JONES new paper:Microspheres and Temperatures

Sizzler · 29th January 2008, 05:47 PM

http://journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp.pdf

This paper seems to raise a lot of the questions I have had recently had.

No mention of therm?te in this one.

So where did they go wrong?

Furcifer · 29th January 2008, 06:22 PM

I'd say it was wrong to collect "dust" a long ways away from the cite, analyze it then attribute it to being from the WTC (although it could be I guess). I don't see any analysis of a control sample to make any correlations to and yet they seem to suggest a control sample wouldn't have the concentrations they observed. I'd say that was wrong.

I see a well dressed pig I'm not taking to the prom.

beachnut · 29th January 2008, 06:30 PM

Originally Posted by Sizzler

http://journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp.pdf

This paper seems to raise a lot of the questions I have had recently had.

No mention of therm?te in this one.

So where did they go wrong?

I think you missed the new "buzz" words for THERMITE! Jones is calling thermite -

Quote:

The data provide strong evidence that chemical reactions which were both violent and highly-exothermic contributed to the destruction of the WTC buildings.

Or could the nut bar being talking about fire? BTW, I found the same stuff in my fire place! I wonder what violent and highly-exothermic did not destroy my wood burning stove (the fireplace).

Quote:

chemical reactions which were both violent and highly-exothermic

This is Jones' new PA version of THERMITE, but then, his new paper is saying there was melted steel on a scale that destroyed the WTC. Jones is kind of a nut on this. BTW, Jones makes errors, bet you can't find them. Plus Jones supports the Official story! Bet you can't tell me his Official story support elements.

Two tasks for you grasshopper. Point out the simple errors Jones made, one will do! Two, point out how he supports fire did it. Good luck. You could ask Dr Jones, who planted his fantasy thermite.

Sizzler · 29th January 2008, 06:38 PM

Originally Posted by beachnut

I think you missed the new "buzz" words for THERMITE! Jones is calling thermite - Or could the nut bar being talking about fire? BTW, I found the same stuff in my fire place! I wonder what violent and highly-exothermic did not destroy my wood burning stove (the fireplace).

This is Jones' new PA version of THERMITE, but then, his new paper is saying there was melted steel on a scale that destroyed the WTC. Jones is kind of a nut on this. BTW, Jones makes errors, bet you can't find them. Plus Jones supports the Official story! Bet you can't tell me his Official story support elements.

Two tasks for you grasshopper. Point out the simple errors Jones made, one will do! Two, point out how he supports fire did it. Good luck. You could ask Dr Jones, who planted his fantasy thermite.

Gimme a small hint and I'll have a go at it.

mrwronggt13 · 29th January 2008, 06:56 PM

Jones is trying hard to lead people back to the official story. Co-author Crockett Grabbe has been suggesting that Muslim terrorists planted thermite in the towers. These are insiders doing disinfo, leading the truth movement down a dead end. The thermite theory is absurd.

Truth is, we've got evaporated steel, and plenty of radiation. It's some sort of nuclear reaction. Jones, plus guys like Frank Greening and Van Romero know what it was. They're all nuclear physicists and chemists from the nuclear industry.

They've figured out a relatively low-yield, controllable reaction. Probably fusion, given the tritium levels. Tritium has a half-life of 12 years. With all the clean-up work they've been doing at ground zero, they should have the levels down to where they can start building there pretty soon.

Look for cancer rates around ground zero to continue to explode over the next decade.

pomeroo · 29th January 2008, 07:02 PM

Originally Posted by mrwronggt13

Jones is trying hard to lead people back to the official story. Co-author Crockett Grabbe has been suggesting that Muslim terrorists planted thermite in the towers. These are insiders doing disinfo, leading the truth movement down a dead end. The thermite theory is absurd.

Truth is, we've got evaporated steel, and plenty of radiation. It's some sort of nuclear reaction. Jones, plus guys like Frank Greening and Van Romero know what it was. They're all nuclear physicists and chemists from the nuclear industry.

They've figured out a relatively low-yield, controllable reaction. Probably fusion, given the tritium levels. Tritium has a half-life of 12 years. With all the clean-up work they've been doing at ground zero, they should have the levels down to where they can start building there pretty soon.

Look for cancer rates around ground zero to continue to explode over the next decade.

BZZZZT! Sorry, wrong answer.

TheRedWorm · 29th January 2008, 07:03 PM

Your trolling is transparent, Mr. Wrong.

beachnut · 29th January 2008, 07:23 PM

Originally Posted by mrwronggt13

Jones is trying hard to lead people back to the official story. Co-author Crockett Grabbe has been suggesting that Muslim terrorists planted thermite in the towers. These are insiders doing disinfo, leading the truth movement down a dead end. The thermite theory is absurd.

Truth is, we've got evaporated steel, and plenty of radiation. It's some sort of nuclear reaction. Jones, plus guys like Frank Greening and Van Romero know what it was. They're all nuclear physicists and chemists from the nuclear industry.

They've figured out a relatively low-yield, controllable reaction. Probably fusion, given the tritium levels. Tritium has a half-life of 12 years. With all the clean-up work they've been doing at ground zero, they should have the levels down to where they can start building there pretty soon.

Look for cancer rates around ground zero to continue to explode over the next decade.

All I can do is laugh. Have you even finished grade school? Sorry, but if you are not joking, please go back to school, or finish grade school, get help from mom, or give up, you have super stupid ideas on 9/11 and it is disrespectful to those who died on 9/11 to make up lies without evidence! Everything you posted is wrong.

Furcifer · 29th January 2008, 07:29 PM

Originally Posted by mrwronggt13

Truth is, we've got evaporated steel, and plenty of radiation. It's some sort of nuclear reaction. Jones, plus guys like Frank Greening and Van Romero know what it was. They're all nuclear physicists and chemists from the nuclear industry.

They've figured out a relatively low-yield, controllable reaction. Probably fusion, given the tritium levels. Tritium has a half-life of 12 years. With all the clean-up work they've been doing at ground zero, they should have the levels down to where they can start building there pretty soon.

Look for cancer rates around ground zero to continue to explode over the next decade.

No it's dilithium, not tritium. That's "di" meaning 2, and lithium= 2-lithium, which I can only hope is your current recommended dosage.

Jonnyclueless · 29th January 2008, 07:30 PM

Got any pictures of that evaporated steel mrwrong?

Apollo20 · 29th January 2008, 07:42 PM

Dr. Jones' paper is interesting but, based on a quick read, he never really addresses possible "natural" sources of metal-rich microspheres. This would make the paper of considerably more value.

Why do I get the feeling SJ et al. are hiding their conclusions...

Gravy · 29th January 2008, 08:02 PM

That's a lot of moronic authors for one paper. Perhaps they should have consulted experts rather than Legges, Grabbes, and Ryans.

Apollo20 · 29th January 2008, 08:02 PM

This is abstracted from an e-mail I sent to SJ about a month ago:

"Right now my short list of candidates that could contribute to iron-rich microspheres in the WTC dust (I am sure Chainsaw could add a lot more!) is (in no particular order!):

Pigments and fillers used in plastics
Fly ash from the combustion of cellulose-based materials: wood, cardboard and paper
Welding fume left in the towers from construction activities
Wear particles from grinding and cutting during construction of the towers
Iron powder cores from electronics (e.g. transformer cores)
Pyrotechnic agents (including thermite!)
NYC background levels of particulate from general environmental sources"

I would like to see SJ consider these sources, ONE BY ONE, before he draws any conclusions that he has found evidence for the use of explosives or thermite in the towers.

JamesB · 29th January 2008, 08:04 PM

Quote:

S&J Scientific Co., Provo, Utah

What, so now Jones is running his own consulting company? What, does he specialize in secret nano-thermite demolition techniques?

Sizzler · 29th January 2008, 08:18 PM

Originally Posted by Gravy

That's a lot of moronic authors for one paper. Perhaps they should have consulted experts rather than Legges, Grabbes, and Ryans.

So what did these morons get wrong?

The Almond · 29th January 2008, 08:20 PM

Ok, I looked over the paper. It certainly wouldn't pass review for any of my journals. Of course, his appendix explaining where he got the samples would make any reviewer from a forensic journal laugh.

One thing bothers me: Why does Jones assume that he knows the exact composition of the particles? There are three elements not detected in any X-ray technique: Hydrogen, Helium and Lithium. Why, then, does Jones assume that he has Fe2O3 and not Fe(OH)2?

ElMondoHummus · 29th January 2008, 08:21 PM

Originally Posted by mrwronggt13

Truth is, we've got evaporated steel, and plenty of radiation. It's some sort of nuclear reaction. Jones, plus guys like Frank Greening and Van Romero know what it was. They're all nuclear physicists and chemists from the nuclear industry.

They've figured out a relatively low-yield, controllable reaction. Probably fusion, given the tritium levels. Tritium has a half-life of 12 years...

Wrong. As noted in the other thread:

http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1678&context=lbnl

Quote:

Traces of tritiated water (HTO) were detected at [the]World Trade Center (WTC) ground zero after the 9/11/01 terrorist attack...

Several tritium radioluminescent (RL) devices were investigated as possible sources of the traces of tritium at ground zero. It was determined that [the]Boeing 767-222 aircraft operated by the United Airlines that hit WTC Tower 2 as well as [the]Boeing 767-223ER operated by the American Airlines, that hit WTC Tower 1, had a combined 34{.3} Ci of tritium at the time of impact, contained in emergency signs. WTC hosted several law-enforcement agencies such as ATF, CIA, US Secret Service and US Customs. The ATF office had two weapon vaults in WTC Building 6. Also 63 Police Officers, possibly carrying handguns, died in the attack. The weaponry containing tritium sights was therefore a likely and significant source of tritium. It is possible that some of the 2824 victims carried tritium watches, however this source appears to be less significant than the other two.

(http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=104832)

... and:

Originally Posted by DRBUZZ0

Tritium is generally very very low in the environment in general and 55x "Above average" is still much lower than you would ever expect as an indicator of fallout from any fusion weapon. Remember that radioisotopes can be measured at extremely minute levels, so if the general amount of tritium is very nearly zero than 55x is still a tiny tiny tiny itty bitty amount. The fact that they don't give an absolute amount of tritium (only "55X") is probably because it would look a lot less impressive if expressed in parts per billion or even parts per trillion...

... Now as far as what could account for the increased tritium. Even before I read the report I immediately thought "radiolumonescent devices" because thats the most common use for tritium and would more than account for the amount found. Basically these are self-powered glowing items which glow brightly and continuously in the dark, even without the need for "charging" with light. The amount of tritium in the, in terms of curies is quite high. They are common in emergency signs in aircraft. I actually think the amount of 34ci on the aircraft is a tad bit lower than I would have thought.

Also, as mentioned, in the sites of weapons, tritium is commonly used. It's found in higher-end glowing watches, but I doubt that would be anything signifficant. I have an exit sign which is labeled as containing 80 Ci of tritium as of manufacture. That's actually a lot. Most emergency exit signs have 20-40 or something like that.

But that having been said, they are quite common for emergency exit signs, especially because they can be installed and meet qualifications for emergency lighting without the need for any wiring or drilling of holes etc..

I do not know of any in the WTC or surrounding buildings, but I would not be surprised if there were. You would not need many to account for these levels. Anyone can buy these things. They're common. They have them in the library in my town and the walmart. They range from $150 up, but that can still be cheaper than a standard battery-backed exit sign and an electrician to wire for it. So, if you look around you see them a lot.

The world trade center was a HUGE office complex and since you don't need to have any sort of special licence for one of these, there may have been some.

Add in the weapons sites. The tritium signs on the aircraft. Possible broken signs in nearby buildings. It can more than account for the modest increase.

Tritium levels are far too low to indicate any sort of nuclear weapons use, and are explained by the presence of other sources.

ETA: Let me phrase that last sentence better - Tritium levels.... are explained by the presence of other very common, non-fusion, non-fission sources.

DavidJames · 29th January 2008, 08:22 PM

Originally Posted by Sizzler

So what did these morons get wrong?

Why are you CTists obsessed with Gravy?

T.A.M. · 29th January 2008, 08:23 PM

Originally Posted by Sizzler

So what did these morons get wrong?

everything except their names.

TAM

The Almond · 29th January 2008, 08:23 PM

Originally Posted by Apollo20

Dr. Jones' paper is interesting but, based on a quick read, he never really addresses possible "natural" sources of metal-rich microspheres. This would make the paper of considerably more value.

Why do I get the feeling SJ et al. are hiding their conclusions...

I did a study of rice husk ash in grad school, and I think I could show about 200 spectra that looked exactly like Jones's. Sulfur, aluminum, even iron rich particles are all extremely common, and all they represent are the primary elements found in the Earth's crust.

*For anyone interested: Rice husk ash is made by taking a large pile of rice husks and setting it on fire.

Sizzler · 29th January 2008, 08:24 PM

Originally Posted by The Almond

Ok, I looked over the paper. It certainly wouldn't pass review for any of my journals. Of course, his appendix explaining where he got the samples would make any reviewer from a forensic journal laugh.

One thing bothers me: Why does Jones assume that he knows the exact composition of the particles? There are three elements not detected in any X-ray technique: Hydrogen, Helium and Lithium. Why, then, does Jones assume that he has Fe2O3 and not Fe(OH)2?

Jones from 911blogger

Quote:

A little background is in order. The paper was written several months ago with the decision to focus on the "temperature gap" between temperatures reached in the "official story" and temperatures required by the data. (No mention of "thermite" was given in the paper -- so that might have a better chance of publication in a mainstream journal. Showing the "official explanation" to be wrong seemed sufficient for this paper.)

The paper was then given to two independent Professors of Physics for peer-review. They made suggestions which were implemented. Both of these Professors then approved publication in a scientific journal (neither is a 9/11 activist).
Next the paper was sent to a mainstream journal for publication (and their own peer-review). However, this journal returned the paper with the comment "beyond the scope of this journal." No technical comments were given, whatsoever.

Meanwhile, two of the authors in the above list wrote a separate (and distinct) paper and submitted it to another mainstream technical journal, about seven months ago. This paper was peer-reviewed and accepted for publication about two months ago, but still has yet to appear in print. We hope it will be published within ten months of submitting the paper.
The process is glacially slow, it seems...

T.A.M. · 29th January 2008, 08:25 PM

and I am guessing that JONES is the only "journal" they will be published in...lol

Once again, now that he has published a paper on his earth shattering microspheres, WILL HE NOW RELEASE HIS SAMPLES FOR INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS?

I am guessing....NO.

TAM

Sizzler · 29th January 2008, 08:26 PM

Originally Posted by DavidJames

Why are you CTists obsessed with Gravy?

His sex appeal obviously.

Sizzler · 29th January 2008, 08:28 PM

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

and I am guessing that JONES is the only "journal" they will be published in...lol

Once again, now that he has published a paper on his earth shattering microspheres, WILL HE NOW RELEASE HIS SAMPLES FOR INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS?

I am guessing....NO.

TAM

They have already been analyzed by other scientists, well before him.

Did you read the paper?

T.A.M. · 29th January 2008, 08:31 PM

INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS?

No I have not. Are you telling me that a third party, unconnected to the 9/11 truth movement got the samples and analyzed them, themselves? And if so, what oh great "agnostic" sizzler, did they conclude???

TAM

T.A.M. · 29th January 2008, 08:34 PM

you see I am not doubting but that one of those "brilliant" fellows listed at the top knows how to operate a spectrometer and what ever other equipment is needed.

It is all in the PARANOID Interpretation of what the results mean!!!

As Frank has said...no speculation or even entertaining of NON CONSPIRATORIAL causes of the microspheres...that sounds really scientific doesn't it.

PATHETIC!!!

TAM

The Almond · 29th January 2008, 08:47 PM

Originally Posted by Sizzler

Jones from 911blogger

It's unfortunate that Jones didn't bother to send it to any electron microprobe chemists, materials scientists or forensic chemists. They would have pointed out the same mistakes I pointed out.

Edited to add:
When did Jones post the article you showed?

Gravy · 29th January 2008, 08:55 PM

Originally Posted by Sizzler

So what did these morons get wrong?

What I said in my post. Because they didn't consult experts, they're taking shots in the dark.

quicknthedead · 29th January 2008, 10:58 PM

Originally Posted by Apollo20

This is abstracted from an e-mail I sent to SJ about a month ago:

"Right now my short list of candidates that could contribute to iron-rich microspheres in the WTC dust (I am sure Chainsaw could add a lot more!) is (in no particular order!):

Pigments and fillers used in plastics
Fly ash from the combustion of cellulose-based materials: wood, cardboard and paper
Welding fume left in the towers from construction activities
Wear particles from grinding and cutting during construction of the towers
Iron powder cores from electronics (e.g. transformer cores)
Pyrotechnic agents (including thermite!)
NYC background levels of particulate from general environmental sources"

I would like to see SJ consider these sources, ONE BY ONE, before he draws any conclusions that he has found evidence for the use of explosives or thermite in the towers.

The point of the paper is the fires were not hot enough to achieve the temperatures for the applicable melting points required.

It is remarkable the government did not address this.

From the paper:
---------------------------------------------------------
Table 1. Approximate Minimum Temperatures Required Process and material
°C
°F

To form Fe-O-S eutectic (with ~50 Mol % sulfur) in steel
1,000
1,832

To melt aluminosilicates (spherule formation)
1,450
2,652

To melt iron (spherule formation)
1,538
2,800

To melt iron (III) oxide (spherule formation)
1,565
2,849

To vaporize lead
1,740
3,164

To melt molybdenum (spherule formation)
2,623
4,753

To vaporize aluminosilicates
2,760
5,000

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

So, what is the source for the extreme temperatures indicated?

boloboffin · 29th January 2008, 11:04 PM

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

everything except their names.

TAM

The date! They rarely get the date wrong.

Sizzler · 29th January 2008, 11:11 PM

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS?

No I have not. Are you telling me that a third party, unconnected to the 9/11 truth movement got the samples and analyzed them, themselves? And if so, what oh great "agnostic" sizzler, did they conclude???

TAM

Yes, this was analyzed by other scientists before Jones et al. Read the paper TAM. Gravy has pointed this out several times.

However what Gravy fails to address is:

they concluded that the fires were able to reach these temperatures:

Quote:

From the paper:
---------------------------------------------------------
Table 1. Approximate Minimum Temperatures Required Process and material
°C
°F

To form Fe-O-S eutectic (with ~50 Mol % sulfur) in steel
1,000
1,832

To melt aluminosilicates (spherule formation)
1,450
2,652

To melt iron (spherule formation)
1,538
2,800

To melt iron (III) oxide (spherule formation)
1,565
2,849

To vaporize lead
1,740
3,164

To melt molybdenum (spherule formation)
2,623
4,753

To vaporize aluminosilicates
2,760
5,000

Gimme a break. Look at those temperatures.

Sizzler · 29th January 2008, 11:20 PM

Originally Posted by Gravy

What I said in my post. Because they didn't consult experts, they're taking shots in the dark.

Um, a lot of what they did is confirmed by past scientists.

You even told me that silly.

Peep the temps in the paper.

Can you seriously argue the fires got that hot?

Read the paper Gravy.

Sizzler · 29th January 2008, 11:26 PM

SO NO SERIOUS CRITIQUE YET?

Not surprising actually.....

LashL · 29th January 2008, 11:28 PM

Originally Posted by Sizzler

Yes, this was analyzed by other scientists before Jones et al. Read the paper TAM.

No, there is nothing in the paper that claims that Jones released his samples to others for independent analysis. Read for comprehension, Sizzler.

And read The Almond's posts in this thread again, while you're at it.

Sizzler · 29th January 2008, 11:34 PM

Originally Posted by LashL

No, there is nothing in the paper that claims that Jones released his samples to others for independent analysis. Read for comprehension, Sizzler.

And read The Almond's posts in this thread again, while you're at it.

I didn't claim the exact samples he has were released.

I claimed previous scientists analyzed other samples and found the same substances.

Read the paper smarty pants.

Sizzler · 29th January 2008, 11:43 PM

I'm going to make a bold assertion that no one can debunk this paper....

Who is gonna prove me wrong?

ps. my money is on Crazy Chainsaw if anyone.

LashL · 29th January 2008, 11:47 PM

Originally Posted by Sizzler

I didn't claim the exact samples he has were released.

As I said, you failed to read for comprehension. It went like this:

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

Once again, now that he has published a paper on his earth shattering microspheres, WILL HE NOW RELEASE HIS SAMPLES FOR INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS?

I am guessing....NO.

Originally Posted by Sizzler

They have already been analyzed by other scientists, well before him.

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS?

Are you telling me that a third party, unconnected to the 9/11 truth movement got the samples and analyzed them, themselves? And if so, what oh great "agnostic" sizzler, did they conclude???

Originally Posted by Sizzler

Yes, this was analyzed by other scientists before Jones et al.

Either you utterly failed to comprehend TAM's posts, or you are being deliberately obtuse. Neither is acceptable.

Originally Posted by Sizzler

I claimed previous scientists analyzed other samples and found the same substances.

Well, no, actually, you didn't. And, in any event, other samples are not at all relevant to the discussion at hand.

Originally Posted by Sizzler

Read the paper smarty pants.

I did. I wasn't impressed.

I was, however, addressing the point about Jones not providing his samples for independent analysis and your apparent assertions to the contrary.

Sizzler · 29th January 2008, 11:50 PM

Originally Posted by LashL

As I said, you failed to read for comprehension. It went like this:

Either you utterly failed to comprehend TAM's posts, or you are being deliberately obtuse. Neither is acceptable.

Well, no, actually, you didn't. And, in any event, other samples are not at all relevant to the discussion at hand.

I did.

Ok you are right. The exact samples Jones has were not analyzed by other scientists.

It doesn't matter though. Other scientists examined other samples and found the exact same particles.

Half of the paper is about the particles in the other samples analyzed by other scientists.

What specifically do you have problems with in the paper?

Jonnyclueless · 30th January 2008, 12:18 AM

Sizzler must have missed the part where they listed all the other possible causes. And while THEY may think those temperatures cannot be reached in an office fire, doesn't mean they couldn't have been reached in the WTC. As well as ignoring that some of the possible causes would have nothing to do with the fires in the WTC.

But if it helps one to live out a fantasy by pretending something is not debunked (forget that it's not an issue of debunking anyways), then so be it. Kinda of like how Sizzler kept asking about the Pentagon security cameras yet kept ignoring all the posts that WOULD address his questions. Probably not intentional, but a common trend among people who are clearly hoping to find a conspiracy if possible.

LashL · 30th January 2008, 12:27 AM

Originally Posted by Sizzler

Ok you are right. The exact samples Jones has were not analyzed by other scientists.

That's because Jones has not permitted anyone else to analyze them. Does it not give you pause to wonder why he would not want an actual expert in the appropriate field to analyze them?

Originally Posted by Sizzler

It doesn't matter though.

Yes, it does matter, because it is these particular spherules that are at issue.

Originally Posted by Sizzler

Other scientists examined other samples and found the exact same particles.

Again, it is Jones' particular samples that are at issue here, not any others.

Originally Posted by Sizzler

Half of the paper is about the particles in the other samples analyzed by other scientists.

That's because Jones is trying to hitch his falling (fallen) star to others who may have more credibility than he does, but it's a poor attempt, as it is only his own samples that are actually at issue here.

Originally Posted by Sizzler

What specifically do you have problems with in the paper?

1) See above
2) It fails to adequately describe its collection methods of the spherules.
3) It fails to adequately describe the locations and conditions in which those spherules were found.
4) It fails to adequately address the chain of custody of the spherules.
5) It ignores the myriad possible naturally occurring sources for the elements it claims to have found while simultaneously assuming something nefarious.
6) The samples have never been independently analyzed by experts.
7) It makes spurious and unsupported claims.
8) See The Almond's posts in this thread.
9) See the previous threads on the topic of spherules in this sub-forum.
10) The paper is written more like an internet post than a professional, scholarly article.

There are 10 problems that I, as a layperson, see with it. I suspect that those with relevant experience, knowledge and expertise can easily identify many more.

Now, here's a question for you, if you don't mind.

What is it about this particular paper that you find to be good, sound, accurate, and/or compelling?

29th January 2008, 05:47 PM	#1
Sizzler Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,562	JONES new paper:Microspheres and Temperatures http://journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp.pdf This paper seems to raise a lot of the questions I have had recently had. No mention of therm?te in this one. So where did they go wrong?
Sizzler Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,562

29th January 2008, 06:22 PM	#2
Furcifer Guest Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 13,796	I'd say it was wrong to collect "dust" a long ways away from the cite, analyze it then attribute it to being from the WTC (although it could be I guess). I don't see any analysis of a control sample to make any correlations to and yet they seem to suggest a control sample wouldn't have the concentrations they observed. I'd say that was wrong. I see a well dressed pig I'm not taking to the prom.
Furcifer Guest Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 13,796

29th January 2008, 06:30 PM	#3
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 25,291	Originally Posted by Sizzler http://journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp.pdf This paper seems to raise a lot of the questions I have had recently had. No mention of therm?te in this one. So where did they go wrong? I think you missed the new "buzz" words for THERMITE! Jones is calling thermite - Quote: The data provide strong evidence that chemical reactions which were both violent and highly-exothermic contributed to the destruction of the WTC buildings. Or could the nut bar being talking about fire? BTW, I found the same stuff in my fire place! I wonder what violent and highly-exothermic did not destroy my wood burning stove (the fireplace). Quote: chemical reactions which were both violent and highly-exothermic This is Jones' new PA version of THERMITE, but then, his new paper is saying there was melted steel on a scale that destroyed the WTC. Jones is kind of a nut on this. BTW, Jones makes errors, bet you can't find them. Plus Jones supports the Official story! Bet you can't tell me his Official story support elements. Two tasks for you grasshopper. Point out the simple errors Jones made, one will do! Two, point out how he supports fire did it. Good luck. You could ask Dr Jones, who planted his fantasy thermite.
	Last edited by beachnut; 29th January 2008 at 06:37 PM.

29th January 2008, 06:38 PM	#4
Sizzler Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,562	Originally Posted by beachnut I think you missed the new "buzz" words for THERMITE! Jones is calling thermite - Or could the nut bar being talking about fire? BTW, I found the same stuff in my fire place! I wonder what violent and highly-exothermic did not destroy my wood burning stove (the fireplace). This is Jones' new PA version of THERMITE, but then, his new paper is saying there was melted steel on a scale that destroyed the WTC. Jones is kind of a nut on this. BTW, Jones makes errors, bet you can't find them. Plus Jones supports the Official story! Bet you can't tell me his Official story support elements. Two tasks for you grasshopper. Point out the simple errors Jones made, one will do! Two, point out how he supports fire did it. Good luck. You could ask Dr Jones, who planted his fantasy thermite. Gimme a small hint and I'll have a go at it.
Sizzler Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,562

29th January 2008, 06:56 PM	#5
mrwronggt13 Guest Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 110	Jones is trying hard to lead people back to the official story. Co-author Crockett Grabbe has been suggesting that Muslim terrorists planted thermite in the towers. These are insiders doing disinfo, leading the truth movement down a dead end. The thermite theory is absurd. Truth is, we've got evaporated steel, and plenty of radiation. It's some sort of nuclear reaction. Jones, plus guys like Frank Greening and Van Romero know what it was. They're all nuclear physicists and chemists from the nuclear industry. They've figured out a relatively low-yield, controllable reaction. Probably fusion, given the tritium levels. Tritium has a half-life of 12 years. With all the clean-up work they've been doing at ground zero, they should have the levels down to where they can start building there pretty soon. Look for cancer rates around ground zero to continue to explode over the next decade.
mrwronggt13 Guest Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 110

29th January 2008, 07:02 PM	#6
pomeroo Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 7,081	Originally Posted by mrwronggt13 Jones is trying hard to lead people back to the official story. Co-author Crockett Grabbe has been suggesting that Muslim terrorists planted thermite in the towers. These are insiders doing disinfo, leading the truth movement down a dead end. The thermite theory is absurd. Truth is, we've got evaporated steel, and plenty of radiation. It's some sort of nuclear reaction. Jones, plus guys like Frank Greening and Van Romero know what it was. They're all nuclear physicists and chemists from the nuclear industry. They've figured out a relatively low-yield, controllable reaction. Probably fusion, given the tritium levels. Tritium has a half-life of 12 years. With all the clean-up work they've been doing at ground zero, they should have the levels down to where they can start building there pretty soon. Look for cancer rates around ground zero to continue to explode over the next decade. BZZZZT! Sorry, wrong answer.
pomeroo Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 7,081

29th January 2008, 07:03 PM	#7
TheRedWorm I AM the Red Worm! Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,452	Your trolling is transparent, Mr. Wrong.
	__________________ I'll be the best Congressman money can buy! As usual, he doesn't understand the relevant sciences, can't Google for the right thing, and appears to rely on the notion that a word salad liberally sprinkled with Google Croutons will make his argument seem coherent. -JayUtah

29th January 2008, 07:23 PM	#8
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 25,291	Originally Posted by mrwronggt13 Jones is trying hard to lead people back to the official story. Co-author Crockett Grabbe has been suggesting that Muslim terrorists planted thermite in the towers. These are insiders doing disinfo, leading the truth movement down a dead end. The thermite theory is absurd. Truth is, we've got evaporated steel, and plenty of radiation. It's some sort of nuclear reaction. Jones, plus guys like Frank Greening and Van Romero know what it was. They're all nuclear physicists and chemists from the nuclear industry. They've figured out a relatively low-yield, controllable reaction. Probably fusion, given the tritium levels. Tritium has a half-life of 12 years. With all the clean-up work they've been doing at ground zero, they should have the levels down to where they can start building there pretty soon. Look for cancer rates around ground zero to continue to explode over the next decade. All I can do is laugh. Have you even finished grade school? Sorry, but if you are not joking, please go back to school, or finish grade school, get help from mom, or give up, you have super stupid ideas on 9/11 and it is disrespectful to those who died on 9/11 to make up lies without evidence! Everything you posted is wrong.
	Last edited by beachnut; 29th January 2008 at 08:01 PM.

29th January 2008, 07:29 PM	#9
Furcifer Guest Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 13,796	Originally Posted by mrwronggt13 Truth is, we've got evaporated steel, and plenty of radiation. It's some sort of nuclear reaction. Jones, plus guys like Frank Greening and Van Romero know what it was. They're all nuclear physicists and chemists from the nuclear industry. They've figured out a relatively low-yield, controllable reaction. Probably fusion, given the tritium levels. Tritium has a half-life of 12 years. With all the clean-up work they've been doing at ground zero, they should have the levels down to where they can start building there pretty soon. Look for cancer rates around ground zero to continue to explode over the next decade. No it's dilithium, not tritium. That's "di" meaning 2, and lithium= 2-lithium, which I can only hope is your current recommended dosage.
Furcifer Guest Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 13,796

29th January 2008, 07:30 PM	#10
Jonnyclueless Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,546	Got any pictures of that evaporated steel mrwrong?

29th January 2008, 07:42 PM	#11
Apollo20 Banned Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 1,425	Dr. Jones' paper is interesting but, based on a quick read, he never really addresses possible "natural" sources of metal-rich microspheres. This would make the paper of considerably more value. Why do I get the feeling SJ et al. are hiding their conclusions...
Apollo20 Banned Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 1,425

29th January 2008, 08:02 PM	#12
Gravy Downsitting Citizen Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 17,072	That's a lot of moronic authors for one paper. Perhaps they should have consulted experts rather than Legges, Grabbes, and Ryans.
	__________________ "Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links

29th January 2008, 08:04 PM	#14
JamesB Master Poster Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 2,152	Quote: S&J Scientific Co., Provo, Utah What, so now Jones is running his own consulting company? What, does he specialize in secret nano-thermite demolition techniques?
JamesB Master Poster Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 2,152	__________________ I said lots of things in NPH that I would not say today and that I did not repeat in NPHR, where I specifically corrected at least some of the errors I had made in that earlier book, written 5 years ago. -David Ray Griffin-

29th January 2008, 08:18 PM	#15
Sizzler Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,562	Originally Posted by Gravy That's a lot of moronic authors for one paper. Perhaps they should have consulted experts rather than Legges, Grabbes, and Ryans. So what did these morons get wrong?
Sizzler Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,562

29th January 2008, 08:20 PM	#16
The Almond Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 1,015	Ok, I looked over the paper. It certainly wouldn't pass review for any of my journals. Of course, his appendix explaining where he got the samples would make any reviewer from a forensic journal laugh. One thing bothers me: Why does Jones assume that he knows the exact composition of the particles? There are three elements not detected in any X-ray technique: Hydrogen, Helium and Lithium. Why, then, does Jones assume that he has Fe2O3 and not Fe(OH)2?
	__________________ "Perfection, even in stupidity, is difficult to achieve without a conscious effort."--pomeroo, JREF Forum Member

29th January 2008, 08:21 PM	#17
ElMondoHummus 0.25 short of being half-witted Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole Posts: 12,272	Originally Posted by mrwronggt13 Truth is, we've got evaporated steel, and plenty of radiation. It's some sort of nuclear reaction. Jones, plus guys like Frank Greening and Van Romero know what it was. They're all nuclear physicists and chemists from the nuclear industry. They've figured out a relatively low-yield, controllable reaction. Probably fusion, given the tritium levels. Tritium has a half-life of 12 years... Wrong. As noted in the other thread: http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1678&context=lbnl Quote: Traces of tritiated water (HTO) were detected at [the]World Trade Center (WTC) ground zero after the 9/11/01 terrorist attack... Several tritium radioluminescent (RL) devices were investigated as possible sources of the traces of tritium at ground zero. It was determined that [the]Boeing 767-222 aircraft operated by the United Airlines that hit WTC Tower 2 as well as [the]Boeing 767-223ER operated by the American Airlines, that hit WTC Tower 1, had a combined 34{.3} Ci of tritium at the time of impact, contained in emergency signs. WTC hosted several law-enforcement agencies such as ATF, CIA, US Secret Service and US Customs. The ATF office had two weapon vaults in WTC Building 6. Also 63 Police Officers, possibly carrying handguns, died in the attack. The weaponry containing tritium sights was therefore a likely and significant source of tritium. It is possible that some of the 2824 victims carried tritium watches, however this source appears to be less significant than the other two. (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=104832) ... and: Originally Posted by DRBUZZ0 Tritium is generally very very low in the environment in general and 55x "Above average" is still much lower than you would ever expect as an indicator of fallout from any fusion weapon. Remember that radioisotopes can be measured at extremely minute levels, so if the general amount of tritium is very nearly zero than 55x is still a tiny tiny tiny itty bitty amount. The fact that they don't give an absolute amount of tritium (only "55X") is probably because it would look a lot less impressive if expressed in parts per billion or even parts per trillion... ... Now as far as what could account for the increased tritium. Even before I read the report I immediately thought "radiolumonescent devices" because thats the most common use for tritium and would more than account for the amount found. Basically these are self-powered glowing items which glow brightly and continuously in the dark, even without the need for "charging" with light. The amount of tritium in the, in terms of curies is quite high. They are common in emergency signs in aircraft. I actually think the amount of 34ci on the aircraft is a tad bit lower than I would have thought. Also, as mentioned, in the sites of weapons, tritium is commonly used. It's found in higher-end glowing watches, but I doubt that would be anything signifficant. I have an exit sign which is labeled as containing 80 Ci of tritium as of manufacture. That's actually a lot. Most emergency exit signs have 20-40 or something like that. But that having been said, they are quite common for emergency exit signs, especially because they can be installed and meet qualifications for emergency lighting without the need for any wiring or drilling of holes etc.. I do not know of any in the WTC or surrounding buildings, but I would not be surprised if there were. You would not need many to account for these levels. Anyone can buy these things. They're common. They have them in the library in my town and the walmart. They range from $150 up, but that can still be cheaper than a standard battery-backed exit sign and an electrician to wire for it. So, if you look around you see them a lot. The world trade center was a HUGE office complex and since you don't need to have any sort of special licence for one of these, there may have been some. Add in the weapons sites. The tritium signs on the aircraft. Possible broken signs in nearby buildings. It can more than account for the modest increase. Tritium levels are far too low to indicate any sort of nuclear weapons use, and are explained by the presence of other sources. ETA: Let me phrase that last sentence better - Tritium levels.... are explained by the presence of other very common, non-fusion, non-fission sources.
	__________________ "AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once." Last edited by ElMondoHummus; 29th January 2008 at 08:26 PM. Reason: Clarification

29th January 2008, 08:22 PM	#18
DavidJames Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Front Range, CO Posts: 10,493	Originally Posted by Sizzler So what did these morons get wrong? Why are you CTists obsessed with Gravy?

29th January 2008, 08:23 PM	#19
T.A.M. Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 20,795	Originally Posted by Sizzler So what did these morons get wrong? everything except their names. TAM

29th January 2008, 08:23 PM	#20
The Almond Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 1,015	Originally Posted by Apollo20 Dr. Jones' paper is interesting but, based on a quick read, he never really addresses possible "natural" sources of metal-rich microspheres. This would make the paper of considerably more value. Why do I get the feeling SJ et al. are hiding their conclusions... I did a study of rice husk ash in grad school, and I think I could show about 200 spectra that looked exactly like Jones's. Sulfur, aluminum, even iron rich particles are all extremely common, and all they represent are the primary elements found in the Earth's crust. *For anyone interested: Rice husk ash is made by taking a large pile of rice husks and setting it on fire.
	__________________ "Perfection, even in stupidity, is difficult to achieve without a conscious effort."--pomeroo, JREF Forum Member

29th January 2008, 08:24 PM	#21
Sizzler Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,562	Originally Posted by The Almond Ok, I looked over the paper. It certainly wouldn't pass review for any of my journals. Of course, his appendix explaining where he got the samples would make any reviewer from a forensic journal laugh. One thing bothers me: Why does Jones assume that he knows the exact composition of the particles? There are three elements not detected in any X-ray technique: Hydrogen, Helium and Lithium. Why, then, does Jones assume that he has Fe2O3 and not Fe(OH)2? Jones from 911blogger Quote: A little background is in order. The paper was written several months ago with the decision to focus on the "temperature gap" between temperatures reached in the "official story" and temperatures required by the data. (No mention of "thermite" was given in the paper -- so that might have a better chance of publication in a mainstream journal. Showing the "official explanation" to be wrong seemed sufficient for this paper.) The paper was then given to two independent Professors of Physics for peer-review. They made suggestions which were implemented. Both of these Professors then approved publication in a scientific journal (neither is a 9/11 activist). Next the paper was sent to a mainstream journal for publication (and their own peer-review). However, this journal returned the paper with the comment "beyond the scope of this journal." No technical comments were given, whatsoever. Meanwhile, two of the authors in the above list wrote a separate (and distinct) paper and submitted it to another mainstream technical journal, about seven months ago. This paper was peer-reviewed and accepted for publication about two months ago, but still has yet to appear in print. We hope it will be published within ten months of submitting the paper. The process is glacially slow, it seems...
Sizzler Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,562

29th January 2008, 08:25 PM	#22
T.A.M. Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 20,795	and I am guessing that JONES is the only "journal" they will be published in...lol Once again, now that he has published a paper on his earth shattering microspheres, WILL HE NOW RELEASE HIS SAMPLES FOR INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS? I am guessing....NO. TAM

29th January 2008, 08:26 PM	#23
Sizzler Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,562	Originally Posted by DavidJames Why are you CTists obsessed with Gravy? His sex appeal obviously.
Sizzler Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,562

29th January 2008, 08:28 PM	#24
Sizzler Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,562	Originally Posted by T.A.M. and I am guessing that JONES is the only "journal" they will be published in...lol Once again, now that he has published a paper on his earth shattering microspheres, WILL HE NOW RELEASE HIS SAMPLES FOR INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS? I am guessing....NO. TAM They have already been analyzed by other scientists, well before him. Did you read the paper?
Sizzler Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,562

29th January 2008, 08:31 PM	#25
T.A.M. Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 20,795	INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS? No I have not. Are you telling me that a third party, unconnected to the 9/11 truth movement got the samples and analyzed them, themselves? And if so, what oh great "agnostic" sizzler, did they conclude??? TAM

29th January 2008, 08:34 PM	#26
T.A.M. Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 20,795	you see I am not doubting but that one of those "brilliant" fellows listed at the top knows how to operate a spectrometer and what ever other equipment is needed. It is all in the PARANOID Interpretation of what the results mean!!! As Frank has said...no speculation or even entertaining of NON CONSPIRATORIAL causes of the microspheres...that sounds really scientific doesn't it. PATHETIC!!! TAM

29th January 2008, 08:47 PM	#27
The Almond Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 1,015	Originally Posted by Sizzler Jones from 911blogger It's unfortunate that Jones didn't bother to send it to any electron microprobe chemists, materials scientists or forensic chemists. They would have pointed out the same mistakes I pointed out. Edited to add: When did Jones post the article you showed?
	__________________ "Perfection, even in stupidity, is difficult to achieve without a conscious effort."--pomeroo, JREF Forum Member Last edited by The Almond; 29th January 2008 at 08:49 PM.

29th January 2008, 08:55 PM	#28
Gravy Downsitting Citizen Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 17,072	Originally Posted by Sizzler So what did these morons get wrong? What I said in my post. Because they didn't consult experts, they're taking shots in the dark.
	__________________ "Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links

29th January 2008, 10:58 PM	#29
quicknthedead Thinker Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 173	Originally Posted by Apollo20 This is abstracted from an e-mail I sent to SJ about a month ago: "Right now my short list of candidates that could contribute to iron-rich microspheres in the WTC dust (I am sure Chainsaw could add a lot more!) is (in no particular order!): Pigments and fillers used in plastics Fly ash from the combustion of cellulose-based materials: wood, cardboard and paper Welding fume left in the towers from construction activities Wear particles from grinding and cutting during construction of the towers Iron powder cores from electronics (e.g. transformer cores) Pyrotechnic agents (including thermite!) NYC background levels of particulate from general environmental sources" I would like to see SJ consider these sources, ONE BY ONE, before he draws any conclusions that he has found evidence for the use of explosives or thermite in the towers. The point of the paper is the fires were not hot enough to achieve the temperatures for the applicable melting points required. It is remarkable the government did not address this. From the paper: --------------------------------------------------------- Table 1. Approximate Minimum Temperatures Required Process and material °C °F To form Fe-O-S eutectic (with ~50 Mol % sulfur) in steel 1,000 1,832 To melt aluminosilicates (spherule formation) 1,450 2,652 To melt iron (spherule formation) 1,538 2,800 To melt iron (III) oxide (spherule formation) 1,565 2,849 To vaporize lead 1,740 3,164 To melt molybdenum (spherule formation) 2,623 4,753 To vaporize aluminosilicates 2,760 5,000 -------------------------------------------------------------- So, what is the source for the extreme temperatures indicated?
quicknthedead Thinker Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 173

29th January 2008, 11:04 PM	#30
boloboffin Guest Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 4,986	Originally Posted by T.A.M. everything except their names. TAM The date! They rarely get the date wrong.
boloboffin Guest Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 4,986

29th January 2008, 11:11 PM	#31
Sizzler Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,562	Originally Posted by T.A.M. INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS? No I have not. Are you telling me that a third party, unconnected to the 9/11 truth movement got the samples and analyzed them, themselves? And if so, what oh great "agnostic" sizzler, did they conclude??? TAM Yes, this was analyzed by other scientists before Jones et al. Read the paper TAM. Gravy has pointed this out several times. However what Gravy fails to address is: they concluded that the fires were able to reach these temperatures: Quote: From the paper: --------------------------------------------------------- Table 1. Approximate Minimum Temperatures Required Process and material °C °F To form Fe-O-S eutectic (with ~50 Mol % sulfur) in steel 1,000 1,832 To melt aluminosilicates (spherule formation) 1,450 2,652 To melt iron (spherule formation) 1,538 2,800 To melt iron (III) oxide (spherule formation) 1,565 2,849 To vaporize lead 1,740 3,164 To melt molybdenum (spherule formation) 2,623 4,753 To vaporize aluminosilicates 2,760 5,000 Gimme a break. Look at those temperatures.
Sizzler Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,562

29th January 2008, 11:20 PM	#32
Sizzler Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,562	Originally Posted by Gravy What I said in my post. Because they didn't consult experts, they're taking shots in the dark. Um, a lot of what they did is confirmed by past scientists. You even told me that silly. Peep the temps in the paper. Can you seriously argue the fires got that hot? Read the paper Gravy.
Sizzler Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,562

29th January 2008, 11:26 PM	#33
Sizzler Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,562	SO NO SERIOUS CRITIQUE YET? Not surprising actually.....
Sizzler Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,562

29th January 2008, 11:28 PM	#34
LashL Goddess of Legaltainment™ Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 35,686	Originally Posted by Sizzler Yes, this was analyzed by other scientists before Jones et al. Read the paper TAM. No, there is nothing in the paper that claims that Jones released his samples to others for independent analysis. Read for comprehension, Sizzler. And read The Almond's posts in this thread again, while you're at it.

29th January 2008, 11:34 PM	#35
Sizzler Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,562	Originally Posted by LashL No, there is nothing in the paper that claims that Jones released his samples to others for independent analysis. Read for comprehension, Sizzler. And read The Almond's posts in this thread again, while you're at it. I didn't claim the exact samples he has were released. I claimed previous scientists analyzed other samples and found the same substances. Read the paper smarty pants.
Sizzler Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,562

29th January 2008, 11:43 PM	#36
Sizzler Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,562	I'm going to make a bold assertion that no one can debunk this paper.... Who is gonna prove me wrong? ps. my money is on Crazy Chainsaw if anyone.
Sizzler Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,562	Last edited by Sizzler; 29th January 2008 at 11:44 PM.