JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Tags 911 conspiracy theory , thermite , wtc1 , wtc2

Closed Thread
Old 5th April 2009, 11:13 AM   #281
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
R.Mackey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: The armpit of L.A.
Posts: 7,857
What a bizarre thread. It's like all the Truthers jumped in here like passengers rushing to the last lifeboat, as the Truth Movement turns turtle.

I noted just yesterday -- oh, six pages ago -- that Dr. Jones's own data proves the stuff is not thermite. I don't know what it is (I still maintain it is probably paint), but it for sure isn't thermite.

Others have found two of these features already. There are more. Give it a look, and we can compile a nice, short list.

Also, to metamars, I approve of your attempt to quantify the problem. I don't agree with your numbers, but you are trying to do the right thing and I wish others would react accordingly rather than just light you up for it.

If you want to redo those calculations, there's two things to keep in mind: (1) The thickness proposed by Dr. Jones is roughly 20 microns, no more than that; and (2) a coating over the surface of the steel cannot be focused onto a 1/4 kg section of the steel. The latter assumption is the source of your 2% mass-fraction estimate, and it's a bad assumption.

Running my own rough numbers, if we assume the most vulnerable of all columns -- a minumum thickness perimeter column, which is a box column 356 mm on a side and 6.35 mm (0.25 in) thick -- consider a 20 micron coating of the nanodoubletalk put onto all sides, which is impossible, but let's go with the worst case. The alleged nanostuff has an energy content of about 7 kJ/g (using the highest of his WILDLY varying four samples), and assuming thermite has a specific gravity of about 4, means 28 kJ/cm3.

The total amount of "film" would be 4 x 356 mm x 0.020 mm = 28.48 mm2 per unit length, or 28.48 cm3 per meter of column, with an energy content of 797 KJ per meter of column.

The column, in contrast, has 4 x 356 mm x 6.35 mm of steel per meter, or 9042 mm2 per unit length, or 9042 cm3 per meter of column. At 7.85 g/cm3 this means the column mass is 71 kg/meter.

Steel heat capacity is roughly 460 J / (kg K). So the nanocrap would heat the steel column by (797 kJ/meter) / [(460 J / kg K) (71 kg/meter)] = 24 Kelvins, or 24oC.

Again, this is the optimal case -- thinnest and weakest column, total application on all four sides, most optimistic energy content estimate, and 100% efficiency in applying heat to steel. From this, we reason that in order to be effective, we need at least 16 times the thickness to have any useful effect even on the weakest of columns, even with utterly reliable and efficient ignition and adherence to the column while burning.

There are no such samples to be found. Paper's full of crap. QED.
__________________
"Nothing real can defeat us. Nothing unreal exists." -B. Banzai

VT VENIANT OMNES

Last edited by R.Mackey; 5th April 2009 at 11:23 AM. Reason: pesky factor of 10
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th April 2009, 11:17 AM   #282
Galileo
Illuminator
 
Galileo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Middleton, WI
Posts: 3,368
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
What a bizarre thread. It's like all the Truthers jumped in here like passengers rushing to the last lifeboat, as the Truth Movement turns turtle.

I noted just yesterday -- oh, six pages ago -- that Dr. Jones's own data proves the stuff is not thermite. I don't know what it is (I still maintain it is probably paint), but it for sure isn't thermite.

Others have found two of these features already. There are more. Give it a look, and we can compile a nice, short list.

Also, to metamars, I approve of your attempt to quantify the problem. I don't agree with your numbers, but you are trying to do the right thing and I wish others would react accordingly rather than just light you up for it.

If you want to redo those calculations, there's two things to keep in mind: (1) The thickness proposed by Dr. Jones is roughly 20 microns, no more than that; and (2) a coating over the surface of the steel cannot be focused onto a 1/4 kg section of the steel. The latter assumption is the source of your 2% mass-fraction estimate, and it's a bad assumption.

Running my own rough numbers, if we assume the most vulnerable of all columns -- a minumum thickness perimeter column, which is a box column 356mm on a side and 6.35mm (0.25 in) thick -- consider a 20 micron coating of the nanodoubletalk put onto all sides, which is impossible, but let's go with the worst case. The alleged nanostuff has an energy content of about 7 kJ/g (using the highest of his WILDLY varying four samples), and assuming thermite has a specific gravity of about 4, means 28 kJ/cm3.

The total amount of "film" would be 4 x 356 mm x 0.020 mm = 28.48 mm2 per unit length, or 2.848 cm3 per meter of column, with an energy content of 79.7 KJ per meter of column.

The column, in contrast, has 4 x 356 mm x 6.35 mm of steel per meter, or 9042 mm2 per unit length, or 904 cm3 per meter of column. At 7.85 g/cm3 this means the column mass is 7.1 kg/meter.

Steel heat capacity is roughly 460 J / (kg K). So the nanocrap would heat the steel column by (79.7 kJ/meter) / [(460 J / kg K) (7.1 kg/meter)] = 24 Kelvins, or 24oC.

Again, this is the optimal case -- thinnest and weakest column, total application on all four sides, most optimistic energy content estimate, and 100% efficiency in applying heat to steel. From this, we reason that in order to be effective, we need at least 16 times the thickness to have any useful effect even on the weakest of columns, even with utterly reliable and efficient ignition and adherence to the column while burning.

There are no such samples to be found. Paper's full of crap. QED.
There were 8 other scientists on the study who confirmed Jones was right.

It is now a proven scientific fact that thermite was used to desroy the WTC.
Galileo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th April 2009, 11:20 AM   #283
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Montréal
Posts: 25,831
Galileo must be spinning in his grave right now.
Pardalis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th April 2009, 11:21 AM   #284
dtugg
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NWO headquarters
Posts: 7,898
Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
There were 8 other scientists on the study who confirmed Jones was right.

It is now a proven scientific fact that thermite was used to desroy the WTC.
Well, you are the clone of the great Galileo Galilei so I guess you must be right.
dtugg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th April 2009, 11:21 AM   #285
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 21,398
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
...There are no such samples to be found. Paper's full of crap. QED.
It is worse; Hoffman has taken this and put it in the ceiling tiles; something like 300,000 ceiling tiles in the WTC at and below the impact zones.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/t..._scenario.html

Building stupid on stupid 911Truth digs deeper into the pit of ignorance now 7 plus years deep and filled with stupid.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th April 2009, 11:29 AM   #286
Gaspode
Indestructible
Moderator
 
Gaspode's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 2,592
Mod WarningDerail removed.

Keep on-topic please. Report off-topic posts rather than respond to them. Thanks.
Posted By:Gaspode
Gaspode is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th April 2009, 11:48 AM   #287
BCR
Master Poster
 
BCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Memphis
Posts: 2,271
Originally Posted by James Redford View Post
They are almost an exact match. Due to differences in chemical composition of the different samples of thermite (i.e., between the commercial thermite and the flakes of thermite in the W.T.C. dust), no rational chemist or physicist expects them to be an exact match. But both spectrograms show the signature of reacted aluminothermics: the major peaks of both are exactly what one expects to find from the aluminothermic reaction.

Thermites represent a large class of compositions which can be, in practical terms, endlessly varied, which depending on the particular composition of the thermite analogue will result in somewhat different spectrograms.

But there is no doubt that these red/gray flakes are thermite, since they have the chemical make-up of thermite and undergo the thermite reaction. So by definition they are thermite. Indeed, these flakes give off a higher energy reaction than common thermite due to their nanometer-range sized particles, so not only are they thermite, but they are a very advanced form of thermite known as super-thermite (also called nano-thermite).
I am not a chemist, but I do qualify as a "physics expert" and the peaks DO NOT MATCH. If I'm bored later, I might just do an overlay and show you how they don't match. Only an untrained eye would say they matched in any form what-so-ever.
__________________
"Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM
BCR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th April 2009, 12:02 PM   #288
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 21,398
Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
There were 8 other scientists on the study who confirmed Jones was right.

It is now a proven scientific fact that thermite was used to desroy the WTC.
The paper proves the fact that the 8 other scientists are dolts on the issue too. You have proven you don’t understand the subject matter. Please state in your own words how it was done. How was thermite used to destroy the WTC tower; details please?

You can’t do it; you can’t explain how it was done due to what reason? Help out JR below and present the new formula for extra heat from thermite.

Last edited by beachnut; 5th April 2009 at 12:18 PM. Reason: what do you really mean; should have taken chemistry?
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th April 2009, 12:16 PM   #289
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 21,398
Originally Posted by James Redford View Post
...
But there is no doubt that these red/gray flakes are thermite, since they have the chemical make-up of thermite and undergo the thermite reaction. So by definition they are thermite. Indeed, these flakes give off a higher energy reaction than common thermite due to their nanometer-range sized particles, so not only are they thermite, but they are a very advanced form of thermite known as super-thermite (also called nano-thermite).
Pure claptrap.

Please show the equation for the release of energy of this super nano woo Dr Jones delusional thermite.

You can't. No doubt you are full of junk ideas too.

Just post the new higher energy of using chemistry notation to show how they get extra heat energy. Show the new equation for extra energy. This is going to be cool.

What were the Ca and the Si for in the spectra you have not adopted for your apologies for terrorists and terrorism? Why are you joining the delusion and lies of 911Truth?

I can’t wait to see how you have changed chemistry and got extra energy out of a known chemical reaction. Is it magic? Is it just a lie? Is it wishful thinking?

Just jot down the formula, display the equation. Can you do that, or are you repeating the bs from the paper due to gullibility?

BTW, some of the flakes gave off less heat; oops

bet you want to say faster rate of reaction, not more total heat... just some help; saved you having to post more crap

Last edited by beachnut; 5th April 2009 at 12:26 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th April 2009, 12:24 PM   #290
BigAl
Philosopher
 
BigAl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by James Redford View Post
... Indeed, these flakes give off a higher energy reaction than common thermite due to their nanometer-range sized particles, so not only are they thermite, but they are a very advanced form of thermite known as super-thermite (also called nano-thermite).
Nano-thermite goes BOOM. Nobody heard BOOM at WTC.
__________________
------
Eric Pode of Croydon
Chief Assistant to the Assistance Chief,
Dept of Redundancy Dept.
BigAl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th April 2009, 12:53 PM   #291
Galileo
Illuminator
 
Galileo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Middleton, WI
Posts: 3,368
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
What a bizarre thread. It's like all the Truthers jumped in here like passengers rushing to the last lifeboat, as the Truth Movement turns turtle.

I noted just yesterday -- oh, six pages ago -- that Dr. Jones's own data proves the stuff is not thermite. I don't know what it is (I still maintain it is probably paint), but it for sure isn't thermite.

Others have found two of these features already. There are more. Give it a look, and we can compile a nice, short list.

Also, to metamars, I approve of your attempt to quantify the problem. I don't agree with your numbers, but you are trying to do the right thing and I wish others would react accordingly rather than just light you up for it.

If you want to redo those calculations, there's two things to keep in mind: (1) The thickness proposed by Dr. Jones is roughly 20 microns, no more than that; and (2) a coating over the surface of the steel cannot be focused onto a 1/4 kg section of the steel. The latter assumption is the source of your 2% mass-fraction estimate, and it's a bad assumption.

Running my own rough numbers, if we assume the most vulnerable of all columns -- a minumum thickness perimeter column, which is a box column 356 mm on a side and 6.35 mm (0.25 in) thick -- consider a 20 micron coating of the nanodoubletalk put onto all sides, which is impossible, but let's go with the worst case. The alleged nanostuff has an energy content of about 7 kJ/g (using the highest of his WILDLY varying four samples), and assuming thermite has a specific gravity of about 4, means 28 kJ/cm3.

The total amount of "film" would be 4 x 356 mm x 0.020 mm = 28.48 mm2 per unit length, or 28.48 cm3 per meter of column, with an energy content of 797 KJ per meter of column.

The column, in contrast, has 4 x 356 mm x 6.35 mm of steel per meter, or 9042 mm2 per unit length, or 9042 cm3 per meter of column. At 7.85 g/cm3 this means the column mass is 71 kg/meter.

Steel heat capacity is roughly 460 J / (kg K). So the nanocrap would heat the steel column by (797 kJ/meter) / [(460 J / kg K) (71 kg/meter)] = 24 Kelvins, or 24oC.

Again, this is the optimal case -- thinnest and weakest column, total application on all four sides, most optimistic energy content estimate, and 100% efficiency in applying heat to steel. From this, we reason that in order to be effective, we need at least 16 times the thickness to have any useful effect even on the weakest of columns, even with utterly reliable and efficient ignition and adherence to the column while burning.

There are no such samples to be found. Paper's full of crap. QED.
You fail to produce a peer reviewed scientific paper that contradicts the fact that thermite was found at ground zero.

If you want to overturn science, you need some real proof.

None of your papers get peer reviewed because they are bogus psuedo-science with many conspiracy theories melded in.
Galileo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th April 2009, 01:00 PM   #292
Sunstealer
Master Poster
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,727
I am looking at the possibility that the material that Jones has is Kaolin or China Clay and Iron Oxide (not sure of the exact type, but I'm coming to the conclusion that it is Fe2O3 commonly known as haematite or red iron oxide). Both of these substances are widely used in the paint industry.

http://www.mineralco.net/kaolin/index.php
http://www.mineralco.net/red-iron-oxide/index.php

If you look at the compositions here http://www.dhirajlal.com/minerals.html you can clearly see that there is a good match for the spectra that Jones comes up with. Notably Fig 7 sample c). You can clearly see that this is slightly different from the other 3 samples because it contains Na, S, K and Ca in addition to the commonality of C, Fe, O, Si, Al.

Looking at the SEM photo Fig 4 - you can clearly see that there are two distinct layers with different morphologies. This rules out thermite - no ifs or buts, it's not thermite. I'll guarantee that there won't be pure Aluminium in the sample either. The bottom or "gray layer" is consistently shown to be iron oxide of some type and is clearly a complete layer and is not in particle form. There is no way that this is going to be able to react with any Aluminium because it doesn't have sufficient enough surface area, it's not a particulate. This indicates that it is not thermite.

Kaolin with added lime (CaO) is also found in concrete and mortar.

The Carbon is the one that is foxing me. Originally I thought it could be from the conductive carbon tape that is used to hold the samples to the stage. It's more likely that this is in the form of Calcium Carbonate which is used in both cement and paint (as an extender) manufacture.

Here is a high quality SEM photo of Kaolin http://www.sem-edx-lab.uni-tuebingen...d5b352a015.jpg taken from this site.

Compare and contrast the plate-like structures with Figs 8, a-c). Note also how they say

Quote:
Again it was observed that the thin sheet-like particles are rich in Al and Si
Page 15 (bottom under fig 9). - Kaolin, Al2Si2O5(OH)4

Compare there Fig 11a) EDS of these plate-like structures with Kaolin

http://www.scielo.org.ar/scielo.php?...pt=sci_arttext (Note: The Au is gold and you can ignore it, because it is the metallisation of the sample - you won't get any Fe or C (and I'm not sure whether the C is from the tape and they aren't too sure about it either), because it's a pure sample, however the Al, Si and O peaks and the characteristic of the spectra are identical. I'm certain that what they are looking at with regard to the plate-like structures is Kaolin Al2Si2O5(OH)4. Thermite does not contain Kaolin.

I'll have to take another look at the bright particles, because these seem to be an iron oxide of some sort. The SEM images need to be labelled with the exact parts where they are taking the EDS from and composition. Grrr it's a bit sloppy.

I'll leave it at that for the moment, but from what I've looked at this definitely isn't thermite.

Last edited by Sunstealer; 5th April 2009 at 01:18 PM.
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th April 2009, 01:01 PM   #293
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,505
I'm afraid I have little, if anything, to add to this conversation. In fact, I believe that except for posts by R.Mackey, Sunstealer and 911files, this thread is mostly noise.

That being said, I'm posting here just to make sure that my name is on Galileo's hit list.

The 9/11 denial movement is dead Galileo... deal with it.
Sword_Of_Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th April 2009, 01:13 PM   #294
Sunstealer
Master Poster
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,727
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
I noted just yesterday -- oh, six pages ago -- that Dr. Jones's own data proves the stuff is not thermite. I don't know what it is (I still maintain it is probably paint), but it for sure isn't thermite.


If you want to redo those calculations, there's two things to keep in mind: (1) The thickness proposed by Dr. Jones is roughly 20 microns, no more than that; and (2) a coating over the surface of the steel cannot be focused onto a 1/4 kg section of the steel. The latter assumption is the source of your 2% mass-fraction estimate, and it's a bad assumption.
Notice also how bad their SEM skills are. Not a single shot showing the two layers completely and square on to the beam so you can get an accurate measurement of the thickness's. I was going to comment on the thinness of the paint after reading

Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
There are at least three mechanical and physical properties he's worked out here that prove it isn't thermite. That's even if we overlook that huge quantities of it would be needed to cause anything, etc. -- I'll let you guys spot them. It's quite hilarious.
but I thought I'd go for something less obvious and let others have a crack. Paint this thin is obviously not going to cut steel beams - it is hilarious how their own paper proves that a) it's not thermite and b) that they don't know what they are doing or looking at.

Happy days!
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th April 2009, 01:15 PM   #295
Galileo
Illuminator
 
Galileo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Middleton, WI
Posts: 3,368
Study: Scientists Discover Active Thermitic Material in WTC Dust

Berkeley, CA, April 3, 2009 -- A new study by independent scientists and researchers suggests the cause behind the catastrophic destruction of World Trade Center Towers on September 11th can be seen in the dust itself: active thermitic material, a highly engineered explosive.

The study, published today in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, describes a finding of "red/gray bi-layered chips" in samples of dust taken from vicinity of the World Trade Center following its destruction. Using tools such as a scanning electron microscope (SEM) and x-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS) to analyze the material, the study authors concluded that, "the red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic."

The study's finding lends new support to the demolition theory put forth by critics of the official reports.

READ THE REST, AND WEEP!

http://stj911.org/press_releases/Act...cMaterial.html
Galileo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th April 2009, 01:15 PM   #296
Sunstealer
Master Poster
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,727
Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
There were 8 other scientists on the study who confirmed Jones was right.

It is now a proven scientific fact that thermite was used to desroy the WTC.
No it's most definitely not. R. Mackey and myself are showing you that it's definitely not thermite. I don't have time to spend days on this but there are numerous problems with this paper and I think it would take me 1-2 weeks to actually go through it and scientifically point out their flaws.

How much Kaolin is in thermite Galileo?
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th April 2009, 01:23 PM   #297
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 21,398
Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
They discovered paint was at the WTC. This is funny and sad; you don’t have the knowledge to save yourself from fraud.

Last edited by beachnut; 5th April 2009 at 01:28 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th April 2009, 01:27 PM   #298
-hp-
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 50
Quote:
When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite.
Does this mean that this so-called nano-thermite won't heat the steel above this temperature? That would mean that the steel won't loose more than 20 percent of its room temperature strength. Even a typical office fire is capable of more damage than this "super-thermite". LOL
-hp- is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th April 2009, 02:12 PM   #299
Sunstealer
Master Poster
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,727
I've also identified what the grey layer is likely to be. This stuff looks awfully similar and would certainly fit the bill. http://www.cmmp-france.com/ironorgb.html

Look at the SEM photo in that link. Notice the scale? Yep 10 microns. Now look at how thick each piece is. Around 10 microns. Now go back to figures 4 and 5 in the Jones paper. Compare the thickness of the grey layer.

Compare the SEM photographs and look for similar or different characteristics. The Fe2O3 morphology or structure is identical. You can clearly see the similarities. We know from the EDS that this part is only Fe and O.

A quick googling for "Micaceous Iron Oxide" and it throws up hundreds of sites and low and behold it's primary use is guess what? Yep, protection of structural steel and has been used for more than 100 years.

Jones and the rest of the dolts haven't a clue! This is brilliant. The have got a small piece of plate Fe2O3 anti-corrosion paint (the gray layer) that has obviously flaked away from what ever it was painted on.

What do you think you do after you've applied the anti-corrosion? Come on truthers you can do it. Yep, you paint over it! That is what the red layer is. It contains Kaolin and red iron oxide pigment - paint!

And that is what a materials scientist does. He looks at the evidence, gathers information and then proves what the material is.

Any truthers care to comment?

Last edited by Sunstealer; 5th April 2009 at 02:23 PM.
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th April 2009, 02:16 PM   #300
Thunder
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Queens
Posts: 34,948
Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
Study: Scientists Discover Active Thermitic Material in WTC Dust

Berkeley, CA, April 3, 2009 -- A new study by independent scientists and researchers suggests the cause behind the catastrophic destruction of World Trade Center Towers on September 11th can be seen in the dust itself: active thermitic material, a highly engineered explosive.

The study, published today in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, describes a finding of "red/gray bi-layered chips" in samples of dust taken from vicinity of the World Trade Center following its destruction. Using tools such as a scanning electron microscope (SEM) and x-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS) to analyze the material, the study authors concluded that, "the red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic."

The study's finding lends new support to the demolition theory put forth by critics of the official reports.

READ THE REST, AND WEEP!

http://stj911.org/press_releases/Act...cMaterial.html
Um....isnt this just the same thing published in a different truther magazine? who cares?

"A new study by independent scientists and researchers"

lololool

its over buddy. you lost. deal with it and move on.
Thunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th April 2009, 02:27 PM   #301
Galileo
Illuminator
 
Galileo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Middleton, WI
Posts: 3,368
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
I've also identified what the grey layer is likely to be. This stuff looks awfully similar and would certainly fit the bill. http://www.cmmp-france.com/ironorgb.html

Look at the SEM photo in that link. Notice the scale? Yep 10 microns. Now look at how thick each piece is. Around 10 microns. Now go back to figures 4 and 5 in the Jones paper. Compare the thickness of the grey layer.

Compare the SEM photographs and look for similar or different characteristics. The Fe2O3 morphology or structure is identical. You can clearly see the similarities. We know from the EDS that this part is only Fe and O.

A quick googling for "Micaceous Iron Oxide" and it throws up hundreds of sites and low and behold it's primary use is guess what? Yep, protection of structural steel and has been used for more than 100 years.

Jones and the rest of the dolts haven't a clue! This is brilliant. The have got a small piece of plate Fe2O3 anti-corrosion paint (the gray layer) that has obviously flaked away from what ever it was painted on.

What do you think you do after you've applied the anti-corrosion? Come on truthers you can do it. Yep, you paint over it! That is what the red layer is. It contains Kaolin and red iron oxide pigment - paint!

And that is what a materials scientist does. He looks at the evidence, gathers information and then proves what the material is.

Any truthers care to comment?
Any moron can post drivel on a conspiracy website. Go get your wacky theories peer reviewed and published by an international team of independent scientists.
Galileo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th April 2009, 02:30 PM   #302
Sunstealer
Master Poster
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,727
Originally Posted by parky76 View Post
Um....isnt this just the same thing published in a different truther magazine? who cares?

"A new study by independent scientists and researchers"

lololool

its over buddy. you lost. deal with it and move on.
Oh they have totally lost.

I expect people to apologise for believing this was thermite without any thought whatsoever and acknowledge that I am right. Jones has zero evidence for themite. His "thermite chips" are nothing but

Micaceous Iron Oxide (MIO) - his gray layer (no doubt that this is an individual MIO flake as shon in my link, which is used to protect the structural steel from corrosion.

The "red layer" has been shown to contain Kaolin and red iron oxide, two constituents of red paint.

The two explanations tally perfectly. Game over. Took less than 2 days to prove Jones wrong.
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th April 2009, 02:33 PM   #303
T.A.M.
Keeper of the Kool-Vax
 
T.A.M.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The Far East...of Canada
Posts: 20,816
Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
Any moron can post drivel on a conspiracy website. Go get your wacky theories peer reviewed and published by an international team of independent scientists.
you mean like Bazant did?

Certainly you don't mean Jones and his "Buy a publish" scheme do you?

Yes I want my research published in a Journal where I have to pay to have it published, and the list of people on the editorial board include people with english degrees, who were solicited via viral emailing, and PAID to sign up etc...

yes...that is reputable science.

I wonder why Jonesy et al have never gotten published in any of the known journals. You know, the kind where you DON'T BUY the publication of your article, but rather, get published on THE MERITS of your work.

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th April 2009, 02:33 PM   #304
apathoid
Government Loyalist
 
apathoid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Virgo Supercluster
Posts: 2,782
Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
Any moron can post drivel on a conspiracy website. Go get your wacky theories peer reviewed and published by an international team of independent scientists.


My irony meter runneth over..
__________________
Nature abhors a moron. -H.L. Mencken
apathoid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th April 2009, 02:34 PM   #305
T.A.M.
Keeper of the Kool-Vax
 
T.A.M.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The Far East...of Canada
Posts: 20,816
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
Oh they have totally lost.

I expect people to apologise for believing this was thermite without any thought whatsoever and acknowledge that I am right. Jones has zero evidence for themite. His "thermite chips" are nothing but

Micaceous Iron Oxide (MIO) - his gray layer (no doubt that this is an individual MIO flake as shon in my link, which is used to protect the structural steel from corrosion.

The "red layer" has been shown to contain Kaolin and red iron oxide, two constituents of red paint.

The two explanations tally perfectly. Game over. Took less than 2 days to prove Jones wrong.
If you have $600 to spend, I propose you collect your research, put it together in proper form, and submit it to the same journal as a follow up to his paper...

Boy wouldn't that put the red in his rage.

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th April 2009, 02:35 PM   #306
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Montréal
Posts: 25,831
Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
Any moron can post drivel on a conspiracy website. Go get your wacky theories peer reviewed and published by an international team of independent scientists.
For a clone of a great astronomer, your response to Sunstealer isn't very scientific.
Pardalis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th April 2009, 02:38 PM   #307
Sunstealer
Master Poster
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,727
Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
Any moron can post drivel on a conspiracy website. Go get your wacky theories peer reviewed and published by an international team of independent scientists.
Actually if you bother to actually read what I have posted you will see that I am perfectly correct without any shadow of a doubt. I'm rather pleased, because this is the sort of thing that I do professionally for a living.

I'll have a look to see whether there is the a way to put what I've found to them. They will have to back down, it's now blindingly obvious what their material is.

You obviously have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. If I had read their paper and done the same research and thought it was thermite I'd be backing Jones et al and saying on here that they were right.

Now deal with it.
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th April 2009, 02:42 PM   #308
thewholesoul
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 835
Originally Posted by stateofgrace View Post
Don't you ever get tried of being wrong and accusing innocent people of mass murder?
finding thermite in the WTC dust is not accusing anybody?
thewholesoul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th April 2009, 02:45 PM   #309
thewholesoul
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 835
Originally Posted by leftysergeant View Post
There is no indication that the chips were ever anything other than a paint-thin layer of somethinmg.
p 25 of the paper explains the tests they conducted to distinguish the red chips from red paint. what objections do you have against their testing?
thewholesoul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th April 2009, 02:48 PM   #310
thewholesoul
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 835
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
Wow, they found red paint. This has already been discussed at JREF - use the search function and you'll find the thread and then you'll find my post where I prove that it's red paint.
did you sample some of the red chips from teh WTC dust and run them through various tests before reaching that conclusion? arm chair science does not refute the peer reviewed scientific paper.
thewholesoul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th April 2009, 02:51 PM   #311
Sunstealer
Master Poster
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,727
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
p 25 of the paper explains the tests they conducted to distinguish the red chips from red paint. what objections do you have against their testing?
Very easy. They don't give any data with regard to the paint they compared their chips with.

Knowing that the grey layer is MIO and the red layer Kaolin and Iron oxide the only thing that I can think of that might partially dissolve is maybe some sort of binder in the red paint. This would also explain the large Carbon peaks that they continue to get throughout the EDS spectra.
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th April 2009, 02:52 PM   #312
BCR
Master Poster
 
BCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Memphis
Posts: 2,271
Originally Posted by Senenmut View Post
someone might have posted this by now, its in this clip that jones did. this is comparing the chemical signatures.

at time 2.28 he puts up the red chips compared to commercial thermite.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...20967571123147
Thanks for the link, but the spectra he shows is for the resultant spheriods, NOT the raw thermite. But since they are similar to the Fig 24/Fig 25 spectra discussed earlier, I'll use them for a comparison (Dr. Jones in the video asks that this be done).



Obviously the quality of the YouTube graphs is rather poor as seen above, but I did extract a screenshot and scaled the two spectra to matching scale.



It is easy to see how the elemental components match up. I changed the color for the thermite sample for easier comparison.

Iron - matches in composition and proportion fairly well.
Oxygen - significantly greater proportion in the thermite spectra as would be expected from a very robust oxidation process.
Aluminum - greater proportion in the thermite spectra as to expected since Aluminum was one of the primary reactants.
Silicon (forgive the misspell in the graphic) - Again, greater proportion in the thermite spectra.
Sulfur - nonexistent in the thermite spectra.

The materials used for each spectra DO NOT represent the same chemical process. I also marked an area with a box which is also significantly different. Both obviously are the resultant of chemical reactions involving Iron Oxide (rust), but that is really the only thing that can be said as far as equivalency goes.
__________________
"Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM
BCR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th April 2009, 02:54 PM   #313
boloboffin
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 5,001
You know, with two people still working at Brigham Young, maybe Brigham Young should be aware of this paper.
boloboffin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th April 2009, 03:02 PM   #314
BCR
Master Poster
 
BCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Memphis
Posts: 2,271
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
I've also identified what the grey layer is likely to be. This stuff looks awfully similar and would certainly fit the bill. http://www.cmmp-france.com/ironorgb.html

Look at the SEM photo in that link. Notice the scale? Yep 10 microns. Now look at how thick each piece is. Around 10 microns. Now go back to figures 4 and 5 in the Jones paper. Compare the thickness of the grey layer.

Compare the SEM photographs and look for similar or different characteristics. The Fe2O3 morphology or structure is identical. You can clearly see the similarities. We know from the EDS that this part is only Fe and O.

A quick googling for "Micaceous Iron Oxide" and it throws up hundreds of sites and low and behold it's primary use is guess what? Yep, protection of structural steel and has been used for more than 100 years.

Jones and the rest of the dolts haven't a clue! This is brilliant. The have got a small piece of plate Fe2O3 anti-corrosion paint (the gray layer) that has obviously flaked away from what ever it was painted on.

What do you think you do after you've applied the anti-corrosion? Come on truthers you can do it. Yep, you paint over it! That is what the red layer is. It contains Kaolin and red iron oxide pigment - paint!

And that is what a materials scientist does. He looks at the evidence, gathers information and then proves what the material is.

Any truthers care to comment?
Oh my, Dr. Jones super-duper thermite is paint chips
__________________
"Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM
BCR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th April 2009, 03:03 PM   #315
Galileo
Illuminator
 
Galileo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Middleton, WI
Posts: 3,368
Originally Posted by 911files View Post
Thanks for the link, but the spectra he shows is for the resultant spheriods, NOT the raw thermite. But since they are similar to the Fig 24/Fig 25 spectra discussed earlier, I'll use them for a comparison (Dr. Jones in the video asks that this be done).

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

Obviously the quality of the YouTube graphs is rather poor as seen above, but I did extract a screenshot and scaled the two spectra to matching scale.

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

It is easy to see how the elemental components match up. I changed the color for the thermite sample for easier comparison.

Iron - matches in composition and proportion fairly well.
Oxygen - significantly greater proportion in the thermite spectra as would be expected from a very robust oxidation process.
Aluminum - greater proportion in the thermite spectra as to expected since Aluminum was one of the primary reactants.
Silicon (forgive the misspell in the graphic) - Again, greater proportion in the thermite spectra.
Sulfur - nonexistent in the thermite spectra.

The materials used for each spectra DO NOT represent the same chemical process. I also marked an area with a box which is also significantly different. Both obviously are the resultant of chemical reactions involving Iron Oxide (rust), but that is really the only thing that can be said as far as equivalency goes.
Wowza! You should get a job as a science journal referee! The JREF forum is not a legitimate science jourmal, too bad for you.
Galileo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th April 2009, 03:04 PM   #316
T.A.M.
Keeper of the Kool-Vax
 
T.A.M.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The Far East...of Canada
Posts: 20,816
Neither is Bantham Open Access Publishing. The optional word for them is "Legitimate" which they are not.

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th April 2009, 03:05 PM   #317
GregoryUrich
Graduate Poster
 
GregoryUrich's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Main Street USA
Posts: 1,316
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
What a bizarre thread. It's like all the Truthers jumped in here like passengers rushing to the last lifeboat, as the Truth Movement turns turtle.

I noted just yesterday -- oh, six pages ago -- that Dr. Jones's own data proves the stuff is not thermite. I don't know what it is (I still maintain it is probably paint), but it for sure isn't thermite.

Others have found two of these features already. There are more. Give it a look, and we can compile a nice, short list.

Also, to metamars, I approve of your attempt to quantify the problem. I don't agree with your numbers, but you are trying to do the right thing and I wish others would react accordingly rather than just light you up for it.

If you want to redo those calculations, there's two things to keep in mind: (1) The thickness proposed by Dr. Jones is roughly 20 microns, no more than that; and (2) a coating over the surface of the steel cannot be focused onto a 1/4 kg section of the steel. The latter assumption is the source of your 2% mass-fraction estimate, and it's a bad assumption.

Running my own rough numbers, if we assume the most vulnerable of all columns -- a minumum thickness perimeter column, which is a box column 356 mm on a side and 6.35 mm (0.25 in) thick -- consider a 20 micron coating of the nanodoubletalk put onto all sides, which is impossible, but let's go with the worst case. The alleged nanostuff has an energy content of about 7 kJ/g (using the highest of his WILDLY varying four samples), and assuming thermite has a specific gravity of about 4, means 28 kJ/cm3.

The total amount of "film" would be 4 x 356 mm x 0.020 mm = 28.48 mm2 per unit length, or 28.48 cm3 per meter of column, with an energy content of 797 KJ per meter of column.

The column, in contrast, has 4 x 356 mm x 6.35 mm of steel per meter, or 9042 mm2 per unit length, or 9042 cm3 per meter of column. At 7.85 g/cm3 this means the column mass is 71 kg/meter.

Steel heat capacity is roughly 460 J / (kg K). So the nanocrap would heat the steel column by (797 kJ/meter) / [(460 J / kg K) (71 kg/meter)] = 24 Kelvins, or 24oC.

Again, this is the optimal case -- thinnest and weakest column, total application on all four sides, most optimistic energy content estimate, and 100% efficiency in applying heat to steel. From this, we reason that in order to be effective, we need at least 16 times the thickness to have any useful effect even on the weakest of columns, even with utterly reliable and efficient ignition and adherence to the column while burning.

There are no such samples to be found. Paper's full of crap. QED.
Hi Ryan,

You may have already seen it but Dr. Greening calculated 10 degress C. He didn't show his work.
__________________
"My father would womanize, he would drink, he would make outrageous claims, like he invented the question mark. Sometimes, he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy - the sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament." - Dr. Evil
GregoryUrich is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th April 2009, 03:09 PM   #318
Galileo
Illuminator
 
Galileo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Middleton, WI
Posts: 3,368
Originally Posted by Pardalis View Post
Galileo must be spinning in his grave right now.
Galileo does not spin. He uses clear communication. It is the archie debunkers and Ed Gein who spin in graves.

Last edited by Galileo; 5th April 2009 at 03:13 PM.
Galileo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th April 2009, 03:11 PM   #319
GregoryUrich
Graduate Poster
 
GregoryUrich's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Main Street USA
Posts: 1,316
I'm wondering about the grey layer. The only information they provide is that it is primarily iron oxide...but it sure doesn't look like rust. I have checked out some rust inhibitors that contain (you guessed it) iron oxide. Gray metal primer is my guess.
__________________
"My father would womanize, he would drink, he would make outrageous claims, like he invented the question mark. Sometimes, he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy - the sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament." - Dr. Evil
GregoryUrich is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th April 2009, 03:12 PM   #320
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Montréal
Posts: 25,831
Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
Galileo does notse spin. He uses clear communication.
Then something must have went wrong in the cloning, 'cause this Galileo ain't communicating intelligently.

Why don't you address the many points raised by Sunstealer? Afraid of criticism?
Pardalis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

JREF Forum » General Topics » Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:22 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.