|
Welcome to the International Skeptics 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. |
5th April 2009, 11:13 AM | #281 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
|
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. |
5th April 2009, 11:17 AM | #282 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,368
|
|
5th April 2009, 11:20 AM | #283 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
|
Galileo must be spinning in his grave right now.
|
5th April 2009, 11:21 AM | #284 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,885
|
|
5th April 2009, 11:21 AM | #285 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
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. |
5th April 2009, 11:29 AM | #286 | ||
Indestructible
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 2,773
|
|
||
5th April 2009, 11:48 AM | #287 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,278
|
|
__________________
"Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM |
|
5th April 2009, 12:02 PM | #288 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
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? |
|
5th April 2009, 12:16 PM | #289 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
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 |
5th April 2009, 12:24 PM | #290 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,397
|
|
__________________
------ Eric Pode of Croydon Chief Assistant to the Assistance Chief, Dept of Redundancy Dept. |
|
5th April 2009, 12:53 PM | #291 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,368
|
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. |
5th April 2009, 01:00 PM | #292 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
|
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:
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. |
5th April 2009, 01:01 PM | #293 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,494
|
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. |
5th April 2009, 01:13 PM | #294 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
|
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
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! |
5th April 2009, 01:15 PM | #295 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
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 |
5th April 2009, 01:15 PM | #296 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
|
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? |
5th April 2009, 01:23 PM | #297 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
|
5th April 2009, 01:27 PM | #298 |
Scholar
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 50
|
Quote:
|
5th April 2009, 02:12 PM | #299 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
|
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? |
5th April 2009, 02:16 PM | #300 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,918
|
|
5th April 2009, 02:27 PM | #301 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,368
|
|
5th April 2009, 02:30 PM | #302 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
|
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. |
5th April 2009, 02:33 PM | #303 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
|
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 |
5th April 2009, 02:33 PM | #304 |
Guest
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,918
|
|
5th April 2009, 02:34 PM | #305 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
|
|
5th April 2009, 02:35 PM | #306 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
|
|
5th April 2009, 02:38 PM | #307 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
|
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. |
5th April 2009, 02:42 PM | #308 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,201
|
|
5th April 2009, 02:45 PM | #309 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,201
|
|
5th April 2009, 02:48 PM | #310 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,201
|
|
5th April 2009, 02:51 PM | #311 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
|
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. |
5th April 2009, 02:52 PM | #312 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,278
|
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 |
|
5th April 2009, 02:54 PM | #313 |
Guest
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,986
|
You know, with two people still working at Brigham Young, maybe Brigham Young should be aware of this paper.
|
5th April 2009, 03:02 PM | #314 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,278
|
|
__________________
"Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM |
|
5th April 2009, 03:03 PM | #315 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,368
|
|
5th April 2009, 03:04 PM | #316 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
|
Neither is Bantham Open Access Publishing. The optional word for them is "Legitimate" which they are not.
TAM |
5th April 2009, 03:05 PM | #317 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,316
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
5th April 2009, 03:09 PM | #318 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,368
|
|
5th April 2009, 03:11 PM | #319 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: May 2007
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 |
|
5th April 2009, 03:12 PM | #320 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|