IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


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.
Tags 911 conspiracy theory , thermite , wtc1 , wtc2

Closed Thread
Old 6th April 2009, 05:57 PM   #521
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by metamars View Post
At http://www.stanfordmaterials.com/nano.html

The morphology for all alumina oxide nano powders is listed as "nearly spherical"
The morphology for all aluminum nano powders is listed as "spherical"

However, googling "multilayer aluminum silicon nano thermite" very quickly gets interesting hits (ito suggesting, to this layman, non-spherical nanoscale aluminotherics), e.g.:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/...ext.pdf?page=1



Meanwhile, this link: http://www.primetprecision.com/index.php?id=10

talks about nano sized silicon platelets:
What is your point? Are you saying that one of the two layers seen in the chip sample could have been deposited on the other by sputtering?

You do realise that the platelets in the red layer also contained (confirmed by EDS - see Fig 11a), aluminium and oxygen (as well as silicon) and therefore will contain Al203 and SiO2. Looking at the size shape and structure this matches Kaolin which will be in the form Al203.2Si02.2H20 (anhydrous Aluminium Silicate)

You seem to be desperately googling terms and then jumping upon any paper without understanding how that paper relates to the paper we are discussing or anyone else's arguments.
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 6th April 2009, 06:04 PM   #522
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by metamars View Post
You ducked. Now, why would you do that?
I'm sorry but I haven't got a clue what you are on about. Rephrase the question or clearly explain what you want me to comment on. I gave a full answer so I'm a bit perplexed.
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 6th April 2009, 06:10 PM   #523
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Central New Jersey
Posts: 7,032
Originally Posted by Lenbrazil View Post
Hate to give truthers ideas but much of the fire proofing including IIRC all of that on the impact floors had been upgraded this is discussed in one of the NIST base reports and IIRC there is something about it (with links) in Wikipedia. But then of course Mackey has shown that even based on Harrit et als best numbers the material wasn't energetic enough to do any damage.

Someone said Greening came up w/similar numbers, where exactly did he report this?

It was upgraded in that a additional coat was applied. was not stripped to bare metal. And only on floors undergoing renovation.
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude.
A W Smith 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 6th April 2009, 06:12 PM   #524
metamars
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,207
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
what are you going on about? I am talking about the conclusions from Mackey and Greening, that even by the most generous of approaches, the amount of energy that would be released from the "chip thermite" would be useless.

Do you agree or disagree with Mackey and Greening, and if so, based on what?

TAM
I'm not convinced by the Jones, et. al. paper that they do, indeed, have an nanothermite. However, I'm not convinced by Mackey, either. I don't think Greening has come to a conclusion.

I really don't have the expertise to have an opinion that matters. But I expect that material scientists do have the expertise to evaluate the Jones, et. al. claims.

I suspect that when they do, they will still consider them indeterminate, and require more proof.

The nice thing about this particular issue is that I believe a conclusion can eventually be reached (one way or another) that is beyond doubt by domain experts ( = material scientists) . I certainly don't consider NIST's modeling to be in this category. Nor do I consider Jones' work on the microspheres in this category, as it is probably impossible to eliminate fly ash as a possible source.

That's why, imo, 911 Truthers are fools if they just try to appeal to the usual suspects - media and government - with this paper, at this stage of the game. They should, instead, be sending it to individual material scientists (as in 100's and 1000's of them) to get them interested. If the material scientists who look at this carefully are mostly agreed that it's a demolition agent, then they might get some traction with those other two corrupt institutions previously mentioned.
metamars 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 6th April 2009, 06:19 PM   #525
metamars
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,207
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
I'm sorry but I haven't got a clue what you are on about. Rephrase the question or clearly explain what you want me to comment on. I gave a full answer so I'm a bit perplexed.
I should have been clearer. I was referring to only the red part of the "chip".

I see basically a bent, red square. A square is a shape with 4 corners, with 4 sides of equal length. (OK, maybe it's a rectangle, but close to square.)

If you don't see a red shape, with 4 corners, and sides approximately the same length, then just say so.

OTOH, if you do see this, (as I do), why do you not find it exceptional? Is it because you see such shapes all the time when stripping paint, or examining some paint chips that peeled off of a piece of metal, of their own accord?

Another possibility (which I should have mentioned) is that you see a square in the picture, but rarely or never see one in real life, but simply consider this one to be an anomaly.
metamars 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 6th April 2009, 06:26 PM   #526
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by metamars View Post
I really don't have the expertise to have an opinion that matters. But I expect that material scientists do have the expertise to evaluate the Jones, et. al. claims.
Yes we damn well do. That's what i've been trying to tell you a) I'm a materials scientist and b) I can evaluate Jones's paper c) I've shown that the material that he has is NOT thermite it's a layer of MIO (which is widely used in anti-corrosion paint) with a layer of red paint more than likely to be kaolin, Fe2O3 rhomboidal crystals and some sort of Carbon based binder (eg: urethane or epoxy etc)

Originally Posted by metamars View Post
I suspect that when they do, they will still consider them indeterminate, and require more proof.
We aren't some sort of mono-bloc. If Jones wants to be taken seriously then he should submit his paper to a Materials Science Journal.

Originally Posted by metamars View Post
The nice thing about this particular issue is that I believe a conclusion can eventually be reached (one way or another) that is beyond doubt by domain experts ( = material scientists) . I certainly don't consider NIST's modeling to be in this category. Nor do I consider Jones' work on the microspheres in this category, as it is probably impossible to eliminate fly ash as a possible source.
I agree about a proper conclusion with regard to the paper. Whilst we can't rule out fly ash it may look like burning paint is the source.

Originally Posted by metamars View Post
That's why, imo, 911 Truthers are fools if they just try to appeal to the usual suspects - media and government - with this paper, at this stage of the game. They should, instead, be sending it to individual material scientists (as in 100's and 1000's of them) to get them interested. If the material scientists who look at this carefully are mostly agreed that it's a demolition agent, then they might get some traction with those other two corrupt institutions previously mentioned.
And Jones could put everyone out of their misery by simply sending a few of his paint chips to an independent materials laboratory and ask them to do a full analysis.

Hell, for 40 bucks he can get an XRD done and get the results in less than a week. That will give him all the compounds present (not just elements) and their quantities.
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 6th April 2009, 06:32 PM   #527
boloboffin
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,986
Quote:
Hell, for 40 bucks he can get an XRD done and get the results in less than a week. That will give him all the compounds present (not just elements) and their quantities.
So that's the game, is it? I'm sure that someone in that august gathering of 9/11 Truth scientists knows this. So why do they keep using the spectra when they could have more complete information on the makeup of these chips? Because that would give the game away.
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 6th April 2009, 06:39 PM   #528
metamars
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,207
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
What is your point? Are you saying that one of the two layers seen in the chip sample could have been deposited on the other by sputtering?

You do realise that the platelets in the red layer also contained (confirmed by EDS - see Fig 11a), aluminium and oxygen (as well as silicon) and therefore will contain Al203 and SiO2. Looking at the size shape and structure this matches Kaolin which will be in the form Al203.2Si02.2H20 (anhydrous Aluminium Silicate)

You seem to be desperately googling terms and then jumping upon any paper without understanding how that paper relates to the paper we are discussing or anyone else's arguments.
This post was a copy from an email to Professor Jones, and post at 911blogger.com. I am basically prodding Professor Jones, and anybody who has more time and inclination (and hopefully expertise) than I do, to check out resources that might possibly relate to this issue, and thus to see if it's possible to support his claim of platelet structures that contain Al in elemental form, as well as Si. (Or cast doubt on it, as the case may be.)

I haven't even read the papers I quoted, and don't expect I'd understand most of them, if I did.

Regarding your specific question, no I hadn't realized that, but I know you can't have Al exposed to air and not have it react. It needs an oxide protective layer at it's surface. Thus, if the platelets' Al content is, say, 99% Aluminum, I still expect there to be some Al oxide.

I have no idea if a similar tendency exists for Si. I'm not a chemist. In the case of Si and SiO2, though, I don't think it matters that much. If the Al is not mostly in elemental form, the stuff is not thermite. If it is, I don't think it matters if the Si is bonded to Oxygen, or not. Why would it, in terms of a thermite chemical reaction?

I know next to nothing about chemistry, having studied it long, long ago, so feel free to enlighten me about any mistaken notions I have.
metamars 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 6th April 2009, 06:40 PM   #529
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Central New Jersey
Posts: 7,032
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
And Jones could put everyone out of their misery by simply sending a few of his paint chips to an independent materials laboratory and ask them to do a full analysis.

Hell, for 40 bucks he can get an XRD done and get the results in less than a week. That will give him all the compounds present (not just elements) and their quantities.
Which is what I thought he said he would do over a year ago. Apparently the results he got back from the "independent lab" were not to his liking and into the circular file it goes. Never to see the light of day.
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude.
A W Smith 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 6th April 2009, 06:53 PM   #530
boloboffin
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,986
Originally Posted by A W Smith View Post
Which is what I thought he said he would do over a year ago. Apparently the results he got back from the "independent lab" were not to his liking and into the circular file it goes. Never to see the light of day.
Mr. Smith, do you have a link for this claim, pleasepleasepleaseplease?
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 6th April 2009, 07:00 PM   #531
metamars
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,207
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
Yes we damn well do. That's what i've been trying to tell you a) I'm a materials scientist and b) I can evaluate Jones's paper c) I've shown that the material that he has is NOT thermite it's a layer of MIO (which is widely used in anti-corrosion paint) with a layer of red paint more than likely to be kaolin, Fe2O3 rhomboidal crystals and some sort of Carbon based binder (eg: urethane or epoxy etc)
I'm sort of a student of scientific controversies, and from what I've learned, it's not wise to automatically trust even a large group of scientists. That's sort of my nature, anyway. E.g., I was shocked to learn that many (most?) men don't like asking for directions. I typically ask multiple people, to make sure I don't take directions from a joker or somebody that just makes a mistake. I'm a guy...

Quote:
And Jones could put everyone out of their misery by simply sending a few of his paint chips to an independent materials laboratory and ask them to do a full analysis.

Hell, for 40 bucks he can get an XRD done and get the results in less than a week. That will give him all the compounds present (not just elements) and their quantities.
I just emailed him this, verbatim. If he replies, he has already given me permission to post his replies in forums.
metamars 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 6th April 2009, 07:01 PM   #532
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Well metamars, at least you have the courage and honesty to call it as you see it.

I wholeheartedly agree that EXPERTS in this area, material scientists (Sunstealer is one), and others could settle it.

By all means, assemble the experts, because you know Jones et al will 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 6th April 2009, 07:11 PM   #533
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
Experts who are not engaged in 9/11 truth activism, please.
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 6th April 2009, 07:15 PM   #534
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Central New Jersey
Posts: 7,032
Originally Posted by boloboffin View Post
Mr. Smith, do you have a link for this claim, pleasepleasepleaseplease?
Ill have to do an archive.org search using the old urls. It may have been two years ago. He was waiting for the independent lab to get back to him. I seem to recall an exchange with greening. And there was a thread here about it that i think crazychainsaw participated in re: iron sphericals.



still looking.
the thread i was thinking of was "thermite on a chip"
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=101863

this is interesting. from December 07

http://911blogger.com/node/13090
Originally Posted by jones
I've sent chips to yet another lab, yesterday.
and on the next page
http://911blogger.com/node/13090?page=1
Originally Posted by Jones
Again, the evidence I have presented needs further, independent quantitative corroboration
And this post sort of jumps out at you. Given the recent Betham follies,
Originally Posted by jones
Publishing a paper typically takes several months, from submission through peer-review and responses, and then waiting for final publication. I'm co-author on two papers currently in this process, with mainstream technical journals.
Given the reality of slow-publishing in mainstream scientific and engineering journals (granted this is important to do, to reach the scientific community better, for example), I/we are exploring other avenues -- open for suggestions.
And that was twenty seven months ago
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude.

Last edited by A W Smith; 6th April 2009 at 07:59 PM.
A W Smith 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 6th April 2009, 07:53 PM   #535
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
What is the point or purpose of debating whether or not thermate/thermite residues were present?

There is no way that either version of thermxte was the cause of the molten aluminium (aka "Steel") which cascaded from a single point source at 80 or so storeys height. Plenty of claims that the molten material was steel; plenty of claims it was from thermxte; also some claims mostly innuendo that the molten stuff came from thermxte cutting of columns as part of a demolition.

Zero explanation of about a dozen steps of logic. Nearly all of them fatal to the implicit "hypothesis by innuendo".

And only one tentative hypothesis as to how it could have been done - mine - when I postulated a team of fireproof suited suicide heroes who put all the required provisions in place after the aircraft crash and before the first molten flow appeared. Brave souls all.

Alternatively we could be thinking about thermate being used to melt the stuff in the rubble. Why? With simple alternative explanations.

So the only valid reason for pursuing this debate seems to be general interest in an unexplained phenomenon......which is probably based on false claims.....

I suppose it helps pass the time.
ozeco41 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 6th April 2009, 08:09 PM   #536
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,201
Originally Posted by A W Smith View Post
I think if you applied a propane torch as jones did to any number of everyday substances you would see similar reactions, did I mention this coating was under a layer of fireproofing?
have you ever demonstrated that CLAIM? could you cite me examples when this CLAIM has been tested and verified.

the fact is the red chips exhibited highly energetic reactions the question is can you SHOW how paint will exhibit the SAME behaviour under the same conditions.

peace
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 6th April 2009, 08:19 PM   #537
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,201
ITS TIME FOR DEBUNKERS TO GET EMPIRICAL

Assuming sunstealer is right and that he has identified what kind of "paint" the red chips actually are.

DO EXPERIMENTS - test the paint to determine whether or not it exhibits highly energetic behaviour when ignited. [as do the red chip Jones et al tested]

If it fails on the first attempt, try again, or try another brand of paint just like incy-wincy spider.

Until debunkers are willing to get EMPIRICAL and DEMONSTRATE how paint when ignited will behave energetically their aguments are ultimately TOOTHLESS.

PEACE
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 6th April 2009, 08:26 PM   #538
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Central New Jersey
Posts: 7,032
Given the tiny thimble sized red "thermite on a chip" torch demonstration in jones video. One has to wonder why no one witnessed bright white explosive reaction on 9/11? did I mention this coating was under a layer of fireproofing?
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude.
A W Smith 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 6th April 2009, 08:28 PM   #539
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,282
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
What is the point or purpose of debating whether or not thermate/thermite residues were present?

There is no way that either version of thermxte was the cause of the molten aluminium (aka "Steel") which cascaded from a single point source at 80 or so storeys height. Plenty of claims that the molten material was steel; plenty of claims it was from thermxte; also some claims mostly innuendo that the molten stuff came from thermxte cutting of columns as part of a demolition.

Zero explanation of about a dozen steps of logic. Nearly all of them fatal to the implicit "hypothesis by innuendo".

And only one tentative hypothesis as to how it could have been done - mine - when I postulated a team of fireproof suited suicide heroes who put all the required provisions in place after the aircraft crash and before the first molten flow appeared. Brave souls all.

Alternatively we could be thinking about thermate being used to melt the stuff in the rubble. Why? With simple alternative explanations.

So the only valid reason for pursuing this debate seems to be general interest in an unexplained phenomenon......which is probably based on false claims.....

I suppose it helps pass the time.
Correct on all points. Most especially your last sentence.
__________________
"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."
ElMondoHummus 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 6th April 2009, 08:33 PM   #540
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,201
Mackey - the journal is rubbish

TAM - chain of custody is a nightmere

911files - show me the control spectra

Sunstealer - its paint

All the above adhere to the hypothesis that the red chips are "paint" yet none of the above have ever tested their hypothesis in order to demonstrate how paint will exhibit highly energetic behaviour when ignited.

Is the empirical method to debunkers like garlic to a vampire?

The following video link is some affiliates of NIST actually trying to prove their own claim, namely that molten aluminium mixed with organics will glow orange!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQdkyaO56OY

peace

Last edited by thewholesoul; 6th April 2009 at 08:45 PM.
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 6th April 2009, 08:34 PM   #541
Thunder
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,918
Why do I get the feeling that the truthers are desperate for confirmation from JREF?

Why do I get the feeling that they want us to do the work for them?
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 6th April 2009, 08:35 PM   #542
mark4mark
Scholar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 56
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
have you ever demonstrated that CLAIM? could you cite me examples when this CLAIM has been tested and verified.

the fact is the red chips exhibited highly energetic reactions the question is can you SHOW how paint will exhibit the SAME behaviour under the same conditions.

peace
How such an "explosive" substance survived this "demolition" you imagine begs the question,
"Just how explosive could this substance be?"
mark4mark 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 6th April 2009, 08:38 PM   #543
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,201
Originally Posted by A W Smith View Post
Given the tiny thimble sized red "thermite on a chip" torch demonstration in jones video. One has to wonder why no one witnessed bright white explosive reaction on 9/11? did I mention this coating was under a layer of fireproofing?
you believe paint exhibits explosive properties when ignited. prove it.

the cores were inside the building. assuming nanothermite was used to take out the core this would have been kinda hard to see dont ya think?

although that said, there are some reports of white flashes being seen.

peace
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 6th April 2009, 08:41 PM   #544
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,201
Originally Posted by mark4mark View Post
How such an "explosive" substance survived this "demolition" you imagine begs the question,
"Just how explosive could this substance be?"
assuming that the red chips are unreacted explosives then the question of "how they survived" is rather moot.

as for your second question "how explosive" are they, I suggest actually read Jones's paper because it addresses that question.

peace
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 6th April 2009, 08:43 PM   #545
Mr.D
Self Assessed Dunning-Kruger Expert
 
Mr.D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,178
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
upon ignition these chips displayed properties that ... are consistent with nanoenergetics..
Really?
Mr.D 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 6th April 2009, 08:44 PM   #546
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,201
Originally Posted by parky76 View Post
Why do I get the feeling that the truthers are desperate for confirmation from JREF?

Why do I get the feeling that they want us to do the work for them?
Debunkers are desperate to prove Jones paper false - yet they are unprepared to DO ANY EXPERIMENTS TO PROVE IT FALSE?

are debunkers a bunch of - ARMCHAIR SCIENTISTS?

peace
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 6th April 2009, 08:45 PM   #547
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Central New Jersey
Posts: 7,032
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
you believe paint exhibits explosive properties when ignited. prove it.

the cores were inside the building. assuming nanothermite was used to take out the core this would have been kinda hard to see dont ya think?

although that said, there are some reports of white flashes being seen.

peace
You believe a substance the thickness of paint can take out core columns? good luck with your fantasy there. And Sorry. Its a little late in the evening to do torch work especially with samples Jones wont share with those who don't agree with conclusions he has formed over two years ago. And we aren't as experienced at faking demonstrations like Jones is. He already has a track record given his doctored photos.
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude.
A W Smith 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 6th April 2009, 08:50 PM   #548
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Central New Jersey
Posts: 7,032
Burden of proof is on the truth movement

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Debunkers are desperate to prove Jones paper false - yet they are unprepared to DO ANY EXPERIMENTS TO PROVE IT FALSE?

are debunkers a bunch of - ARMCHAIR SCIENTISTS?

peace
Theres no need to prove jones paper false. It is incomplete given the lack of control samples of the superdupernanonanothermite he alleges exists. All his evidence points to

****drum roll*****

PAINT


edit to add
And did I mention this coating was under a layer of fireproofing?????? any comment on how it got there thesolehole?
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude.

Last edited by A W Smith; 6th April 2009 at 08:54 PM.
A W Smith 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 6th April 2009, 08:53 PM   #549
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,866
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
you believe paint exhibits explosive properties when ignited. prove it.
As far as I'm concerned if these paint chips are supposed to represent unreacted thermite "painted" or layered on a column then I find it difficult to believe it would be in enough quantity over any given point on the column to melt completely through it. If the reaction runs out of steam too quickly it will not succeed

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
the cores were inside the building. assuming nanothermite was used to take out the core this would have been kinda hard to see dont ya think?
This speculation is extremely dubious considering that the core was the last section of the buildings to collapse. This claim is made even less convincing given that the collapse began in the same areas where the planes hit and the fires burned unrestrained. I'm afraid this speculation on your part is weak.
__________________
Grizzly Bear 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 6th April 2009, 09:37 PM   #550
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Central New Jersey
Posts: 7,032
Originally Posted by A W Smith View Post
Ill have to do an archive.org search using the old urls. It may have been two years ago. He was waiting for the independent lab to get back to him. I seem to recall an exchange with greening. And there was a thread here about it that i think crazychainsaw participated in re: iron sphericals.



still looking.
the thread i was thinking of was "thermite on a chip"
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=101863

this is interesting. from December 07

http://911blogger.com/node/13090
Originally Posted by Jones
I've sent chips to yet another lab, yesterday.

and on the next page
http://911blogger.com/node/13090?page=1
Originally Posted by Jones
Again, the evidence I have presented needs further, independent quantitative corroboration

And this post sort of jumps out at you. Given the recent Betham follies,
Originally Posted by Jones
Publishing a paper typically takes several months, from submission through peer-review and responses, and then waiting for final publication. I'm co-author on two papers currently in this process, with mainstream technical journals.
Given the reality of slow-publishing in mainstream scientific and engineering journals (granted this is important to do, to reach the scientific community better, for example), I/we are exploring other avenues -- open for suggestions.
And that was twenty seven months ago
Sorry that should read 15 months ago. NOT 27
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude.

Last edited by A W Smith; 6th April 2009 at 09:41 PM.
A W Smith 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 6th April 2009, 10:24 PM   #551
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
you believe paint exhibits explosive properties when ignited. prove it.

...
peace
Dude, that's the thing: the Jones boys need to do a full-scale test of their Acme Super Duper Nanothermite Paint on structural steel to DEMONSTRATE that it in fact can do what they say it can.

Until then it's all just a lab show with little chips. That is not proof of anything. Get busy Mr. Jones!

Come to think of it, did he ever get out of the lab stage with his fancy cold-fusion? Nope. Deja Vu all over again, init?
alienentity 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 6th April 2009, 10:31 PM   #552
dtugg
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,885
Originally Posted by alienentity View Post
Dude, that's the thing: the Jones boys need to do a full-scale test of their Acme Super Duper Nanothermite Paint on structural steel to DEMONSTRATE that it in fact can do what they say it can.

Until then it's all just a lab show with little chips. That is not proof of anything. Get busy Mr. Jones!

Come to think of it, did he ever get out of the lab stage with his fancy cold-fusion? Nope. Deja Vu all over again, init?
Seriously. Hey twoofers, can you think of any reasons that your heroes have never even attempted to prove that their super-duper-nano-therm*te can do what they claim? Until then, their "theory" is nothing more than a totally unfounded fantasy. About as stupid as giant lasers from outer space doing it.
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 7th April 2009, 12:52 AM   #553
metamars
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,207
Originally Posted by dtugg View Post
Seriously. Hey twoofers, can you think of any reasons that your heroes have never even attempted to prove that their super-duper-nano-therm*te can do what they claim? Until then, their "theory" is nothing more than a totally unfounded fantasy. About as stupid as giant lasers from outer space doing it.
The test I'd like to see is as follows:

Construct 2 mini-buildings with, say 10 poles set in concrete. Take a motorcycle which can do 140 mph, attach a side carriage, load it up with canisters of kerosene fuel, and also attach a couple of superheated chunks of metal. (I don't know what the temperature of jet engines is, but the idea is to try and emulate that.) Crash it into your 10 pole building, and film it.

Next, treat the 10 columns of the second 'building' with nano-thermite. Crash an identical vehicle into it, and film the results.

Do you get a fireball with B, but not A?

This test will be flawed because of the fact that 140 mph is much slower than the 911 WTC jets were going.

I expect much less of an aerosolizing effect at this speed. This is the problem when you don't work for the NWO - budget constraints!!


(I'm probably using the word aerosolizing incorrectly. My intent is basically to say that small droplets of fuel get formed during the first instances of impact.)
metamars 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 7th April 2009, 03:27 AM   #554
Orphia Nay
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger
 
Orphia Nay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 45,220
Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus View Post
As a summary, it reads fine Orphia. Just because of my point of view, I might myself note that their experiments demonstrating more potential energy being available than thermite sort of discards thermite as a candidate, but that's me. It's hardly required, plus it's more an icing on the cake argument than anything else. Really, just pointing out Sunstealer's argument about kaolin plus Ryan's notes about Bentham's "review" process is rebuttal enough.
Thanks very much. I'll keep your point in mind.


Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
perhaps someone, who might know someone, could contact one of the scientists who performed some of the LEGITIMATE analysis of WTC dust. I am sure those samples would have red-grey chips in them, and they could tell us from their analysis, what they were.

TAM
Good suggestion.

Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
Interesting:



http://www.jstor.org/pss/3455517

No mention of thermite, superthermite, etc...but a mention of PAINT as a major component (lead based and non lead based) in the samples.

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

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


Originally Posted by Kent1 View Post
Forgive me if it has been mentioned, but Red Tnemec paint and primer were used to paint the columns. Plus of course sprayed on fire-resistant material was used.
http://www.tnemec.com/Architectural

NISTNCSTAR1-3C also mentioned the paint, (shows the exposed beams) and may be helpful in showing various paint chips/debris from the columns.
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
Thank you - most helpful.

On page 17 Fig14 - the paper shows and EDS spectrum of the red surface of a chip selected from batch 2 prior to undergoing immersion in MEK.

Compare the findings with the data sheet for Red 99 Tnemec - under 3. Composition/information on ingredients.

http://www.tnemec.com/resources/product/MSDS/F010.pdf
I'd love to hear more about this, you two.


Another thought: Which layer of the chips does Jones think is supercalifragilisticthermite? The red, or the grey, or is it both?
Orphia Nay 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 7th April 2009, 04:11 AM   #555
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
ITS TIME FOR DEBUNKERS TO GET EMPIRICAL

Assuming sunstealer is right and that he has identified what kind of "paint" the red chips actually are.

DO EXPERIMENTS - test the paint to determine whether or not it exhibits highly energetic behaviour when ignited. [as do the red chip Jones et al tested]

If it fails on the first attempt, try again, or try another brand of paint just like incy-wincy spider.

Until debunkers are willing to get EMPIRICAL and DEMONSTRATE how paint when ignited will behave energetically their aguments are ultimately TOOTHLESS.

PEACE
Feeble attempt to shift burden of proof. Jones has yet to prove that the red/grey chips are thermite. He has yet to prove they are WTC paint, due to his lack of control experiment.

TRUTHERS, GET YOUR FEARLESS LEADER STEVEN JONES TO TEST THE SAME PAINT THAT WAS USED IN THE WTC AND EITHER RULE IT IN OR OUT!!!

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 7th April 2009, 04:29 AM   #556
moorea34
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 157
NISTNCSTAR1-3C
appendix D p442
Figure D-4...

Chips ?

See also table D-1... p438 Iron oxyde ?

Last edited by moorea34; 7th April 2009 at 04:31 AM.
moorea34 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 7th April 2009, 04:54 AM   #557
Julio
Scholar
 
Julio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 71
Originally Posted by moorea34 View Post
NISTNCSTAR1-3C
appendix D p442
Figure D-4...

Chips ?

See also table D-1... p438 Iron oxyde ?
From page 434:

Quote:
Beyond approximately 650ºC (...), a black scale formed between the steel and the paint,Fig. D-3. This scale layer had very poor adherence to the steel, and the paint was seen to flake off with slight pressure. Above approximately 800ºC, the kinetics of the scale formation were very fast, and after short exposures to this temperature a thick scale formed and spalled off the steel, carrying away the paint.


ETA:As for the "energetic reaction" (page 435)
Quote:
Figure D-5 shows two superimposed DTA scans. The initial heating scan at 20K/Min exhibits a broad exothermic poeak centered at 400ºC
Just before, it is explained how metastable phases can be formed when the metal is cooling, that can be detected using DTA. Upon heating, theses metastable phases can transform,being detectable as exothermic spikes.

So, there it is:the whole of Jones investigation explained.

Last edited by Julio; 7th April 2009 at 06:20 AM. Reason: typos
Julio 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 7th April 2009, 05:59 AM   #558
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,374
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
Feeble attempt to shift burden of proof.
Yup. I find it telling that thewholesoul decided to use a simple debate tactic instead of actually arguing the evidence.
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison
twinstead 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 7th April 2009, 06:22 AM   #559
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Central New Jersey
Posts: 7,032
Originally Posted by metamars View Post
The test I'd like to see is as follows:

Construct 2 mini-buildings with, say 10 poles set in concrete. Take a motorcycle which can do 140 mph, attach a side carriage, load it up with canisters of kerosene fuel, and also attach a couple of superheated chunks of metal. (I don't know what the temperature of jet engines is, but the idea is to try and emulate that.) Crash it into your 10 pole building, and film it.

Next, treat the 10 columns of the second 'building' with nano-thermite. Crash an identical vehicle into it, and film the results.

Do you get a fireball with B, but not A?

This test will be flawed because of the fact that 140 mph is much slower than the 911 WTC jets were going.

I expect much less of an aerosolizing effect at this speed. This is the problem when you don't work for the NWO - budget constraints!!


(I'm probably using the word aerosolizing incorrectly. My intent is basically to say that small droplets of fuel get formed during the first instances of impact.)
Then theres the matter of the scaling argument
Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude.
A W Smith 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 7th April 2009, 06:32 AM   #560
J. Edward Tremlett
New Blood
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8
Originally Posted by metamars View Post
Construct 2 mini-buildings with, say 10 poles set in concrete. Take a motorcycle which can do 140 mph, attach a side carriage, load it up with canisters of kerosene fuel, and also attach a couple of superheated chunks of metal. (I don't know what the temperature of jet engines is, but the idea is to try and emulate that.) Crash it into your 10 pole building, and film it.
Can we exhume the body of Evil Knievel and hog-tie him to the motorcycle, too?

I mean, if we're gonna go all out... : D
J. Edward Tremlett 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

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

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 07:04 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

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