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

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by AZCat

I think we need to find out if this MSDS is accurate for the primer as it was applied in the late 1960's.

absolutely, as the Zinc Yellow used back then, may be different then the one used now, as could other components.

TAM

[ElMondoHummus]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

Here we disagree.

While you are correct, that the overhanging point is that this was piss poor science, and for that alone should be dismissed, it is important to show how likely this is to be paint, as it was (A) a common element within the towers, that should have been considered by Jones, and (B) a common component found in other samples of the WTC dust as shown by other independent analysis of the WTC dust, that seemingly is MISSING or NOT REPORTED by Jones et al in their "paper".

TAM

I dunno, TAM... part of me is sympathetic to that line of pursuit. But the rest of me believes that it's not our burden to prove what it ultimately is. Rather, it's enough to illustrate what it isn't, and point out the fact that their own data shows it's not.

What I was also trying to do was snap people's focus away from deeper and deeper minituae. It's all too possible to fall into a can't-see-forest-for-the-trees trap, and that allows lurkers (and some participants) to walk away believing there's general uncertainty in the overall assertion against thermite when in fact there was only specific debate over whether it's paint, what kind of paint could it have been, yadda yadda... does that make sense?

Right now, I feel that unless it's done with specificity (like what Sunstealer was doing), the issue of it being paint seems to be more a distraction leading posters to bicker ("It's not paint", "Jones has proven it's not", "Why don't you prove it's paint"), and not a more likely alternative leading people to understand the weakness of the Bentham paper. Meh... I dunno... maybe I'll feel differently about this tomorrow...

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by orphia nay

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

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

I found the paper.

http://www.ehponline.org/members/200...lioy-full.html

Quote:

We used SEM and TEM to examine chrysotile asbestos fibers, lead paint fragments, iron-chromium particles, and soot particles found in the < 75-µm fraction.

There's a contact email address, but I'm a bit vague about SEM and TEM, and chemistry in general to be asking questions of a scientist. Perhaps someone else might be interested.

[AZCat]

Originally Posted by boloboffin

Hey, by the way, is anyone else not seeing this thread anymore in the 9/11 Conspiracy Forum page? It's obviously still here at JREF, but I have been missing it in the lists of threads in this forums.

I'm posting this to alert mods about the situation.

I still see it.

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus

I dunno, TAM... part of me is sympathetic to that line of pursuit. But the rest of me believes that it's not our burden to prove what it ultimately is. Rather, it's enough to illustrate what it isn't, and point out the fact that their own data shows it's not.

What I was also trying to do was snap people's focus away from deeper and deeper minituae. It's all too possible to fall into a can't-see-forest-for-the-trees trap, and that allows lurkers (and some participants) to walk away believing there's general uncertainty in the overall assertion against thermite when in fact there was only specific debate over whether it's paint, what kind of paint could it have been, yadda yadda... does that make sense?

Right now, I feel that unless it's done with specificity (like what Sunstealer was doing), the issue of it being paint seems to be more a distraction leading posters to bicker ("It's not paint", "Jones has proven it's not", "Why don't you prove it's paint"), and not a more likely alternative leading people to understand the weakness of the Bentham paper. Meh... I dunno... maybe I'll feel differently about this tomorrow...

I see your point. This is what I would say.

You have seen me post a number of times that for the most part I comment only now...very little debunking. You have also seen my explanation for that, which is that there has been nothing new. Now while the theory Jones is proposing is not new, his paper is. For that reason I feel I should at least try to address some of the things within it, in what ever little way I can. While I do not think there are many undecided lurkers left, I think we owe it to those few that are, to show them how poor Jone's science is, in what ever ways we can.

TAM

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by orphia nay

I found the paper.

http://www.ehponline.org/members/200...lioy-full.html



There's a contact email address, but I'm a bit vague about SEM and TEM, and chemistry in general to be asking questions of a scientist. Perhaps someone else might be interested.

Sunstealer seems to know what he is talking about, as does Mackey. Perhaps one of them might approach via email.

TAM

[J. Edward Tremlett]

Originally Posted by terl

I am neither a truther nor a scientist or engineer. But, the picture on the left looks like a slice of ham and the pictures on the right look like chunks of beef. What does it mean?

It's time for dinner.

[ElMondoHummus]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

I see your point. This is what I would say.

You have seen me post a number of times that for the most part I comment only now...very little debunking. You have also seen my explanation for that, which is that there has been nothing new. Now while the theory Jones is proposing is not new, his paper is. For that reason I feel I should at least try to address some of the things within it, in what ever little way I can. While I do not think there are many undecided lurkers left, I think we owe it to those few that are, to show them how poor Jone's science is, in what ever ways we can.

TAM

All right. Fair enough. I've made that same argument myself in the past, so it would be stupid to argue against it now. Besides, I'm not so wedded to my position that I can't be talked out of it.

[boloboffin]

Originally Posted by AZCat

I still see it.

Oh, duh, I just put the OP on ignore. That's why the thread disappeared for me.

[bill smith]

he red part of the splinter contain carbon, oxygen, aluminum, silicon and iron, while the gray only contains iron and oxygen. Splinter are magnetic.
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?...90406135508204

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by bill smith

he red part of the splinter contain carbon, oxygen, aluminum, silicon and iron,

Which absolutely MUST be in paint, but seem ratrher odd for thermite.

Quote:

while the gray only contains iron and oxygen. Splinter are magnetic.
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?...90406135508204

Which is consistant with its having been applied over slightly oxidized steel.

[bill smith]

Originally Posted by bill smith

he red part of the splinter contain carbon, oxygen, aluminum, silicon and iron, while the gray only contains iron and oxygen. Splinter are magnetic.
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?...90406135508204

'...only contains iron and oxygen'. It sounds like rust...but it is grey. There must be something more to it. I'd like to know a lot more about that grey material.

[T.A.M.]

It is not really grey, so much as a dark metallic color. I always found the use of "grey" in this context to be odd.

TAM

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by bill smith

'...only contains iron and oxygen'. It sounds like rust...but it is grey. There must be something more to it. I'd like to know a lot more about that grey material.

Some oxides of iron are black. Ever seen hematite jewelry?

[bill smith]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

It is not really grey, so much as a dark metallic color. I always found the use of "grey" in this context to be odd.

TAM

If he really means that there was only iron and oxygen surely the colour would be more red than grey. I saw a video that said when particle size is reduced to nano-levels that the natural colour can change. Maybe it's got nano properties. I also wonder if ALL the nano thermite they recovered was exclusively backed with the grey material or if some of it was loose and unbacked.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by thewholesoul

no need to be rude Dave. its a valid question. the red chips release a lot of energy for their mass.

Which is the reason why it's not a valid question. High energy release per unit mass suggests that the chips don't contain the oxygen needed for combustion, because that tends to limit the energy density. Higher energy release per unit mass than TNT suggests that the material isn't thermite.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul

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

Again, this has been corrected several times in this thread. The energy density of "super thermite" is exactly the same as that of the same thermite composition with a greater particle size. The only difference in "super thermite" is that the energy is released faster, but that isn't what Jones is testing. Therefore, higher energy density argues against "super thermite" to exactly the same degree that it argues against thermite. This is basic chemistry.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul

peace and please try to remain polite in future exchanges.

In return, would you try to avoid asking questions that have been answered multiple times in the thread?

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by bill smith

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

That's the most telling quote I've ever seen from a truther. It's all about starting from a belief and looking for reinforcement, not about seeking the truth objectively.

Dave

[ElMondoHummus]

Originally Posted by boloboffin

Oh, duh, I just put the OP on ignore. That's why the thread disappeared for me.

D'oh!

[bill smith]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

That's the most telling quote I've ever seen from a truther. It's all about starting from a belief and looking for reinforcement, not about seeking the truth objectively.

Dave

It was ever thus Dave. Did you think we were starting from a point of not having a very good idea who had carried out 9/11 ? '9/11 Truth', at least from my point of view means exposing the real Truth about 9/11.
I do not claim to be impartial but in my own interest I try to be objective. That doesn't mean I won't try on a hypothesis for size however..

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by bill smith

It was ever thus Dave. Did you think we were starting from a point of not having a very good idea who had carried out 9/11 ?

On the contrary, I thought you were starting from a point of total certainty as to who carried out 9/11 before even looking at the evidence. That's not something to be proud of.

Originally Posted by bill smith

'9/11 Truth', at least from my point of view means exposing the real Truth about 9/11.

Absolute rubbish. '9/11 Truth' from your point of view is about starting from an unfailing belief that 9/11 was an inside job, then re-interpreting whatever evidence you find so as to reinforce that belief. If you were truly seeking to expose the real truth, your beliefs would be a conclusion, not a starting point.

Originally Posted by bill smith

I do not claim to be impartial but in my own interest I try to be objective. That doesn't mean I won't try on a hypothesis for size however..

As long as it involves 9/11 being an inside job, since you've decided reality doesn't fit you.

Dave

[16.5]

Originally Posted by A W Smith

Hey Jonesie!
What happened to independent quantitative corroboration from back in 2007???
http://911blogger.com/node/13090?page=1


Hey Jonesie!
What happened to these "independent results" from Dec 2007?
http://911blogger.com/node/13090


Hey Jonesie!
Why did you avoid mainstream technical journals. to "explore other avenues"??
http://911blogger.com/node/13090?page=1


Hey Jonesie!
Why did you not bother to test paint from the WTC?
http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g1...d-At-Birth.jpg

Oh Hi, to all our friends at 911 Blogger, and in particular, a warm welcome to Dr. Jones himself, I'd just thought I bump this post.

[A W Smith]

Originally Posted by bill smith

It was ever thus Dave. Did you think we were starting from a point of not having a very good idea who had carried out 9/11 ? '9/11 Truth', at least from my point of view means exposing the real Truth about 9/11.
I do not claim to be impartial but in my own interest I try to be objective. That doesn't mean I won't try on a hypothesis for size however..

my bolding
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

[A W Smith]

Originally Posted by Lenbrazil

4) As per the new fireproofing being applied over the old, I assume whoever said that is right but do you have a reference?

http://www.911blogger.com/node/19271

which links to this file
http://www.911podcasts.com/files/doc...reproofing.zip

Reviewed it last night which pretty much shows construction/renovation/sampling documents that show consistency/thickness/weight per cu ft results and draws attention to areas of concern re:spots missing existing fireproofing. Nowhere does it state procedures for removal of fire protection. just mitigation of any perceived loss of protection during renovation. Removal of ANY spray on fireproofing in an occupied structure during renovations is a big no no in the construction industry. It exposes the steel to potential fire hazards which are often more likely to occur during the renovation itself. Especially exposed because of the removal of suspended ceilings which are themselves always fire rated in a commercial building. Things that can cause a fire during renovation include, Solvent flash fires, Heat gun coming in contact with a combustible during a vinyl tile removal, Plumbers torch, electrical hazard. etc.

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by ConspiracyKiller

@Sunstealer & T.A.M.

I found the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for Tnemec's Series 010 Red Primer http://www.tnemec.com/resources/product/msds/m10v.pdf

Just a note about the Zinc in this primer.

It lists Zinc Compounds, as 2.98% by weight, but we must not forget that those compounds are not pure zinc, but complex molecules of Zinc Chromate, so the amount of Zinc would be even less, but still present, none the less.

TAM

[T.A.M.]

If professor Jones is reading this forum, I have the following questions,

1. Why was the tnemec primer used on the WTC beams not tested, with reference to the spectral analysis, in order to rule it in, or out, as a possible source for the red chips. There is photographic evidence in the NIST REPORT of a substance that at least on a macro level, looks incredibly similar to the "red chips" being claimed as a thermitic substance.

2. Why were the specimens of red chips not taken and examined both unwashed (as done) and after washing (not done) to see if the alleged surface contaminates were in fact contaminates, and not part of the chips themselves?

TAM

[bill smith]

Originally Posted by A W Smith

http://www.911blogger.com/node/19271

which links to this file
http://www.911podcasts.com/files/doc...reproofing.zip

Reviewed it last night which pretty much shows construction/renovation/sampling documents that show consistency/thickness/weight per cu ft results and draws attention to areas of concern re:spots missing existing fireproofing. Nowhere does it state procedures for removal of fire protection. just mitigation of any perceived loss of protection during renovation. Removal of ANY spray on fireproofing in an occupied structure during renovations is a big no no in the construction industry. It exposes the steel to potential fire hazards which are often more likely to occur during the renovation itself. Especially exposed because of the removal of suspended ceilings which are themselves always fire rated in a commercial building. Things that can cause a fire during renovation include, Solvent flash fires, Heat gun coming in contact with a combustible during a vinyl tile removal, Plumbers torch, electrical hazard. etc.

Did you happen to notice which floors of WTC1 received a fireproofing upgrade ?

[tfk]

Originally Posted by bill smith

One billionth of a meter or 100,000 times thinner than a hair off the top of your head. Properties can change at this level. Less inside- more outside. More surface area. nd all that good stuff.

No, bill.

"Nano" does not mean "a billionth of a meter. That would be "nanometer".

Nano doesn't even mean "small". A "nano-light year" is not a short length.

It just means "billionth".

Your question, "does it have 'nano' properties"...

Absolutely it does. It has the EXACTLY the "nano properties" of a chunk of the same stuff that is a billion times bigger.

[A W Smith]

Originally Posted by bill smith

Did you happen to notice which floors of WTC1 received a fireproofing upgrade ?

Its irrelevant since the document proves that no spray on fireproofing was removed

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by bill smith

Did you happen to notice which floors of WTC1 received a fireproofing upgrade ?

All the impact floors in WTC1 had been upgraded, but only one of the impact floors in WTC2. I haven't done any statistical analysis, but it looks like there's a pretty obvious absence of correlation either way between fireproofing upgrades and impact floors, upgrades and fire locations, and upgrades and collapse initiation zones, so long as you look at both towers rather than cherry-picking WTC1 and ignoring WTC2. I see from PrisonPlanet that Kevin Ryan tried to make it look a little more correlated by stretching the WTC2 impact zone down a bit to include one more upgraded floor, but as far as I recall 78 was the lowest floor hit, not 77.

Now, your comment was?

Dave

[bill smith]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

All the impact floors in WTC1 had been upgraded, but only one of the impact floors in WTC2. I haven't done any statistical analysis, but it looks like there's a pretty obvious absence of correlation either way between fireproofing upgrades and impact floors, upgrades and fire locations, and upgrades and collapse initiation zones, so long as you look at both towers rather than cherry-picking WTC1 and ignoring WTC2. I see from PrisonPlanet that Kevin Ryan tried to make it look a little more correlated by stretching the WTC2 impact zone down a bit to include one more upgraded floor, but as far as I recall 78 was the lowest floor hit, not 77.

Now, your comment was?



Dave

Kevin Ryan said something about the only floors in WTC1 that had had a fireproofing upgrade were the ones that suffered the impact or had any longer lasting or fiercer fires. Is that true ? It's a very remarkable coincidence if it is.

[bill smith]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

All the impact floors in WTC1 had been upgraded, but only one of the impact floors in WTC2. I haven't done any statistical analysis, but it looks like there's a pretty obvious absence of correlation either way between fireproofing upgrades and impact floors, upgrades and fire locations, and upgrades and collapse initiation zones, so long as you look at both towers rather than cherry-picking WTC1 and ignoring WTC2. I see from PrisonPlanet that Kevin Ryan tried to make it look a little more correlated by stretching the WTC2 impact zone down a bit to include one more upgraded floor, but as far as I recall 78 was the lowest floor hit, not 77.

Now, your comment was?

Dave

the Twins were not identical twins. It's worth bearing that in mind.

[metamars]

Originally Posted by tfk

Your question, "does it have 'nano' properties"...

Absolutely it does. It has the EXACTLY the "nano properties" of a chunk of the same stuff that is a billion times bigger.

In terms of at least some thermite reactions, this is complete and utter nonsense. Anybody's who is interested in the effect of scale on properties of thermite would do well to check out MODELING THE MELT DISPERSION MECHANISM FOR NANOPARTICLE COMBUSTION

From the Conclusion section

Quote:

It was shown that flame propagation velocity
depends sensitively on relative particle size, the relative particle size distribution, and
oxide shell formation temperature. It was also shown to depend upon particle size, oxide
shell thickness, and oxide shell strength, but not as sensitively.

Section 1.2 and 1.3 are well worth reading.

[A W Smith]

Originally Posted by bill smith

the Twins were not identical twins. It's worth bearing that in mind.

Perhaps you can point out the substantial differences between the two towers then? I know of a few details but lets see how much you know about them. You have five minutes.

[bill smith]

Originally Posted by A W Smith

Perhaps you can point out the substantial differences between the two towers then? I know of a few details but lets see how much you know about them. You have five minutes.

I know that at least some of he core columns in WTC1 were only 37 feet from the North perimeter wall where the plane went in. I think that was 60 feet in WTC2. A substantial difference That will do you for now.lol. Mere seconds too....

[boloboffin]

Originally Posted by bill smith

Kevin Ryan said something about the only floors in WTC1 that had had a fireproofing upgrade were the ones that suffered the impact or had any longer lasting or fiercer fires. Is that true ? It's a very remarkable coincidence if it is.

That's yet another example of how Kevin Ryan is a LYING LIAR. It's not true at all.

[Gamolon]

Originally Posted by bill smith

I know that at least some of he core colmns in WTC1 were only 37 feet from the North perimeter wall where the plane went in. I think that was 60 feet in WTC2. A substantial difference That will do you for now.lol. Mere seconds too....

That's because the cores were turned 90 degress from one another. Both towers' long axis walls of the core were about 60 feet from the perimeter walls and both towers' short axis walls of the core were about 37 feet from the perimeter walls.

[boloboffin]

Originally Posted by bill smith

I know that at least some of he core colmns in WTC1 were only 37 feet from the North perimeter wall where the plane went in. I think that was 60 feet in WTC2. A substantial difference That will do you for now.lol. Mere seconds too....

Oh, this is cute. The cores were rectangles in the square perimeter tubes. The long edge in one tower went North-South, and in the other went East-West. So one difference is that the basic design was built 90 degrees different. How does that change the actual structure, bill?

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by bill smith

Kevin Ryan said something about the only floors in WTC1 that had had a fireproofing upgrade were the ones that suffered the impact or had any longer lasting or fiercer fires. Is that true ? It's a very remarkable coincidence if it is.

(a) It isn't true. (b) Even if it were, it would be rendered entirely unremarkable by the fact that all but one of the WTC2 impact floors weren't upgraded, unless the Impossibly Vast Evil Conspiracy decided, for reasons only imaginable to the mind of a budding Dr. Evil, to demolish the two WTC towers in different ways. Still, why have an impossibly complicated conspiracy when you can figure out a way to make it twice as complicated?

Originally Posted by bill smith

I know that at least some of he core colmns in WTC1 were only 37 feet from the North perimeter wall where the plane went in. I think that was 60 feet in WTC2. A substantial difference That will do you for now.lol. Mere seconds too....

When you find out why that's an epic fail, you might even find it funny yourself.

Dave

[bill smith]

Originally Posted by boloboffin

That's yet another example of how Kevin Ryan is a LYING LIAR. It's not true at all.

Ask Dave for confirmtion one way or the other...

[A W Smith]

Originally Posted by bill smith

I know that at least some of he core columns in WTC1 were only 37 feet from the North perimeter wall where the plane went in. I think that was 60 feet in WTC2. A substantial difference That will do you for now.lol. Mere seconds too....

Thats nothing more than core/building orientation. Turn one of the towers 90 degrees and they are identical. The planes are not a part of the structure so regardless of where they impacted does not make the buildings themselves different. But there are a few other small differences. (in the buildings themselves) Care to point them out?


edit,
heres a clue to one of the differences. one of the towers is a bit taller than the other. explain why. (has nothing to do with the lack of, or the inclusion of the antenna.)