano-thermites for comparison. But again this is something that can be done in the future.

You seem to think that research must be completely summarized in a single paper. This is not how science works, researchers often answer their critics and improve the quality of there work in papers that follow.

Try reading the "What Future Studies are Contemplated?" section of the paper.



Like I said above, I challenge you to get 100 people (10%) actively affiliated with the top 10 material science departments in the USA to agree that there are any "glaring" errors in the paper.

I bet you can not even find 10 faculty members in these programs to agree with you.

1. No, it is something that should have been done prior to their conclusions. Yes, now that they have "published" it must be done later. Your issue was how other scientists and students of science would find nothing wrong with the paper, yet this is a huge, glaring omission.

2. If you are going to do an analysis of substance X, which contains various chemicals and compounds, REGARDLESS of what you think MIGHT be within, you must,

(A) Catalog all identifiable substances
(B) Analyze all unknown substances, and where possible eliminate possibilities.
(C) Make note of what substances you eliminated and how...this is where Jones falls down. He INADEQUATELY analyzed the possibility that the red/grey chips were paint. He did not address ANY OTHER possibilities.

The fact is, we all know, Jones went into the experiment looking for THERMITE or some version of it. Where he failed as a scientist was by ignoring, or inadequately addressing, other compounds etc...that could have been the sources of the chips, in favor of racing to the door and yelling "Thermite".

You can be as obtuse about this as you like, but you (through your agreement above) and I both know this to be the case. You can defend it, by saying it can be done later, but despite your comment to the contrary, THAT IS NOT HOW THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS WORKS. Elimination of other sources for your findings IS NOT something that can "be done later".

TAM:)

[defaultdotxbe]

Every heard of "probable cause"?
ever heard of ockhams razor?

you have some chips, that may or may not be thermite, you have no idea how they could have been used to contribute to the collapse of the towers, but you assume they are significant and have a malicious origin

[bofors]

Would you be willing to accept the opinions of government materials experts, or would you think their opinions somehow "tainted" due to the fact that they are employed by the US govt.?

I would be surprised if you could get a significant number of people with a Ph.D. from a top-ranked US university in materials science (or a related field) to agree with you that there are any serious problems with the paper published by Harrit et al. (whether they work for the US government or not).

I really doubt that anyone at NIST will comment on the paper at all.

[Mr. Skinny]

I would be surprised if you could get a significant number of people with a Ph.D. from a top-ranked US university in materials science (or a related field) to agree with you that there are any serious problems with the paper published by Harrit et al. (whether they work for the US government or not).

I really doubt that anyone at NIST will comment on the paper at all.
I wasn't refering to NIST. How about these guys http://www.ml.afrl.af.mil/?

Did you answer the question?

[Sunstealer]

No, I wouldn't. What would be the point of that? It's mostly for my own temporary enlightenment, anyway. At the end of the day, you hope for a large community of scientists, agreeing one way or the other. It's quite possible to have a large community of scientists sharply divided or undecided. Sorry to disappoint either debunkers or truthers who think that they can determine most everything about 911 with enough certainty to dispel all serious doubt.

Probably the worst case scenario, in terms of creating clarity, is a small community of scientists divided or undecided. To avoid this, I will again declaim that 911 truthers are fools if they run with the Jones paper to the media and government, at the expense of the scientific community. And the scientific community is not going to discover the Jones, et. al. paper, on their own. The Bentham journal is too new for anybody to expect it to be widely read. Probably nobody reads it, regularly.





I finished my taxes 2 days ago, near a university. So, I walked over to see if any friendly, neighborhood physicist could answer my question about the temperature peak location variations observed via a DSC, versus micron DSC, which measures in Volts/mass, rather than energy/mass. I was put on the phone with a professor who, I was told, was my "best shot". (I didn't ask what that meant, exactly.) Well, while this guy knew what a calorimeter was, he didn't know what a DSC was. Needless to say, he couldn't answer my question about a DSC vs. micron DSC.

If the thermitic paper thread is in a forum where lots of scientists can see it, then we are more likely to get ones who have the specific knowledge needed to make sense of the various parts of the paper.The calorimiter data is completely meaningless and void. Silly Jones et al didn't do the experiment in an inert atmosphere. Thermite doesn't need air to work so any experiment should have been performed either in a vacuum or an inert atmosphere. So why did they do the experiment with air present? It nullifies the experiment, because no one knows what exactly combusted. For anyone knows the actual combustion at a lower temperature was the carbon based binder (that's most likely). They cannot possibly claim a "thermitic reaction" occurred. Unfortunately truthers are a) not experienced enough to know this b) too blinkered or stupid to realise it when someone who does have knowledge and a brain points it out.

[bofors]

I wasn't refering to NIST. How about these guys http://www.ml.afrl.af.mil/?

Funny, I used to work there. These people are third or fourth rate scientists. Below academic and industrial scientists, and government scientists at the national laboratories.

Yet I really doubt that many scientists in the US Air Force's materials directorate will claim there are any serious problems with the paper published by Harrit et al. There is just nothing wrong to found, it is a very simple paper.

But since you are in Dayton, give it a shot. Maybe you can find one or two US Air Force officers who will lie to get a promotion.


Did you answer the question?
No, I didn't but I will. The answer is no, US government employees have already proven that they will lie about 9/11: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPA_9/11_pollution_controversy

[Sunstealer]

Ok... now we are getting somewhere.



Chemically, what Sunstealer is suggesting here is this:

2Fe2O3 => 4Fe + 3O2

That reaction at the temperature given appears to be a total impossibility. This process of producing iron from Fe2O3 (iron ore) is well known and described here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_ore#Smelting

"A common mistake is to think that the metal is obtained from the ore because at high temperature the metal just melts out of the ore. That is incorrect: if a blacksmith just heats up the ore without the proper reducing agent (carbon), they will just obtain molten ore."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_reduced_iron
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blast_furnace#Chemistry

So, a "reduction agent" such as carbon monoxide (CO) or pure carbon (C) is required to "reduce" (de-oxidize) Fe2O3 to Fe as indicated in the references above:

Fe2O3 + 3CO => 2Fe + 3CO2

or

2Fe2O3 + 3C => 4Fe + 3CO2


There obviously is not a source CO in the nanothermite to do this. There is no evidence that pure C is in the red chips either, let alone enough to reduce a significant portion of the Fe2O3, but let's assume there is for the moment.

The question would then become what temperature is required to do it (reduce Fe2O3 with pure C). I have yet find out exactly, but it seems like it would higher the temperature for Fe2O3 reduction with CO (because CO gas should be much reaction that solid C) and that is apparently at about 2000C:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraction_of_iron#Production_of_iron_from_iron_or e

The problem is of course that the nanothermite reacts at about 430C.

So what Sunstealer is proposing is pure bull on the basis of simple and well-known chemistry alone, I do not even need to bother dealing the physical aspects of iron-rich microsphere production.You don't know what you are talking about and are suggesting something that I haven't suggested. No one is talking about reduction reactions and you are doing the classic truther google - finding something that's completely inappropriate and then spewing nonsense and building straw men. Do you honestly think I don't know about blast furnaces and the reactions that occur? Christ I was doing mass balance equations for the blast furnace in 1992 during my Metallurgy and Materials Engineering degree!

- go and look at the XEDS spectra for the iron rich microspheres - oh hell you guys don't read the paper so I'll upload the pics.

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=886

Wow Bofors! Look at all that Oxygen in the microsheres! Where did that all come from? I'm not suggesting a reduction of Fe2O3. I'm suggesting that by heating the material that these Fe2O3 crystals are forming the microspheres with the rest of the material in the paint. This is clear as day when you look at the XEDS spectra for the spheres and compare it with the XEDS for the red layers.

Truthers just never want to read or look at anything in depth - even their own star's paper.

[Mr. Skinny]

Funny, I used to work there. These people are third or fourth rate scientists. Below academic and industrial scientists, and government scientists at the national laboratories.

Yet I really doubt that many scientists in the US Air Force's materials directorate will claim there are any serious problems with the paper published by Harrit et al. There is just nothing wrong to found, it is a very simple paper.

But since you are in Dayton, give it a shot. Maybe you can find one or two US Air Force officers who will lie to get a promotion.


No, I didn't but I will. The answer is no, US government employees have already proven that they will lie about 9/11: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPA_9/11_pollution_controversy
Well, that's why I asked the question. Didn't want to waste anyone's time if you were just going to write it off as "from the government" and therefore untrustworthy.

What division/branch did you work in at the Materials Lab and what years?

[Sunstealer]

So you are suggesting the DSC data is flawed? Please tell us how what your analytical experience is? How many DSC runs have you conducted? What exactly went wrong?Of course it's flawed. They did the tests in an air atmosphere! If they had done what they should have an performed the test in an inert atmosphere then they might have a point. The thermite reaction doesn't require an external source of Oxygen. So to show that a thermite reaction occurs you do the test in an inert atmosphere. They should know this, you should know this, hell everyone who's read the comments knows this. Their data is inadmissible, bolony hogwash because they failed to conduct the experiment properly. Doesn't matter what result they got out because they cannot show that a thermite reaction occurred.

[Sunstealer]

Experience with metallurgy and chemistry? Do you not know that I studied and conducted research in the Material Science & Engineering department of the University of Michigan for about 8 years? And yet you had to ask me about the difference between XRD and EDS.

XRD? You mean X-ray diffraction? What exactly are you trying to say here with "show the difference"? Anyone with any materials experience would automatically know the difference between the two and what show the difference meant.

[Sunstealer]

I really doubt that is true, but so what if is? Anybody with an undergraduate degree in materials science from a decent university can read the paper and see that there is nothing wrong with it.:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp

The initial objective was to compare the behavior of the red layer with paint when soaked in a strong organic solvent known to soften and dissolve paintPage 17.

So Bofors seeing as you think there is nothing wrong you'll be able to tell me the exact paint that they soaked in MEK. Just look in the paper to find out, after all you always provide information on the materials that you test in a paper don't you? Don't you?

[bofors]

The calorimiter data is completely meaningless and void. Silly Jones et al didn't do the experiment in an inert atmosphere. Thermite doesn't need air to work so any experiment should have been performed either in a vacuum or an inert atmosphere. So why did they do the experiment with air present? It nullifies the experiment, because no one knows what exactly combusted. For anyone knows the actual combustion at a lower temperature was the carbon based binder (that's most likely). They cannot possibly claim a "thermitic reaction" occurred. Unfortunately truthers are a) not experienced enough to know this b) too blinkered or stupid to realise it when someone who does have knowledge and a brain points it out.

Really? Are you going to suggest that nano-thermites are designed to operate in an inert atmosphere too?

Please tell us how the air exposure "nullifies" the measurement of the energy released per gram?

How does the air exposure "nullify" the value of about 430C for reaction temperature?

[Sunstealer]

No, I agree that other "possible" sources of the red chips, in particular the Tnemec primer, should be more thoroughly eliminated. But this is something that can be done in the future.



No, I agree here too. XEDS spectra should be collected from "known" samples of nano-thermites for comparison. But again this is something that can be done in the future. Those should have been done before they even started soaking chips in MEK and doing bad DSC experiments. I have shown, in the moderated thread, that the samples they have are different and therefore can't all be thermite.

Samples a,b,c,d are different to the MEK chip sample and the chip in fig 31 is different again to these. They said they did a characterisation, but obviously failed hideously, because they cannot get it out of their heads that some or all of these chips aren't thermite. They think that anything removed from WTC dust with a magnet is thermite.

[Z]

Are you reading, bofors? Seriously?

The problem was that air exposure taints the reaction environment. They don't know if what they measured was purely the 'thermite' or additional reaction due to oxygen or other chemicals in the air. It was a tainted test environment, plain and simple.

[Sunstealer]

Really? Are you going to suggest that nano-thermites are designed to operate in an inert atmosphere too?

Please tell us how the air exposure "nullifies" the measurement of the energy released per gram?

How does the air exposure "nullify" the value of about 430C for reaction temperature?Are you serious? I cannot believe that you can't see the problem. If it's performed in air then we allow the possibility of another material combusting. There is other material in the red chips, notably the carbon rich matrix. See Fig 9.

The carbon map appears less definitive, that is, it does not appear to be associated with a particular particle or group of particles, but rather with the matrix material

Bearing in mind they don't know what this material is, but it looks like some form of carbon based binder (which are likely to be flammable) then there is the very likely occurrence that if they do the test in air that this material will ignite. Infact I think that is just what happened.

Now do you see the problem?

[bofors]

Christ I was doing mass balance equations for the blast furnace in 1992 during my Metallurgy and Materials Engineering degree!

Great, now why don't you tell us where you got your degree.

How many papers have you have published in peer-review journals on the characterization of novel materials?

I'm not suggesting a reduction of Fe2O3.

Yes, I know. That is the problem, I am pointing out.

Now can you please explain how this reaction works without carbon or any other reducing agent:?

2Fe2O3 + heat => 2Fe + 3O2


I'm suggesting that by heating the material that these Fe2O3 crystals are forming the microspheres with the rest of the material in the paint.


That a very convenient "theory," but do you have any data to support it? Please cite some papers of Fe2O3 or paint producing iron-rich microspheres when heated to about 430C.

[16.5]

Really? Are you going to suggest that nano-thermites are designed to operate in an inert atmosphere too?

Please tell us how the air exposure "nullifies" the measurement of the energy released per gram?

How does the air exposure "nullify" the value of about 430C for reaction temperature?

This has already been explained repeatedly in this thread and several others. In fact the answer should be so obvious to you that you should immediately see what a fool you are making of yourself.

[tsig]

I think you know there have been patents filed for such devices, but this yet another non-issue here.

Except for the perpetrators, I do believe anyone knows exactly how and where the thermite was used.

But to argue that there was not thermite is ridiculous.

You don't know how much, you don't know where, you don't know how it got there but you are sure it was there.

[beachnut]

Funny, I used to work there. ...


These people are third or fourth rate scientists. Below academic and industrial scientists, and government scientists at the national laboratories. ... You never worked there; You need a degree to work a the lab as an engineer or scientist. Prove you worked at AFRL as an engineer or a scientist. GS what? Capt or Maj?

I worked with AFRL engineers and scientist; we would do project across the lab disciplines. We even tapped the AFIT professors and students for help in projects and papers.

No body at the labs support or have evidence to support the idiotic ideas of 911Truth.

[bofors]

What division/branch did you work in at the Materials Lab and what years?

I had an internship there during the summer of my junior year of college, 1991.

I do not remember exactly which branch of materials directorate I was in, but I worked in a laboratory developing spin-coating technology for non-linear optical materials that was across the hall from Wade Adams's office:
http://www.texasnano.org/about/BiosAdams.htm

Wade Adams help my academic advisor, David Martin, get me the internship.

[Mr. Skinny]

You never worked there; You need a degree to work a the lab as an engineer or scientist. Prove you worked at AFRL as an engineer or a scientist. GS what? Capt or Maj?

I worked with AFRL engineers and scientist; we would do project across the lab disciplines. We even tapped the AFIT professors and students for help in projects and papers.

No body at the labs support or have evidence to support the idiotic ideas of 911Truth.
I wasn't gonna say anything, but his "These people are third or fourth rate scientists. Below academic and industrial scientists, and government scientists at the national laboratories. ... " comment really had me doubting his claim to have worked there.

[Mr. Skinny]

I had an internship there during the summer of my junior year of college, 1991.

I do not remember exactly which branch of materials directorate I was in, but I worked in a laboratory developing spin-coating technology for non-linear optical materials that was across the hall from Wade Adams's office:
http://www.texasnano.org/about/BiosAdams.htm

Wade Adams help my academic advisor, David Martin, get me the internship.
OK, I'll believe you. I knew Wade Adams personally.

However, I think it's disingenuous of you to call them "third or fourth rate scientists" when all you did was work a summer internship in 1991.

Edit: Did you consider Wade Adams a "third or fourth rate scientist"?

[bofors]

You never worked there; You need a degree to work a the lab as an engineer or scientist. Prove you worked at AFRL as an engineer or a scientist. GS what? Capt or Maj?

Haha... umm... no, I was an undergraduate student there with a summer internship.

Don't believe me? Feel free to contact my dissertation committee chairman, Prof. David C. Martin, at the University of Michigan and ask him.

Please note that the USAF paid for Prof. Martin's dissertation on the B-2 (stealth bomber) composite fibers and like I said above Wade Adams was on his dissertation committee.

I also was invited to speak on my silk-like materials research at a conference at the USAF Materials Directorate in Dayton about 1993.

[tsig]

Are you serious? I cannot believe that you can't see the problem. If it's performed in air then we allow the possibility of another material combusting. There is other material in the red chips, notably the carbon rich matrix. See Fig 9.



Bearing in mind they don't know what this material is, but it looks like some form of carbon based binder (which are likely to be flammable) then there is the very likely occurrence that if they do the test in air that this material will ignite. Infact I think that is just what happened.

Now do you see the problem?

It looks to me like Jones took a torch to a piece of dried paint then cooked the data.

It may have lipstick and wings but it's still a pig.

His smoking gun has been smoking the wrong substance.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

However, I think it's disingenuous of you to call them "third or fourth rate scientists" when all you did was work a summer internship in 1991.


I have to say it sounds like bofors is simply full of himself. That venomous comment of his seems like something you'd hear from someone suffering from an "unrecognized genius" complex.

[bofors]

OK, I'll believe you. I knew Wade Adams personally.

Great, then why not give Wade a call (or send him email) and see what he has to say about the paper by Harrit et al.


However, I think it's disingenuous of you to call them "third or fourth rate scientists" when all you did was work a summer internship in 1991.

The idea that Air Force (or US military) scientists are third or forth rate has little to do with my experience as an intern. It is more of an objective assessment of the career paths in science. For example, Wade Adams left the Air Force for Rice University (not vice versa).

Did you consider Wade Adams a "third or fourth rate scientist"?

I met him a few times, but he seemed to be more of a bureaucrat or an administrator than an active scientist to me. I see he got his Ph.D. at UMass-Amherst in Polymer Science & Engineering. That is the top polymer program in the USA (where my advisor David Martin got his Ph.D. too) and that counts for something. But in no way does it make someone a first rate scientist. I know at least 2 other people with Ph.D's from that program who I would call third rate (and I would call David Martin second rate). Otherwise, I have never looked at the details of Wade Adams' scientific career.

But let's stay on topic here...

[T.A.M.]

I have to say it sounds like bofors is simply full of himself. That venomous comment of his seems like something you'd hear from someone suffering from an "unrecognized genius" complex.

how smart can a genius be, if he fails to get himself recognized?

TAM;)

[Sunstealer]

Great, now why don't you tell us where you got your degree. Sure University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland, UK.

How many papers have you have published in peer-review journals on the characterization of novel materials?None, I'm not an academic and the question is academic.


Yes, I know. That is the problem, I am pointing out.

Now can you please explain how this reaction works without carbon or any other reducing agent:?

2Fe2O3 + heat => 2Fe + 3O2Why are you quoting that equation? I'm not saying that occurs. There's no proof of pure Fe in any of the samples post DSC. Jones prattles on about EDS peaks and says he used semi-quantitative analysis

A conventional quantitative analysis routine was used to estimate the elemental contents. In the case of this iron-richspheroid, the iron content exceeds the oxygen content by approximately a factor of two, so substantial elemental iron must be present.

But he doesn't provide the little table that always goes with such a statement. If you say the above you always provide the analysis, always, without fail. He also doesn't realise that Carbon is soluble in Iron. Which diagram do we need to show that Bofors? What does C and Fe form? Note there is also S in the spectra. A little bit of FeS anyone?

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=891
http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=892
From here http://met-tech.com/steel-heater-tube-analysis.html

Funny how they don't think there's elemental Fe and their O peak is lower than Jones' samples (smaller ratio) and doesn't contain anything else the Fe will form a compound with. Ho hum.

That a very convenient "theory," but do you have any data to support it? Please cite some papers of Fe2O3 or paint producing iron-rich microspheres when heated to about 430C.Well where else is the Fe going to come from? It's not the "gray layer" because that doesn't have any effect on the reaction so the ONLY source of Fe left is the Fe2O3 rhomboidal crystals. You don't need to cite papers when the only source of Fe remaining in the sample is these crystals. It's not rocket science just a process of clear thinking and elimination.

If you don't believe me then look at Jones' data. His own paper shows the platelets don't contain sufficient Fe and the Carbon matrix doesn't so the only other place left is Fe2O3.

[Mr. Skinny]

Great, then why not give Wade a call (or send him email) and see what he has to say about the paper by Harrit et al.
Good idea. Wade's a very nice guy, and I'm sure he'd remember me.



The idea that Air Force (or US military) scientists are third or forth rate has little to do with my experience as an intern. It is more objective assessment of the career paths in science. For example, Wade Adams left the Air Force for Rice University (not vice versa).

I met him a few times, but he seemed to be more of a bureaucrat or an administrator than an active scientist to me. But let's stay on topic here...
I'll be sure to pass these comments along to him as well, but not until after he's read the paper.

Wouldn't want to poison the well, so to speak.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

For example, Wade Adams left the Air Force for Rice University (not vice versa). But let's stay on topic here...


Yeah, good... Because that comment makes no sense whatsoever. Can't have you explaining yourself, now can we?

Rice -> Air Force = good scientist
Air Force -> Rice = not good scientist

Huh?

[bofors]

Rice -> Air Force = good scientist
Air Force -> Rice = not good scientist

Huh?

You have what I wrote exactly backwards.

Again, as Wade Adams' career demonstrates, you will see good scientists leaving military labs for academic positions.

Yeah, good... Because that comment makes no sense whatsoever.

No wonder you have so many problems understanding 9/11.

[parky76]

The idea that Air Force (or US military) scientists are third or forth rate has little to do with my experience as an intern.

:p

[Cl1mh4224rd]

You have what I wrote exactly backwards.


Thank you for clarifying.

[metamars]

The calorimiter data is completely meaningless and void. Silly Jones et al didn't do the experiment in an inert atmosphere. Thermite doesn't need air to work

No, but there' no law saying that it can't be used as a supplementary source of oxygen. Correct? The Francis thesis shows an effective energy density of 16kJ/g, which is more than the maximum of Al/Fe2O3 thermite in correct stoichiometric proportions. This may be, as Dave has suggested, a simple mistake. Or it may reflect the fact that they cut the Fe2O3 component, and relied on atmospheric oxygen to make up the deficit. Alas, his reference for his Fig. 1 is not listed in IRIS. Maybe I can reach him next week.


so any experiment should have been performed either in a vacuum or an inert atmosphere.

I would say, rather, that an experiment should also have been performed in a vacuum or an inert atmosphere.


So why did they do the experiment with air present? It nullifies the experiment, because no one knows what exactly combusted. For anyone knows the actual combustion at a lower temperature was the carbon based binder (that's most likely). They cannot possibly claim a "thermitic reaction" occurred.

You raise a legitimate question. I have just sent the following email to Jones, et. al.:

A legitimate question, I believe, about the value of the DSC experiment has been raised, as thermite has it's own oxidizer, so it should be possible for it to ignite in vaccuum or inert gas. By not controlling for environmental oxygen, an ambiguity is introduced as to what exactly is burning.

However, I have reason to believe that a DSC in vaccuum or inert gas will not give the full picture, either. And that is because two of the DSC chips have registered energy densities above the theoretical maximum of for thermite in perfect stoichiometric proportions of 4 KJ/g. However, the Andrew Francis nanothermite thesis ( http://etd.lib.ttu.edu/theses/available/etd-11022007-144001/unrestricted/Francis_Andrew_Thesis.pdf ), Figure 1, shows Al/Fe2O3 thermite at 4,000 cal/g, which is about 16JK/g. Assuming that he didn't just make a typo, that implies that measurements were of a thermite burning in air.

The reference he gives for Figure 1 is:

[6] Fischer, S.H., Grubelich, M.C. “Theoretical Energy Release of Thermites,
Intermetallics, and Combustible Metals.” Proceedings of the 24th International
Pyrotechnics Seminar (1998).

Unfortunately, when I searched for this in IRIS, I came up with nothing. Hopefully, one of your team will be able to track this reference down.

Can we expect to see a DSC experiment done in vaccuum or inert gas?




Unfortunately truthers are a) not experienced enough to know this b) too blinkered or stupid to realise it when someone who does have knowledge and a brain points it out.

As you do not suffer from the mental defects of us truthers, would you be good enough to give us your opinion whether or not a Al/Fe2O3 nanothermite with the Fe2O3 content reduced to 1/3 of the stoichiometric proportion can still combust well, in air? Consider:

This reference (http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=APPLAB000091000024243109000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes),obtained by googling :

nanothermite "fuel rich"

shows the following in the google page, in the blurb section:

"defined as between 0.6 (fuel lean) and 1.8 (fuel rich)"

So, apparently, in the case of Al thermite with CuO oxidizer, 1.8 is considered a viable mix which allows the reaction to proceed, even in vaccuum. Assuming, further (I'm not about to buy the article to nail this down) that we are talking about a ratio of Al to O, then in the case of Al/Fe2O3, where the stoichiometric reactions require Al and O in a 2:3 ratio, that means that we can cut the Fe2O3 by x where

2/(3/x) = 1.8

2/1.8 = 3/x
x = 3 / 1.1 ~ 3

Mama pajama! If you cut your Fe2O3 by a factor of 3, your total mass of solid reactancts will be approximately halved. Therefore, your theoretical maximum energy density will double to about 8 KJ/g.

[Mr. Skinny]

<snip>
Again, as Wade Adams' career demonstrates, you will see good scientists leaving military labs for academic positions.
<snip>
Yep, after they've spent their entire career from 1968-2002, they decide to leave the AF for an academic position because that shows what?, that he's tired of working with third and fourth rated scientists?

Here's what this third rate scientist has (in part) on the web site you linked to:

http://www.texasnano.org/about/spacer.gif
Wade Adams, Ph.D.
Rice University
http://www.texasnano.org/images/spacer.gif
<snip>
Wade retired from the US Air Force senior executive ranks in January 2002, as the Chief Scientist of the Materials and Manufacturing Directorate, Air Force Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. He was responsible for providing advice to the laboratory director and staff on the technical and scientific merit of the laboratory's research and development programs, and he also directed the in-house research program.

Wade was appointed a senior scientist (ST) in the Materials Directorate of the Wright Laboratory in 1995. Prior to that he was a research leader and in-house research scientist in the directorate.

For the past 31 years he has conducted research in polymer physics, concentrating on structure-property relations in high-performance organic materials. He is internationally known for his research in high-performance rigid-rod polymer fibers, X-ray scattering studies of fibers and liquid crystalline films, polymer dispersed liquid crystals, and theoretical studies of ultimate polymer properties. He has written more than 190 publications on these topics, including several review articles and two edited books. He is a Fellow of the American Physical Society and the Air Force Research Laboratory. Dr. Adams retired from the Air Force Reserve in the rank of Colonel in 1998.


<snip>
AWARDS AND HONORS
1968 Atomic Energy Commission Fellow
1979 Scientific Achievement Award, Air Force Systems Command
1983 Presidential Scholarship Award, Microscopy Society of America
1989 American Physical Society Fellow
1991 Wright Laboratory Fellow (now AFRL Fellow)
1994 Outstanding Dayton Area Scientist Award
1994 Wright-Patterson Air Force Base Outstanding Civilian Executive, Air Force Association
1997 International Research Award, Society of Plastics Engineers

Sorry, but looking at Wade's CV, I'd have to say that both you and I, and most the other people on this forum must be, by your ranking system, eighth or tenth rated scientists and engineers, no?

[metamars]

Sorry, but looking at Wade's CV, I'd have to say that both you and I, and most the other people on this forum must be, by your ranking system, eighth or tenth rated scientists and engineers, no?

Hey! I'd settle for eigth or tenth rated in a heart beat, if the coffee was free and the dental plan was half decent!

[Mr. Skinny]

Hey! I'd settle for eigth or tenth rated in a heart beat, if the coffee was free and the dental plan was half decent!
Actually, compared to Dr. Adams, I'm something like 25th rated.

And I get free coffe 'cause I bring in the newspaper every morning! Occasionally, free donuts too!

[beachnut]

I wasn't gonna say anything, but his "These people are third or fourth rate scientists. Below academic and industrial scientists, and government scientists at the national laboratories. ... " comment really had me doubting his claim to have worked there.
He acts, his posts are as if he flunked out of school. An intern who failed in the future to understand reality; 911. That means he failed to learn to use rational thought and logic; and his attack of AFRL is proof he is not very professional. His major errors on thermite make it a good possibility he forgot all his science and let the CT delusions foam out freely. Does he know bush is out of office?

If I had a project to do, from AFRL up the hill to AFIT is a perfect place to find talent and help. He must of had a bad experience to bad mouth AFRL. May be he worked in the tire shop.

But the nano thermite where he claimed it has more energy per gram was the clue he forgot his stuff

[bofors]

Sure University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland, UK.


John Anderson's University, eh?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Strathclyde#History

You got lucky, I will leave your poor Scottish university alone.


None, I'm not an academic and the question is academic.


Great, so you acknowledge that you are just an SEM technician who has no serious research experience.


Why are you quoting that equation? I'm not saying that occurs. There's no proof of pure Fe in any of the samples post DSC.


Thanks for making that clear. So, you deny that the microspheres produced by the thermal reaction of the red-chips are iron-rich.


Jones prattles on about EDS peaks and says he used semi-quantitative analysis. But he doesn't provide the little table that always goes with such a statement. If you say the above you always provide the analysis, always, without fail.


Fine, we know EDS (or any spectroscopic method) is somewhat ambiguous, and that the definitive way to analysis the red chip and microspheres would be Selected Area Electron Diffraction (SAED) by Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM).

But that sort of work takes a much higher level of microscopy skill and time than this simple SEM work. I doubt that any of authors are really qualified to do it and the supply of red chips is obviously quite limited.


He also doesn't realise that Carbon is soluble in Iron. Which diagram do we need to show that Bofors? What does C and Fe form


Please...


Note there is also S in the spectra. A little bit of FeS anyone?


So you are arguing that the microspheres are Iron(II) sulfide?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron(II)_sulfide

or pyrite:?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrite

Or what?

Neither of those substances are consistent with the metallic optical properties or spherical morphologies of the microspheres (nor their magnetic properties I would assume).


Funny how they don't think there's elemental Fe and their O peak is lower than Jones' samples (smaller ratio) and doesn't contain anything else the Fe will form a compound with. Ho hum.


Wait a minute... that is not what Metallurgical Technologies, Inc. is saying about their EDS data. If you read their report, they are researching the failure of an aluminum coating on a steel tube. The aluminum coating wore off, the underlying material is oxidized steel (hence the EDS spectra is consistent with metallic iron).

They do not claim there is no "elemental" (metallic) Fe in their sample. This is what they say:

"Large iron peaks are detected, along with a smaller oxygen peak. The deposit is an iron oxide. No other elements are detected that would indicate hot corrosion attack rather than plain oxidation."

They see an Fe peak and O peak, so they simplistically call it "an iron oxide" (not a specific compound) because "no other elements are detected".

Furthermore, the caption of Figure 10 clearly indicates that there are steel grains in the oxide scale:

"An optical microscope view of a cross-section through the failed tube "A" near the hole reveals islands of coarse grains (similar to those in Figure 5) surrounded by oxide scale."

Finally, the caption of Figure 14 reads:

"EDS spectrum of the coating on the baked comparison heater tube. A large aluminum peak, and smaller iron peaks are detected."

The "baked comparison heater tube" has an intake aluminum coating on steel, so we can see that the EDS spectra is probing more than just the sample surface. It is detecting metallic iron in the bulk material.



But wait there's more... let's look at the FEMA WTC 7 report:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm

http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/7122/user20662pic89112400030.jpg

Do you see the similarity between the "FeO" EDS spectra in the FEMA WTC 7 report and the EDS spectra for the microspheres:?

http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/7476/wtcapndxcimg7.jpg

Now, are you going to deny that the FEMA EDS data from WTC 7 indicates "elemental" (metallic) iron too?

Come on... do not be ridiculous.... it is a steel sample.


For bonus points, let's note another amazing 9/11 "coincidence," EDS spectra from WTC 7 oxidized steel (of which NIST has no explanation, so it ignores) just so happens to be a good match to EDS spectra for the iron-rich microspheres produced by the nano-thermite found in WTC dust.

Gee, what a "coincidence"...

[bofors]

Yep, after they've spent their entire career from 1968-2002, they decide to leave the AF for an academic position because that shows what?, that he's tired of working with third and fourth rated scientists?

There are huge differences between working as an Air Force scientist and being a university professor. But yes, part of it is being in a better intellectual environment. Need I compare Dayton with Ann Arbor?


Here's what this third rate scientist has (in part) on the web site...


Just to be clear, I never said I thought Wade Adams was a "third rate" scientist and again, I have never looked at the details of his scientific career. I would guess that he is comparable to somebody like David Martin, who I deem to be "second rate" in this scale, for him to get his position at Rice University.


Sorry, but looking at Wade's CV, I'd have to say that both you and I, and most the other people on this forum must be, by your ranking system, eighth or tenth rated scientists and engineers, no?

Ha... most people here are scientific, engineering zeros, just like the American public. That is the problem.

Now if you were smart, you would be asking me to rate Prof. Jones.

[Mr. Skinny]

<snip>
If I had a project to do, from AFRL up the hill to AFIT is a perfect place to find talent and help. He must of had a bad experience to bad mouth AFRL. May be he worked in the tire shop.

<snip>
The tire shop is downtown at the bottom of the hill, but yeah, the intelligence level seems to climb as you head up the hill.

I love being surrounded by people that are ten times as smart as me. :D

[Mr. Skinny]

Just to be clear, I never said I thought Wade Adams was a "third rate" scientist and again, I have never looked at the details of his scientific career. I would guess that he is comparable to somebody like David Martin, who I deem to be "second rate" in this scale, for him to get his position at Rice University.
If you could link me to David Martin's CV, I'd be glad to compare and contrast.

Ha... most people here are scientific, engineering zeros, just like the American public. That is the problem.
Do you include yourself among these "scientific, engineering zeros.."?

Now if you were smart, you would be asking me to rate Prof. Jones.
OK. How do you rate Prof. Jones?

[Mr. Skinny]

There are huge differences between working as an Air Force scientist and being a university professors. But yes, part of it is being in a better intellectual environment. Need I compare Dayton with Ann Arbor?
<snip>.
A separate thread might be fun. :)

Don't wanna derail this one.

[16.5]

Did Bofors ever have that light bulb moment when he answered his own question about burning up unknown substances in an uncontrolled environment?

No?

You are saying he is pontificating about the supposed superiority of the brain power of RickRod's Michigan Wolverines?

Remember when he had to publish his diploma because no one believed that someone so dim about the scientific method actually went to college? Good times, good times.

[R.Mackey]

No, but there' no law saying that it can't be used as a supplementary source of oxygen. Correct?

:D You're kidding, right?

If you're relying on the air for oxygen, why use thermite in the first place? Just go the whole hog with pure metal powder. Or go to something with even more energy content, like shredded newspaper or gasoline.

And never mind that the entire Dr. Jones hypothesis seems to rest on this stuff being applied under existing fireproofing. How is air supposed to get there? Air that, by the way, the fire already present is consuming?

Face it, you're no longer talking about thermite. You're groping blindly at a mysterious answer to a simple problem.

The Francis thesis shows an effective energy density of 16kJ/g, which is more than the maximum of Al/Fe2O3 thermite in correct stoichiometric proportions. This may be, as Dave has suggested, a simple mistake. Or it may reflect the fact that they cut the Fe2O3 component, and relied on atmospheric oxygen to make up the deficit. Alas, his reference for his Fig. 1 is not listed in IRIS. Maybe I can reach him next week.

It's a simple mistake. He wrote kcal instead of kJ. If he's adding oxygen to the system, he's no longer studying a thermite reaction, and he's made a much more serious procedural error. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it was just unit confusion -- happens to the best of us.

[Sunstealer]

John Anderson's University, eh?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Strathclyde#History

You got lucky, I will leave your poor Scottish university alone.Don't know what you mean by that, it's not important.

Great, so you acknowledge that you are just an SEM technician who has no serious research experience.:) No I'm a materials engineer with more than 10 years experience in the aerospace industry. Currently working for a well renowned jet engine manufacturer. You don't need research experience to read and understand Jones' paper or to know that it's basically junk. I've already shown numerous problems with the paper and given some pretty good evidence that the red material is paint (containing Kaolinite) on rusted steel.

Thanks for making that clear. So, you deny that the microspheres produced by the thermal reaction of the red-chips are iron-rich.You seem to have a permanent reading comprehension failure and misunderstand what I am saying when everyone else who reads it understands. If this is intentional you will go back onto ignore.

Fine, we know EDS (or any spectroscopic method) is somewhat ambiguous, and that the definitive way to analysis the red chip and microspheres would be Selected Area Electron Diffraction (SAED) by Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM).I think that sample preparation might be a bit difficult for a TEM which typically requires a sample thickness below 100nm (0.1 microns). Bearing in mind that we have two layers each 10-15µm thick and we can clearly see rhomboidal Fe2O3 crystals @ 100nm in size I don't think it would be best.

The best way is to contact 3 or 4 independent analytical materials services that will have a range of methods. XRD being the best if sample size isn't a problem. I've seen services that cost as $40 per sample for XRD.

You don't then need to spend hours on the SEM or even longer trying to prepare a TEM sample which will require someone with a lot of expertise and then pay them even more to run the machine. I used to have a TEM expert as a lecturer, did lots of work for the MOD - they used to close off the two bottom floors and not permit anyone except him and the MOD bods down there for couple of days at a time.


But that sort of work takes a much higher level of microscopy skill and time than this simple SEM work. I doubt that any of authors are really qualified to do it and the supply of red chips is obviously quite limited.Agreed -see above.

So you are arguing that the microspheres are Iron(II) sulfide?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron(II)_sulfide

or pyrite:?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrite

Or what?You ought to stop this. What I am saying is that there are more compounds than just iron oxide that can be formed in these spheres and therefore you cannot base evidence for αFe purely on the basis of the Fe to O peak ratio.


Wait a minute... that is not what Metallurgical Technologies, Inc. is saying about their EDS data. If you read their report, they are researching the failure of an aluminum coating on a steel tube. The aluminum coating wore off, the underlying material is oxidized steel (hence the EDS spectra is consistent with metallic iron).

They do not claim there is no "elemental" (metallic) Fe in their sample. This is what they say:

"Large iron peaks are detected, along with a smaller oxygen peak. The deposit is an iron oxide. No other elements are detected that would indicate hot corrosion attack rather than plain oxidation."

They see an Fe peak and O peak, so they simplistically call it "an iron oxide" (not a specific compound) because "no other elements are detected".

Furthermore, the caption of Figure 10 clearly indicates that there are steel grains in the oxide scale:

"An optical microscope view of a cross-section through the failed tube "A" near the hole reveals islands of coarse grains (similar to those in Figure 5) surrounded by oxide scale."

Finally, the caption of Figure 14 reads:

"EDS spectrum of the coating on the baked comparison heater tube. A large aluminum peak, and smaller iron peaks are detected."

The "baked comparison heater tube" has an intake aluminum coating on steel, so we can see that the EDS spectra is probing more than just the sample surface. It is detecting metallic iron in the bulk material. You keep missing the point. The point is concerning the Fe to O peak ratio and how you cannot rely on that as an indicator of the presence of "elemental iron" as Jones calls it.



But wait there's more... let's look at the FEMA WTC 7 report:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm

http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/7122/user20662pic89112400030.jpg

Do you see the similarity between the "FeO" EDS spectra in the FEMA WTC 7 report and the EDS spectra for the microspheres:?

http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/7476/wtcapndxcimg7.jpg

Now, are you going to deny that the FEMA EDS data from WTC 7 indicates "elemental" (metallic) iron too?

Come on... do not be ridiculous.... it is a steal sample.


For bonus points, let's note another amazing 9/11 "coincidence," EDS spectra from WTC 7 oxidized (of which NIST has no explanation, so it ignores) just so happens to be a good match to EDS spectra for the iron-rich microspheres produced by the nano-thermite found in WTC dust.

Gee, what a "coincidence"...Interesting - Notice that the FEMA spectra has Mn in proportion to the A36 steel composition and the microsphere sample doesn't. You can also see from this figure which looks identical to yours (that's because it's from the same material) but was taken from a different place (see fig 13 #1) and that place being the oxide layer that formed when the steel was heated

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/images/WTC_apndxC_img_14.jpg

shows for more in common with this, there's a slight indication of Mn at 5.9KeV on Jones' samples which hasn't been labelled. Note how the graph shares the same characteristics, the rise from 5.5KeV upto the silicon and then the tail off.

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=868

Which is the "gray layer" in Jones' chips.

Thanks Bofors you've just helped me show that the gray layer on Jones' chips is actually rust from A36 steel. You've also shown another source for microspheres and that's the gray layer.

I just love it when truthers help to debunk themselves. There's a delicious irony in it.

[Mr.D]

What makes you think this is about Jones' "homework"? Do you think every scientific paper begins with a historical survey of it's terminology, or a glossary? It's far more likely to give a brief review of the problem domain.


Don't you confuse Jones' self published book report with a real paper. He claims "super thermite" without ever explaining what "super thermite" spectra SHOULD look like, what properties it has or how it differs from regular thermite.

In other words he's claiming a result without ever showing evidence for it.

Ask him if he's ever figured out where those pesky neutrons went. You might learn something.

[Mr.D]

No, I agree here too. XEDS spectra should be collected from "known" samples of nano-thermites for comparison. But again this is something that can be done in the future.

You want a spectra to compare to AFTER the conclusion is made?

[tj15]

I don't know if this has been talked about on this thread, but a truther I debate brought this up... He claimed that it was suspicious that there were iron spheres in the dust.

Is it natural to find spheres?

[Sunstealer]

I don't know if this has been talked about on this thread, but a truther I debate brought this up... He claimed that it was suspicious that there were iron spheres in the dust.

Is it natural to find spheres?Yes you'll find all sorts of particulates in everyday dust. It's quite surprising what you can find. I used to sometimes do the clean room particle analysis using image analysis software to ensure that we were maintaining a high standard of cleanliness in our class 3 and class 2 clean rooms.

These spheres are in the background dust aswell, Jones acknowledges this. If you look at fly ash http://geography.lancs.ac.uk/cemp/atlas/anthro/j-matzka.htm which is a component in concrete and wall board you can clearly see iron rich microspheres.

[bofors]

I used to have a TEM expert as a lecturer, did lots of work for the MOD - they used to close off the two bottom floors and not permit anyone except him and the MOD bods down there for couple of days at a time.
...
No I'm a materials engineer with more than 10 years experience in the aerospace industry. Currently working for a well renowned jet engine manufacturer.

You are acknowledging that you have serious conflicts of interest. You are part of the British military-industrial-complex and profit from illegal wars based on lies.

Admitting that 9/11 and 7/7 were government staged, false flag operations would cost you your job and end your career. You obviously are not and can not be objective here, so you are practicing bad science.

You don't need research experience to read and understand Jones' paper...


Sorry, I think research experience is important in... umm... evaluating research. Do not be ridiculous.

By the way, why do you keep referring to Prof. Jones? Prof Harrit is the first author, are you afraid of him or what?


... or to know that it's basically junk.


Please... this is a very simple paper, using basic techniques which are taught in undergraduate materials science labs. There is really nothing to argue about here, they have found a nano-thermite material.

You are just complaining about the nature of EDS data and fabricating weak hypotheses because you the idea that 9/11 and 7/7 were staged, false flag operations conflicts with your brain-washing. It would not take anybody with clue about materials science research more than few minutes to take you apart.


I've already shown numerous problems with the paper and given some pretty good evidence that the red material is paint (containing Kaolinite) on rusted steel.


As I stated before, the only thing you have done that seemed to have any merit is shown that the red chip EDS spectra is similar to one published for Kaolinite. Again, even if the red chips did have some Kaolinite in it, so what? The presence of some Kaolinite would not somehow exclude thermite. Otherwise, since we both know that EDS spectra are ambiguous, your argument is weak.

Furthermore, I have now seen some other EDS spectra for Kaolinite which do not match the data from the red chips. I now doubt there is any Kaolinite at all in the red chips (I had thought there might be before).


You seem to have a permanent reading comprehension failure and misunderstand what I am saying when everyone else who reads it understands. If this is intentional you will go back onto ignore.


You seem to think that I reading everything you write. I have bad news for you, I am not.

I suggest you summarize your "theory" in a paper and post it.


I think that sample preparation might be a bit difficult for a TEM which typically requires a sample thickness below 100nm (0.1 microns).


Right, TEM sample preparation can be difficult, but you should also notice that US government nano-thermite researchers do it:
https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/318263.pdf

The other thing that could be interesting in TEM work here is triggering the reaction by converging the electron beam. You might be able to observe the the reaction and also get some electron diffraction from the microspheres post-reaction (hence positively identifying the iron-rich phase).


The best way is to contact 3 or 4 independent analytical materials services that will have a range of methods. XRD being the best if sample size isn't a problem. I've seen services that cost as $40 per sample for XRD.


For some reason, I am guessing you have no XRD experience either (again, your denial that research experience is important is absurd). I spent years doing XRD here: http://www.mse.engin.umich.edu/research/researchfacilities#xray and published my results in papers accepted by a quality peer-reviewed journal and elsewhere.

The type of XRD you are talking about requires about a 1000 times more of the red chip material than I think we can assume that authors have. So, I do not think XRD is a practical option here.


What I am saying is that there are more compounds than just iron oxide that can be formed in these spheres and therefore you cannot base evidence for αFe purely on the basis of the Fe to O peak ratio.


Harrit el al. are certainly not claiming the microspheres are metallic or elemental "purely on the basis Fe to O peak ratio."

It quite obvious that these microspheres are metallic ("elemental" iron) just from the optical properties captured in the photomicrograph. Just their obvious density alone would make it perfectly clear that they are metallic.

The idea Prof. Harrit could have misidentified these microspheres is preposterous. Any undergraduate materials science student would have easily figured it out (or flunked out).


You keep missing the point. The point is concerning the Fe to O peak ratio and how you cannot rely on that as an indicator of the presence of "elemental iron" as Jones calls it.


Sorry, I have repeatedly agreed that EDS spectra are ambiguous. You seem to think the "Fe to O peak ratio" is being exclusively relied upon here it. More bad news for you, it is not.


Thanks Bofors you've just helped me show that the gray layer on Jones' chips is actually rust from A36 steel. You've also shown another source for microspheres and that's the gray layer.


Make sure to add that part to the paper you are writing. It will be interesting to see what the faculty at the University of Strathclyde have to say about your "theories." What fraction of them do you think will sign a statement in support of your paper?


Now, let's try to wrap this nonsense up. Did you see Figure 24 & 25 in Harrit et al.?:

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/6640/edsthermite.jpg

The top image and spectra, Figure 24, is from reacted commercial thermite. Hence, there is no debating that those are iron-rich metallic ("elemental") microspheres. This is the standard or control experiment.

The bottom image and spectra, Figure 25, is from the reacted red chips. The EDS spectra are obviously comparable. In fact the only difference really worth mentioning here is that the "Fe to O peak ratio" from the reacted red chips is lower. This indicates that there is more "elemental" iron in the microspheres produced by the red-chips.

So, Figures 24 & 25 prove that you are absolutely wrong.

Your denial that the microspheres produced by the red chips contain metallic ("elemental") iron is based on pure nonsense (and ultimately nothing more than your sad need to trust your lying government).

[bofors]

You want a spectra to compare to AFTER the conclusion is made?

Yes, it is called "confirmation." Get a dictionary.

[Sunstealer]

You are acknowledging that you have serious conflicts of interest. You are part of the British military-industrial-complex and profit from illegal wars based on lies.

Admitting that 9/11 and 7/7 were government staged, false flag operations would cost you your job and end your career. You obviously are not and can not be objective here, so you are practicing bad science.Utter rubbish. Back onto the ignore you go.

[Redtail]

You are acknowledging that you have serious conflicts of interest. You are part of the British military-industrial-complex and profit from illegal wars based on lies.

Admitting that 9/11 and 7/7 were government staged, false flag operations would cost you your job and end your career. You obviously are not and can not be objective here, so you are practicing bad science.

No, no, no. This argument does not work. Never has. Doesn't work for scientist. Doesn't work for FDNY, for military, architects, engineers, etc, etc...
If somebody has real rock solid PROOF that 9/11 was done by the government, losing their job wouldn't mean a thing since even IF they didn't get the Nobel Prize, they would make millions on the lecture circuit alone.

To claim someone is afraid of loosing their job in this is a cop out pure and simple.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Yes, it is called "confirmation." Get a dictionary.


The paper is supposed to be the confirmation, not the other way around. You don't write a paper concluding that A, B, and C is proof of X, and then figure out what X actually is. That's so ass-backwards as to qualify as quack science.

Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you?

[bofors]

Utter rubbish. Back onto the ignore you go.

I am looking to reading your red-chips "theory" when it is written up.

You are not going to be afraid to put your real name on it, are you?

[bofors]

No, no, no. This argument does not work. Never has. Doesn't work for scientist. Doesn't work for FDNY, for military, architects, engineers, etc, etc...


No, the argument work fine as long your head is not stuck up your rectum.


If somebody has real rock solid PROOF that 9/11 was done by the government, losing their job wouldn't mean a thing since even IF they didn't get the Nobel Prize, they would make millions on the lecture circuit alone.


Oh, yet another interesting and convenient "theory." Please tell us, who determines what "real rock solid PROOF" is? Where is "rock solid PROOF" commission located?

Tell us why would the government and media be interested exposing that they themselves are corrupt, incompetent and ultimately terrorists?


To claim someone is afraid of loosing their job in this is a cop out pure and simple.

Prove it.

[bofors]

The paper is supposed to be the confirmation, not the other way around. You don't write a paper concluding that A, B, and C is proof of X, and then figure out what X actually is. That's so ass-backwards as to qualify as quack science.

Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you?

So you are arguing that I do not understand what scientific paper is supposed to be?

Is that it?

[fuelair]

Anyone have a rebuttal to the nano technology thing?
I really could give a crap less on the CTer feces BUT unless I badly misread (possible but not likely )this paper
:http://www.enme.umd.edu/~mrz/pdf_papers/2004_CM_FeO.pdf Nanothermite was still being developed, not operative three years after 2001

[Cl1mh4224rd]

So you are arguing that I do not understand what scientific paper is supposed to be?


My answer depends on a couple things:

1) Is my summary of your stance accurate? (Conclude that A, B, and C is proof of X, then figure out what X actually is.)

2) Do you believe the above is good science?

[Redtail]

No, the argument work fine as long your head is not stuck up your rectum.

No, it doesn't.



Oh, yet another interesting and convenient "theory." Please tell us, who determines what "real rock solid PROOF" is? Where is "rock solid PROOF" commission located? The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences would be a good one in this case.

Tell us why would the government and media be interested exposing that they themselves are corrupt, incompetent and ultimately terrorists?Yeah, because there is only one government and media outlet. It's not like you took this information to say China they'd do anything with it. They'd hate to show up America.



Prove it.

Letsee...

{Jones as serious conflicts of interest. He is part of the CT industry and profits from people's ignorance using theories based on lies.

Admitting that 9/11 and 7/7 were indeed the work of terrorists would cost him his job and end his career. He obviously is not and can not be objective here, so he is practicing bad science.}

Tah-dah!!!!

[bofors]

I really could give a crap less on the CTer feces BUT unless I badly misread (possible but not likely )this paper
:http://www.enme.umd.edu/~mrz/pdf_papers/2004_CM_FeO.pdf Nanothermite was still being developed, not operative three years after 2001

Wait a minute... you posted this same crap in the other thread. And did not respond to my question about it.

Did you even read that paper you are linking to?

I have some questions to ask you about your claims that it in any way show that nano-thermite was "not operative" in 2004.

[bofors]

Edited for rule 12.

[bofors]

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences would be a good one in this case.


How about we contact them and see how many of them will endorse NIST's reports on the WTC collapses?

What fraction do you think will? 1%?

What would you say if no one in the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences would go the record endorsing the NIST reports?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Removed reply to modded post.

[bofors]

I was expecting more from someone who claims such excellence for himself. What a shame...

Where have I claimed "such excellence"?

What are you talking about?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Where have I claimed "such excellence"?

What are you talking about?


Retracted. She my edited post.

[bofors]

Now, let's try to wrap this nonsense up. Did you see Figure 24 & 25 in Harrit et al.?:

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/6640/edsthermite.jpg

The top image and spectra, Figure 24, is from reacted commercial thermite. Hence, there is no debating that those are iron-rich metallic ("elemental") microspheres. This is the standard or control experiment.

The bottom image and spectra, Figure 25, is from the reacted red chips. The EDS spectra are obviously comparable. In fact the only difference really worth mentioning here is that the "Fe to O peak ratio" from the reacted red chips is lower. This indicates that there is more "elemental" iron in the microspheres produced by the red-chips.

So, Figures 24 & 25 prove that you are absolutely wrong.

Your denial that the microspheres produced by the red chips contain metallic ("elemental") iron is based on pure nonsense (and ultimately nothing more than your sad need to trust your lying government).

So not one of you JREF "debunking" clowns has anything to say about Figures 24 & 25?

You guys are getting weak.

[Arus808]

what? that you have spheres and they have a make up with the thousands of components found in two 110 story office buildings.


gee, what can we find in 110 story office buildings? a lot of things made up of thousands and thousands of different materials.

[Redtail]

How about we contact them and see how many of them will endorse NIST's reports on the WTC collapses?

Sure. Go ahead.

What fraction do you think will? 1%?

85-90%

What would you say if no one in the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences would go the record endorsing the NIST reports?

That I was wrong and that the NIST report was way off.

What will you say if 100% of them endorse the NIST reports?

[bofors]

what? that you have spheres and they have a make up with the thousands of components found in two 110 story office buildings.


gee, what can we find in 110 story office buildings? a lot of things made up of thousands and thousands of different materials.

Wait a minute... you are the guy who claims that nano-thermite doesn't even exist right?

That is, even though about 10 US government scientists have been publishing papers on it since 1999:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf

And even though nobody is this JREF ridiculous forum, agrees with you, right?

[bofors]

That I was wrong and that the NIST report was way off.


Awesome, you are one of few people here who shows any sign of intellectual sincerity.


What will you say if 100% of them endorse the NIST reports?

I'd say that something is well beyond rotten in Sweden.

But I spoke with Swedish government about two years ago, when I first learned about 9/11 Truth, a friend of mine's husband has a Ph.D. from the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm and works for the Swedish, so I am quite comfortable is asserting that almost nobody in the Academy will vouch for NIST.

However, I think I more likely to do a US poll first, starting the structural engineering faculty of University of Illinois (ranked #1 by US News). To do it right, I think a new website might be called for. But I would certainly want to poll the Swedes too.

[The Platypus]

The recipe of nanothermite seems simple enough...

It's part iron oxide, part aluminum, and a good heaping of male bovine manure.

Mix well.

Add more male bovine manure as needed depending on agenda.

[Red3]

So what did they find in the samples that should not be there?

[16.5]

You are acknowledging that you have serious conflicts of interest. You are part of the British military-industrial-complex and profit from illegal wars based on lies.

Admitting that 9/11 and 7/7 were government staged, false flag operations would cost you your job and end your career. You obviously are not and can not be objective here, so you are practicing bad science.

Folks this is classic example of and ad hominem fallacy.

As bofors goes on trying to commit suicide by mod, let us gaze on the continuing complete meltdown of the truth movement.

[T.A.M.]

Awesome, you are one of few people here who shows any sign of intellectual sincerity.



I'd say that something is well beyond rotten in Sweden.

But I spoke with Swedish government about two years ago, when I first learned about 9/11 Truth, a friend of mine's husband has a Ph.D. from the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm and works for the Swedish, so I am quite comfortable is asserting that almost nobody in the Academy will vouch for NIST.

However, I think I more likely to do a US poll first, starting the structural engineering faculty of University of Illinois (ranked #1 by US News). To do it right, I think a new website might be called for. But I would certainly want to poll the Swedes too.

The bolded highlights the difference between rational people and not.

Redtail said that if no one at the Academy would endorse it, that he would accept it and state that the NIST was way off.

But, when it is turned to bofors, what if they all endorse it? would he graciously accept it and move on? NO, if they all endorse it then there must be something wrong with them...because that would oppose his world view, and view of 9/11.

just asking questions...right?

TAM:)

[fuelair]

Wait a minute... you posted this same crap in the other thread. And did not respond to my question about it.

Did you even read that paper you are linking to?

I have some questions to ask you about your claims that it in any way show that nano-thermite was "not operative" in 2004.
I didn't read the thread after that - I find CT exceptionally ignorant (the c'ers, not the debunkers). Occasionally when it looks like there might be something interesting or blindingly beyond CTers usual incompetance I check in. I posted the paper because it is from a real science source and, unless I am missing something big it concerns developing coating for the nanoparticles to allow them to be properly applied in gels for use. Since the key is properly applied and this was 2004, it tends to indicate that whatever stage they may have been at in 2001 did not include the ability to be applied/used out side of lab conditions - if even that. Read the paper, respond whatever, I don't wrestle pigs (a literary reference, not an accusation) and I really don't care about you or your claims. Some people claimed no nanothermite -I provided source demonstrating A)there are but b)not working in 2001, c)still being worked on to let them work in 2004. Back to the real world now. Toodles.

ETA: Just in case we are not clear - if it was not possible to get the material applied to stucture in a way guaranteeing the integrity of the material and it's ability to be set off correctly and effectively then it is no better and possibly way worse than the really dumb idea of regular thermite/mate. Preparing the particles with coatings that let them be aerosol/gel applied AND be set off on command/ignition was (possibly still is)very necessary. Otherwise, think dust in wind - and extremely small dust particles (nano....) at that. Which means very small air flow gives large disturbance.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Hmm... Was it bofors that had an irrational hatred for engineers? I know one of the truther's so-called scientists had a huge chip on their shoulder when it came to real engineers.

[parky76]

what is it with conspiracy theorists and their compulsive need to make up new acronyms and words?

"MIHOP", "LIHOP", "OCT", "NPT", "nano-thermite", etc etc...

does it make them feel special? make them feel smart?

[tsig]

The bolded highlights the difference between rational people and not.

Redtail said that if no one at the Academy would endorse it, that he would accept it and state that the NIST was way off.

But, when it is turned to bofors, what if they all endorse it? would he graciously accept it and move on? NO, if they all endorse it then there must be something wrong with them...because that would oppose his world view, and view of 9/11.

just asking questions...right?

TAM:)

Asking questions...Ignoring answers.

[fuelair]

what is it with conspiracy theorists and their compulsive need to make up new acronyms and words?

"MIHOP", "LIHOP", "OCT", "NPT", "nano-thermite", etc etc...

does it make them feel special? make them feel smart?
per the article I posted (from a real legitimate source, not troofer feces) there is nanothermite BUT. See my post slightly above yours for general and further back where I site the paper.:)

I agree they should feel special - .

[Red3]

I don't understand the significance of iron rich microspheres; These are meant to be a product of a thermitic reaction? What else would cause these and what exactly are they?

[parky76]

Actually, the WTC steel WAS painted red!!

check out this quote, on page 29, of the NIST slide show

http://wtc.nist.gov/WTC_Conf_Sep13-15/session6/6McAllister.pdf


it says "red paint". so there

[tj15]

Nano thermite was not available in 2001? Is that true?

Also, I would be interested in seeing a debate between Bofors and Sunstealer. Both of them presenting their best arguments...

[Sunstealer]

Nano thermite was not available in 2001? Is that true?

Also, I would be interested in seeing a debate between Bofors and Sunstealer. Both of them presenting their best arguments...Bofors is on my ignore list. There is already a perfectly good moderated thread he can post in. I'm not going to waste my time responding to drivel. It's blindingly obvious that the samples Jones has are paint attached to rusted steel. There just isn't anymore debate in it. It's pointless to continue. I've already shown in a number of different ways that Jones' paper is junk. Just go check out metamars thread in the science forum and see what they say too.

The simple facts are if Dr Jones held up a banana and took some photos and said it was a super special sekrit nano-banana-thermite truthers would believe him completely. They just aren't worth debating with because they point blank refuse to read the masses of evidence stacked up against them and the fact that Jones is holding a banana. We'd end up with dozens of threads discussing the colour, the shape, does it taste of banana?, did bananas exist before 9/11, metamars would google banana and come up with alsorts of papers to do with bananas, etc, etc and round and round we'd dance.

[fuelair]

Nano thermite was not available in 2001? Is that true?

Also, I would be interested in seeing a debate between Bofors and Sunstealer. Both of them presenting their best arguments...I am trying to be as exact as I can based on the source I gave. As of 2004, the group doing that paper was researching/experimenting with coating for the nano-particles (mostly spoke of the aluminum) to allow them to be sprayed in place (aerosol/gel) and be able to undergo the thermite reaction. I am willing to assume that Livermore or others were working on the (obviously the much greater surface area of nano particles would tend to mean a faster, more effective burn - and possibly hotter one) stuff in 2001 - but the article implies that a workable form was still in process, not already available - meaning it could not have been involved in 2001 even if thermite/mate had been used - and since the evidence precludes regular thermite........

[R.Mackey]

Also, for what it's worth the few partial hypotheses offered so far seem to include applying this material underneath the fireproofing upgrade, so that means it would have been reduced to practice before 2000.

Not impossible, but it's another point of difficulty for an already preposterous idea.

[George152]

Wait a minute... you are the guy who claims that nano-thermite doesn't even exist right?

That is, even though about 10 US government scientists have been publishing papers on it since 1999:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf

And even though nobody is this JREF ridiculous forum, agrees with you, right?

You really have to get away from kook sites.
Didn't "www.journalof911studies.com" cause you to any concern as to the veracity of the site ?

[16.5]

Nano thermite was not available in 2001? Is that true?

Also, I would be interested in seeing a debate between Bofors and Sunstealer. Both of them presenting their best arguments...

Are you freaking kidding me? Bofors is a troll. Here are a few of his choice quotes from this thread:

"Awesome, you are one of few people here who shows any sign of intellectual sincerity."

"You are acknowledging that you have serious conflicts of interest. You are part of the British military-industrial-complex and profit from illegal wars based on lies. Admitting that 9/11 and 7/7 were government staged, false flag operations would cost you your job and end your career. You obviously are not and can not be objective here, so you are practicing bad science."

"And even though nobody is this JREF ridiculous forum, agrees with you, right?"

"So not one of you JREF "debunking" clowns has anything to say about Figures 24 & 25?
You guys are getting weak."

Ignore the troll folks.

[Redtail]

Awesome, you are one of few people here who shows any sign of intellectual sincerity.

Cool.



I'd say that something is well beyond rotten in Sweden. Why?

But I spoke with Swedish government about two years ago, when I first learned about 9/11 Truth, a friend of mine's husband has a Ph.D. from the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm and works for the Swedish, so I am quite comfortable is asserting that almost nobody in the Academy will vouch for NIST.Really? That's odd because one of my best friends had a shot Cern
and he says the above is wrong.... Can
you prove what you say?

However, I think I more likely to do a US poll first, starting the structural engineering faculty of University of Illinois (ranked #1 by US News). To do it right, I think a new website might be called for. But I would certainly want to poll the Swedes too.
And you haven't done that... because?

[Disbelief]

I met him a few times, but he seemed to be more of a bureaucrat or an administrator than an active scientist to me. I see he got his Ph.D. at UMass-Amherst in Polymer Science & Engineering. That is the top polymer program in the USA (where my advisor David Martin got his Ph.D. too) and that counts for something. But in no way does it make someone a first rate scientist. I know at least 2 other people with Ph.D's from that program who I would call third rate (and I would call David Martin second rate). Otherwise, I have never looked at the details of Wade Adams' scientific career.

But let's stay on topic here...

Wonder if your professor will comment on this, as I contacted him and linked to this thread. He told me that he was unable and uninterested in delving into this, as it was outside his area of expertise, and I told him that I would not contact him again. I invited him to participate, but I do not expect him to do so.

[DavidJames]

He told me that he was unable and uninterested in delving into this, as it was outside his area of expertise...If 9/11 CTists adopted that position, there would be no 9/11 CTists.

[bracco]

Hi everybody,

maybe you might be interested in the following article, written in English, about the claims recently made by Niels H. Harrit and al.

"Active Thermitic Material" Claimed in Ground Zero Dust May Not Be Thermitic At All"

undicisettembre.blogspot.com/

Regards

[Arus808]

hi Bracco, THANks for that link. I believe Henry62 is a regular member here as well.

For the lazy:
http://undicisettembre.blogspot.com