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 7th April 2009, 06:50 AM   #561
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,201
Originally Posted by A W Smith View Post
You believe a substance the thickness of paint can take out core columns? good luck with your fantasy there.
p21 of 25 outlines the energy release by mass for the red chips found in the WTC dust. two out of four red chips samples exhibted greater energy release by mass than HMX, TNT, etc.

however i would like to see more large scale experiments.

Originally Posted by A W Smith View Post
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.
stop making excuses. you KNOW what the red chips are, they are paint.

so why do you go and do some EXPERIMENTS just like Jones did. And demonstrate how red paint when ignited will an energy release per mass greater than TNT.

Quote:
"Several paint samples were also tested and in each case, the paint sample was immediately reduced to fragile ashes by the hot flame"
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 7th April 2009, 07:14 AM   #562
Julio
Scholar
 
Julio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 71
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
p21 of 25 outlines the energy release by mass for the red chips found in the WTC dust. two out of four red chips samples exhibted greater energy release by mass than HMX, TNT, etc.
So?

Thermite releases 3.9 KJ per gram of thermite.
TNT releases 4 KJ per gram of TNT

Coal releases about 30 KJ per gram of coal.(source: wikipedia)
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, 07:17 AM   #563
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 T.A.M. View Post
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
TWS said what??

The whole point of everyone's posts here (Sunstealer's, Ryan's, mine, and others) were to demonstrate how Jones et. al is incorrectly interpreting his own findings! Christ... once again, exceeding the potential energy per gram of thermite means it's not thermite, just the same as exceeding 8 oz of liquid doesn't mean it's a "supercup"! On top of that, Sunstealer's work properly identifies what Jones and the rest of the researchers elect to miss, and that's what the material of the chip really is!

There is no need for "us" to test this thesis ourselves; the work in question fails on the weight of its own internal errors. That's what we're pointing out. Furthermore, there's no need to further establish that thermite wasn't used, because the main effect - molten steel - is missing! The recovered steel shows zero signs of anything other than a mechanical severing. No solidified pools were discovered. No lightshow was seen. There is zero reason to look any further. Even if Jones were somehow miraculously correct in identifying deliberately planted super incendiaries, all he's proven is that it failed to work, because all the other evidence is missing.

How advocates of this most recent paper fail to comprehend the entire picture is beyond me...
__________________
"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 7th April 2009, 07:22 AM   #564
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Kevin Ryan interview 6th april 09

Kevin Ryan interviewed on KPEK radio 6 april 2009
http://archive.kpfk.org/parchive/mp3...223indymed.mp3
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'
bill 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, 07:26 AM   #565
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,201
Originally Posted by A W Smith View Post
Theres no need to prove jones paper false. It is incomplete given the lack of control samples of the super-nonanothermite he alleges exists. All his evidence points to PAINT
Jones paper essentially demonstrates that the red chip were NOT paint. can debunkers through experimentation prove this finding false?

if the red chips are not paint then the only substance in the REAL WORLD that they resemble is nano thermite due to there energy release upon ignition.

Jones does not allege it exists, it exists! go ask the U.S. military!!

How would YOU suggest Jones (anti-govt scientist) obtains samples of nanothermite? Or can he just walk into a Wall Mart and buy some?

Originally Posted by A W Smith View Post
And did I mention this coating was under a layer of fireproofing?????? any comment on how it got there thesolehole?
sure. fireproofing is not an immovable substance. you are aware that some weeks prior to the demolition of the WTC towers there was a fireproofing upgrade? this would presumably involve the removal of the old fireproofing before the new fireproofing could be applied.

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 7th April 2009, 07:35 AM   #566
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,201
Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear View Post
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
first you have to prove that its not nanothermite. you have to demonstrate that red paint will exhibit an energy release by mass greater than TNT when ignited. the question of how much nanothermite is required to cut through or weaken a core columns is valid but in reality its secondary to the question of whether or not the red paint is nanothermite.

Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear View Post
This speculation is extremely dubious considering that the core was the last section of the buildings to collapse.
we've been through this before. the weaker inner coloumns of the core was indeed the last to collapse however the stronger outer columns that should have remained did not. your problem is that your assuming the nanothermite was placed on all columns of the core, not just the outer core columns.

Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear View Post
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.
not true. the attena in the north tower was the first part to collapse.
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 7th April 2009, 07:39 AM   #567
dtugg
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,885
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Jones paper essentially demonstrates that the red chip were NOT paint.
No, twoofer. It demonstrates that it wasn't the specific paint that they tested for. Which they didn't even identify. They are many different types of paint.

Quote:
can debunkers through experimentation prove this finding false?
We don't need to.

Quote:
if the red chips are not paint then the only substance in the REAL WORLD that they resemble is nano thermite due to there energy release upon ignition.
How do you know? They didn't prove it wasn't paint anyway.

Quote:
Jones does not allege it exists, it exists! go ask the U.S. military!!
Sure, but does it have the same chemical composition as their samples? And is it able to cut through steel columns as necessarily for your fantasy?

Quote:
How would YOU suggest Jones (anti-govt scientist) obtains samples of nanothermite? Or can he just walk into a Wall Mart and buy some?
You are aware that nanothermite is just ultra fine thermite correct? And that thermite is just rust and aluminum, right, twoofer?

Quote:
sure. fireproofing is not an immovable substance. you are aware that some weeks prior to the demolition of the WTC towers there was a fireproofing upgrade? this would presumably involve the removal of the old fireproofing before the new fireproofing could be applied.
Citation?

Last edited by dtugg; 7th April 2009 at 07:41 AM.
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, 07:43 AM   #568
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
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
Wholesoul,

No, I don't believe that it would have been hard to see in the slightest. You could still see it. In the photos of the rubble of the buildings.

This is why I am completely unmoved by the search for thermite or any other such destructive compound. If any were used, you'd see column segements that have been severed at places OTHER than at their ends (3 stories high). In other words, you'd have lots and lots and lots (i.e., the majority) of 1 or 2 story tall columns. All of them with characteristic "burned or detonated" ends. Not machined ends. On examination of the hi-res photos of the debris, I found none.

NO form of demolition is tenable against this evidence. Evidence that is still available today.

tom
tfk 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, 07:45 AM   #569
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,201
[quote=alienentity;4593999] 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.

How do YOU suggest Jones will obtain nanothermite? And are you willing to fund his independent research that will address your concerns?

it is difficult if not IMPOSSIBLE to do "full scale tests" using tiny red chips.

Jones demonstrated that red paint turns to ash when exposed to a flame. so why dont you buy some red paint and a torch and PROVE him wrong.

Originally Posted by alienentity View Post
Until then it's all just a lab show with little chips. That is not proof of anything.
Like I said the red paint he tested turns to ash when exposed to a flame. He proved that the red chips ARE NOT PAINT. so what else could they be? what else has an energy release by mass GREATER than TNT when ignited? Are you going to respond to that question dude?

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 7th April 2009, 07:51 AM   #570
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 Julio View Post
So?

Thermite releases 3.9 KJ per gram of thermite.
TNT releases 4 KJ per gram of TNT

Coal releases about 30 KJ per gram of coal.(source: wikipedia)
Correct. You're on the right track with your thinking. Gasoline has about 9.5 KJ/g, and while it makes for a fine explosive, nobody tends to think about it in the same terms they do TNT or other items specifically and purposefully created to be an explosive. Hell, if you really want to drive the point home, paper's got on the order of 16KJ/g. The energy density of a material is not what makes it an explosive. Rate of reaction counts, hence RedIbis's question of brisance earlier. There are probably other factors involved too that are outside my education. At any rate, it's utterly silly to latch onto the issue of heat capacity and use it to declare the substance "super" thermite. Jones and his gang have to know this, which is why I don't see this as something innocently foolish and naive, but something deliberately conducted in order to be deceitful. At any rate, you're on the right track here in pointing this out. The latching onto the energy density of the chip is absurd.

BTW, if no one else has done it yet: Welcome to the forum!
__________________
"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 7th April 2009, 07:54 AM   #571
dtugg
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,885
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
How do YOU suggest Jones will obtain nanothermite? And are you willing to fund his independent research that will address your concerns?
He could makes some. It's not like it's a secret what the stuff is made of or that it is difficult to make or anything. But I guarantee he will never do this and attempt to prove his lies.
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, 07:57 AM   #572
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
Just for fun - well, let me be honest, this is schadenfreude I'm experiencing - I found the latest forum where someone's pitching this paper:

Sufur Magazine

Really... the link is to the forum. This is sad.
__________________
"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 7th April 2009, 08:08 AM   #573
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
What else has an energy release by mass GREATER than TNT when ignited?
Well, not thermite, for a start. Most fuels that require external oxygen sources, however, have far greater energy densities by mass. Look up "energy density" on Wikipedia; TNT contains about 4.6MJ/kg, thermite 4.0MJ/kg. Diesel fuel has about ten times that, as does polystyrene. TNT doesn't really contain that much energy, it just releases it very quickly. Higher energy density is evidence against thermite.

ETA: Hadn't been following the thread, so I didn't realise just how many times this question had been answered. TheWholeSoul, someone should point this out to you: what you're asking is a stupid question, and it's been pointed out to you repeatedly that it's a stupid question. If you ask it a dozen more times, it won't magically turn into an intelligent question.

Dave
__________________
There is truth and there are lies.

- President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021

Last edited by Dave Rogers; 7th April 2009 at 08:14 AM.
Dave Rogers 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, 08:09 AM   #574
JamesB
Master Poster
 
JamesB's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,152
Heh, now Jones is arguing that you can't criticize his paper unless you spend $800 and get it published in Pakistan too.

http://911blogger.com/node/19761?page=3

Quote:
Since the days of Sir Isaac Newton, Science has proceeded through the publication of peer-reviewed papers. Peer-review means a thorough reading and commentary by "peers", that is, other PhD's and professors. This paper was thoroughly peer-reviewed with several pages of tough comments that required of our team MONTHS of additional experiments and studies. It was the toughest peer-review I've ever had, including THREE papers for which I was first author in NATURE. (Please note that Prof. Harrit is first author on this paper.) We sought an established journal that would allow us a LONG paper (this paper is 25 pages long) with MANY COLOR IMAGES AND GRAPHS. Such a scientific journal is not easy to find. Page charges are common for scientific journals these days, and are typically paid by the University of the first or second author (as is the case with this paper) or by an external grant.

A peer-reviewed journal is also called a "refereed" journal. Peer-reviewers are almost always anonymous for scientific publications like this -- that is standard in the scientific world. While authors commonly recommend potential peer-reviewers, editors usually pick at least one or two reviewers that the authors did NOT mention -- and that is the case with this paper.

Debunkers may raise all sorts of objections on forums, such as "Oh, it's just paint" or "the aluminum is bound up in kaolin." We have answered those questions in the paper, and shown them to be nonsense, but you have to read to find the answers. I may also provide answers here and in emails, often quoting from the paper to show that the answers are already in it.

Here's what you need to know (especially if you are not a scientist): UNLESS AN OBJECTOR ACTUALLY PUBLISHES HIS OR HER OBJECTION IN A PEER-REVIEWED ESTABLISHED JOURNAL (yes that would include Bentham Scientific journals), THEN THE OBJECTION IS NOT CONSIDERED SERIOUS IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD NOT WORRY ABOUT NON-PUBLISHED OBJECTIONS EITHER.

So how do you, as a non-scientist, discern whether the arguments are valid or not? You should first ask, "is the objection PUBLISHED in an ESTABLISHED PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL?" If not, you can and should say -- "I will wait to see this formally published in a refereed scientific journal. Until then, the published peer-reviewed work by Harrit et al. stands. "

BTW, there also has been no PUBLISHED REFEREED paper yet that counters either the "Fourteen Points" paper or the "Environmental Anomalies" papers we published last year.

IF it is so easy to publish in Bentham Scientific journals, or if these are "vanity publications" (note: there is no factual basis for these charges) -- then why don't the objectors write up their objections and get them peer-reviewed and published?? The fact is, it is not easy, as serious objectors will find out.
Our results have passed the gauntlet of peer-review (including in this case, review at BYU consistent with the fact that there are two authors from BYU).

We say that this paper has the "imprimatur of peer-review". That is a significant breakthrough. You cannot say that of big-foot or Elvis sightings... We are now in a different world from such things, the world of the published scientific community. CAN YOU APPRECIATE THE DIFFERENCE? I hope so. And this is what has our opponents so worried IMO...
__________________
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-
JamesB 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, 08:12 AM   #575
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Paint hypothesis weakened.

In this audio clip Kevin Ryan explains how they ruled out the paint as a candidate for the red/grey chips. What now ?
http://archive.kpfk.org/parchive/mp3...223indymed.mp3
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'

Last edited by bill smith; 7th April 2009 at 08:18 AM.
bill 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, 08:14 AM   #576
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Well, not thermite, for a start. Most fuels that require external oxygen sources, however, have far greater energy densities by mass. Look up "energy density" on Wikipedia; TNT contains about 4.6MJ/kg, thermite 4.0MJ/kg. Diesel fuel has about ten times that, as does polystyrene. TNT doesn't really contain that much energy, it just releases it very quickly. Higher energy density is evidence against thermite.

Dave
NANO-Thermite Dave.....not he same animal at all.
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'
bill 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, 08:17 AM   #577
boloboffin
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,986
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
NANO-Thermite Dave.....not he same animal at all.
Can you provide a spectra for nanothermite that shows the differences between it and regular thermite?
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 7th April 2009, 08:17 AM   #578
BigAl
Philosopher
 
BigAl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,397
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
NANO-Thermite Dave.....not he same animal at all.
Nano-themite explodes just like conventional explosives. Nobody heard demolition explosions at WTC.

For example:

Quote:

A lot of work has been accomplished recently
with nanopowders in energetic materials. For
example, it has been proven that because of their
large surface area, the nanopowders can increase the
burn rate in some types of propellants1,3,8-10. There
were also significant developments made in the
“super thermite” area with mixes of nanometric
aluminum and metal oxides11. Those compounds are
said to react at rates approaching (and under
particular conditions even equivalent to) those of
high explosives.



http://www.intdetsymp.org/detsymp200...usseau-193.pdf
__________________
------
Eric Pode of Croydon
Chief Assistant to the Assistance Chief,
Dept of Redundancy Dept.

Last edited by BigAl; 7th April 2009 at 08:36 AM.
BigAl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2009, 08:18 AM   #579
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 Dave Rogers View Post
Well, not thermite, for a start. Most fuels that require external oxygen sources, however, have far greater energy densities by mass. Look up "energy density" on Wikipedia; TNT contains about 4.6MJ/kg, thermite 4.0MJ/kg. Diesel fuel has about ten times that, as does polystyrene. TNT doesn't really contain that much energy, it just releases it very quickly. Higher energy density is evidence against thermite.

ETA: Hadn't been following the thread, so I didn't realise just how many times this question had been answered. TheWholeSoul, someone should point this out to you: what you're asking is a stupid question, and it's been pointed out to you repeatedly that it's a stupid question. If you ask it a dozen more times, it won't magically turn into an intelligent question.

Dave
Yes, correct. This must be emphasized. It's a red herring of a characteristic. As Mackey pointed out, paper exceeds thermite's thermal capacity. If you look it up, you'll see it does so by about a 4 to 1 ratio (thermite: 3.9 KJ per gram (thank you Julio!), paper around 16 KJ/g).

Again, it's a red herring argument. Highlighting thermal capacity does take in those who don't know it's irrelevance, but once the information is given that provides context, it's foolish to maintain its significance.
__________________
"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 7th April 2009, 08:18 AM   #580
dtugg
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,885
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
\In this audio clip Kevin Ryan explains how they ruled out the paint as a candidate for the red/grey chips. What now ?
http://archive.kpfk.org/parchive/mp3...223indymed.mp3
I am going to assume this is the same explanation that they have in their fraudulent paper. If not, it makes them even bigger frauds.

They tested one kind of paint. They didn't even identify what paint it was. There are many kinds of paint, twoofer, and not all of them have the same properties. I swear, you twoofers will swallow absolutely anything.
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, 08:18 AM   #581
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by orphia nay View Post
Which layer of the chips does Jones think is supercalifragilisticthermite? The red, or the grey, or is it both?
This is another thing I was going to comment on with regards to TAM's (I think it was TAM - I can't find the specific post) question about the DSC measurements. So I may aswell do it now.

I've got next to no experience with calorimeters because it's not something that I've ever had to employ as a tool in the profession. They are far more likely to be used by chemists, so I can't comment specifically about whether the DSC findings are typical of paint or thermite or "super nano-thermite".

However, there are a couple of things I'd like to question because they are odd and also tie in with orphia nay's question. Page 19 - 3. Thermal Analysis using Differential Scanning Calorimetry, clearly states

Quote:
The gray layer was found to consist mostly of iron oxide so that it probably does not contribute to the exotherm, and yet this layer varies greatly in mass from chip to chip.
This is interesting because they clearly state in their paper the thermite reaction:

2Al + Fe2O3 —> Al2O3 + 2Fe (molten iron), deltaH = - 853.5 kJ/mole.

This iron oxide is not rust; Fe3O4 because it doesn't have the structural characteristics of rust which can be clearly seen in the SEM nor is it red in colour. It's also not synthetic Fe3O4

pirox 200 99% Magnetite http://www.piroxllc.com/MSDS_specsheets.html#100

See Figs 1 & 2. http://www.lmbe.seu.edu.cn/nano/en/r...20Assembly.htm

FeO is thermodynamically unstable below 575°C and and undergoes the following

4FeO → Fe + Fe3O4

So it has to be Fe2O3 in a different form. The only form that can be is MIO (Micaceous iron oxide) which fits all of the observed criteria.

So they have a substance that is one of the substances that forms thermite, but they say that it "probably does not contribute to the exotherm" - that is astounding because the whole point of Fe2O3 is to provide the source of Oxygen for the reaction!

So they are dismissing the "gray layer". This also throws up a number of conclusions and therefore questions:

Firstly it reduces the amount of material they say is thermite by approximately half (that's based upon the relevant thickness's of the two layers and removes a large proportion of the available Oxygen for the reaction. This means all of the iron oxide for the reaction is in the red layer and we can clearly see the form of sub-micron rhomboidal iron oxide in the SEM photos.

Secondly, what is this "gray layer" for then? If it doesn't aid the reaction why is it inherently part of the thermite?

Thirdly, if it doesn't aid the reaction then it is a barrier to the steel and thermal efficiency because the "red layer's thermic reaction"not only has to heat the alumina and the iron (and the silica and in other samples, see fig 14 - additional ZnO, Cr2O3, CaO) from the reaction, but must now also lose energy (that could be used to heat the target steel) heating the gray layer before it even starts to heat the steel.


Also on page 21, first paragraph they claim after DSC,

Quote:
A conventional quantitative analysis routine was used to estimate the elemental contents......Spheroids were
observed with Fe:O ratios up to approximately 4:1.
This is misleading unless they show how they have calculated this figure.

EDS is qualitative not quantitative because it does not give you compounds and their % in the sample unless you use the EDS software package to produce this - nowhere do they state this is done, all they do is estimate peak heights, which gives you an inclination, but it's not conclusive.

The more I read and examine the paper the more mistakes I'm finding. They keep indicating thermite and making baseless statements and assumptions as the paper progresses. The worst is the conclusions which are utter nonsense.

eg: Conclusion 10.

Quote:
The carbon content of the red material indicates that an organic substance is present. This would be expected for super-thermite formulations in order to produce high gas pressures upon ignition and thus make them explosive.
Bollocks! Excuse my French but that is drivel. The carbon content of the red material is indeed an organic substance and during the SEM analysis the paper clearly states on page 15:

Quote:
It is also shown that within the red layer there is an intimate mixing of the Fe-rich grains and Al/Si plate-like particles and that these particles are embedded in a carbon-rich matrix.
(which actually sounds like it came from a materials engineer because that's the way we describe this sort of thing - most likely the SEM operator and the nicked it cos it sounded good!)

So it's obviously some sort of binder that binds the particles together.

Quote:
The nature of the organic material in these chips merits further exploration.
If you want to. I suggest you start by looking at different binders and organics in paint.

I was loathed to jump in and criticise this paper or jump on any bandwagon because they do provide alot of data, but the further you read the paper and the closer you examine it the more you come to the conclusion that this is a dog's breakfast and the authors are clearly not objective.

It's like wading through ever deepening excrement. I'm not sure if I want to continue have it reach my mouth and nose.
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 7th April 2009, 08:21 AM   #582
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by boloboffin View Post
Can you provide a spectra for nanothermite that shows the differences between it and regular thermite?
I would like to take this opportunity to refer you to the 'Journal for 9/1 studies' where there is at least one scientific paper on the subject.
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'
bill 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, 08:22 AM   #583
boloboffin
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,986
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
I would like to take this opportunity to refer you to the 'Journal for 9/1 studies' where there is at least one scientific paper on the subject.
I would like to take this opportunity to say "Go find it and bring back the link to support your own claim."
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 7th April 2009, 08:29 AM   #584
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by moorea34 View Post
NISTNCSTAR1-3C
appendix D p442
Figure D-4...

Chips ?

See also table D-1... p438 Iron oxyde ?
Could you link to that please. I know I sound lazy but I can't find that particular part but I'm interested. Thanks.

It would also help if people put the page number and paragraph when quoting from the Jones paper
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 7th April 2009, 08:30 AM   #585
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by JamesB View Post
Heh, now Jones is arguing that you can't criticize his paper unless you spend $800 and get it published in Pakistan too.

http://911blogger.com/node/19761?page=3
Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

Dr. Jones, welcome to the 21st Century where a few posters on an internet web page can dismantle your paper over a long weekend. Newton would have been amazed.

Say, what happened in those independent tests from a few years ago? How come those tests were not mentioned in your "paper."

Care to share with us the identity of your tough "peer" reviewers? You might be aware that certain contributors here who have frequently published in peer reviewed journals have found Bentham's peer review process to be a sham. We must assume that YOU provided the names of your reviewers.

eta: Also, please feel free to join in the discussion here, I promise we won't bite.

Last edited by The Big Dog; 7th April 2009 at 08:31 AM.
The Big Dog 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, 08:35 AM   #586
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by dtugg View Post
I am going to assume this is the same explanation that they have in their fraudulent paper. If not, it makes them even bigger frauds.

They tested one kind of paint. They didn't even identify what paint it was. There are many kinds of paint, twoofer, and not all of them have the same properties. I swear, you twoofers will swallow absolutely anything.
They found that the paint dissolved in a chemical solution and that the red/grey chips did not. You might as well accept it- it ain't lookin' good for the paint. Do you have another possibility that can explain all the disparate details like the iron microspherules and the explosive/incendiary nature if the red layer ?, Should we crack the champagne just yet ?
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'

Last edited by bill smith; 7th April 2009 at 08:36 AM. Reason: spelling
bill 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, 08:35 AM   #587
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Jones paper essentially demonstrates that the red chip were NOT paint. can debunkers through experimentation prove this finding false?

if the red chips are not paint then the only substance in the REAL WORLD that they resemble is nano thermite due to there energy release upon ignition.

Jones does not allege it exists, it exists! go ask the U.S. military!!

How would YOU suggest Jones (anti-govt scientist) obtains samples of nanothermite? Or can he just walk into a Wall Mart and buy some?



sure. fireproofing is not an immovable substance. you are aware that some weeks prior to the demolition of the WTC towers there was a fireproofing upgrade? this would presumably involve the removal of the old fireproofing before the new fireproofing could be applied.

peace
No, Jones paper in a feeble, unscientific attempt, compared the results of his chips to one kind of UN-NAMED PAINT, without describing the type of paint, or its components. He did not test multiple paints, he did not attempt to locate the paint type(s) used in the WTC or on the beams and test them, he did nothing that a REAL scientist without an agenda would do.

That type of science would fail at college entry level, let alone what is expected from a PhD.

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, 08:37 AM   #588
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
first you have to prove that its not nanothermite. you have to demonstrate that red paint will exhibit an energy release by mass greater than TNT when ignited. the question of how much nanothermite is required to cut through or weaken a core columns is valid but in reality its secondary to the question of whether or not the red paint is nanothermite.



we've been through this before. the weaker inner coloumns of the core was indeed the last to collapse however the stronger outer columns that should have remained did not. your problem is that your assuming the nanothermite was placed on all columns of the core, not just the outer core columns.



not true. the attena in the north tower was the first part to collapse.
Jones has not proven his chips are nanothermite. He is the one suggesting they are, but he has not proven it. THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS TO PROVE BEYOND ALL DOUBT THAT IT IS THERMITE, AND COULD ONLY BE THERMITE!!
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, 08:41 AM   #589
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
NANO-Thermite Dave.....not he same animal at all.
Not an intelligent comment, sorry. Nano-thermite is simply thermite ground up smaller. The chemical energy content is exactly the same.

Dave
__________________
There is truth and there are lies.

- President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021
Dave Rogers 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, 08:43 AM   #590
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Jones paper essentially demonstrates that the red chip were NOT paint.
Oh no he bloody well doesn't. You have not once been able to counter my argument or the evidence that I have used to that has lead me to my conclusion. You can forget all the DSC data until you can show that this stuff isn't a material from the layer of anti-corrosion paint that's widely used the world over in the construction industry and a layer consisting of fine particles of Fe2O3 and platelets and EDS data that match a form of Kaolin all of which are found the world over in red paint.

Jones has to demonstrate that his samples are not paint. He has failed to do so and ironically by publishing this paper confirms that the samples are what i have described above.

I'm sorry but you have to realise that I never set out to debunk Jones' paper I set out to read it out of personal and professional interest. If I had seen data consistent with thermite I would be doing exactly the same thing on this thread, namely showing that the data in the paper supports that the material is thermite and backing it up with external sources.

You and other truthers are going to have to admit that Jones and his chips are not thermite. This will be your own internal battle and conscience and that is not going to be easy
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 7th April 2009, 08:48 AM   #591
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
Jones has not proven his chips are nanothermite. He is the one suggesting they are, but he has not proven it. THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS TO PROVE BEYOND ALL DOUBT THAT IT IS THERMITE, AND COULD ONLY BE THERMITE!!
As far as I know hey have proven that the stuff is a nano-compound TAM. Nothing 'nano' had any business being in the WTC dust in 2001. It has all the chemical signatures of the components of thermite and it behaves like thermite under physical experimentation. What's left ?- a label ?
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'

Last edited by bill smith; 7th April 2009 at 08:48 AM. Reason: spelling
bill 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, 08:53 AM   #592
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
In this audio clip Kevin Ryan explains how they ruled out the paint as a candidate for the red/grey chips. What now ?
http://archive.kpfk.org/parchive/mp3...223indymed.mp3
As much as I like Radiohead I would have preferred to actually hear what you are on about. Then a moment of serendipity occurred and this line (from Radioheads Bodysnatchers) was sung

"I have no idea what I am talking about"

Indeed.

P.S. - stop linking to videos without explanation - care to comment on the steadily increasing evidence that this material is paint?
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 7th April 2009, 08:54 AM   #593
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
As far as I know hey have proven that the stuff is a nano-compound TAM. Nothing 'nano' had any business being in the WTC dust in 2001. It has all the chemical signatures of the components of thermite and it behaves like thermite under physical experimentation. What's left ?- a label ?
(A) please state what your definition of a "nano-compound" is?
(B) Please explain why "Nothing nano" had any business being in the WTC dust?
(C) It has the chemical signature of a number of elements that one would EASILY find in any debris pile from a collapsed building.
(D) In what way does it behave like thermite, and only like thermite?

Thanks

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, 08:55 AM   #594
Shalamar
Dark Lord of the JREF
 
Shalamar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Somewhere Else
Posts: 5,805
Ok. The truthers have a working, testable hypothesis: Nano-Thermaite was found in the wreckage of the towers.

Their next step, is to take a steel beam, similar to that used in the towers, and paint it with this nano-thermite. They must then detonate this substance (Must be the same thickness of the paint used in the buildings) and show that it can cause a catastrophic failure of the support structure.

This nano-thermite used MUST display the same spectra of properties seen in the paper. It should also be verified by a secondary non-biased source.

If these things are not done, then all they have is an unverified hypothesis. More work is needed to provide proof.
__________________

"The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head."
Shalamar 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, 08:57 AM   #595
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
And again, that are jumping to their controlled demolition theory. That's all Ryan (in the interview) and company are talking about, this shows they are not being honest and objective, they are working backwards, they have a conclusion and are trying to fit the facts.

These guys need to prove and test what they have found (or what they think they have found), and even then there are many other steps before they can even come close to the conclusion of controlled demolition.

Last edited by Pardalis; 7th April 2009 at 08:59 AM.
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 7th April 2009, 09:09 AM   #596
AZCat
Graduate Poster
 
AZCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,672
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
Could you link to that please. I know I sound lazy but I can't find that particular part but I'm interested. Thanks.

It would also help if people put the page number and paragraph when quoting from the Jones paper
NCSTAR 1-3C Appendices (pdf)
AZCat 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, 09:11 AM   #597
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
As much as I like Radiohead I would have preferred to actually hear what you are on about. Then a moment of serendipity occurred and this line (from Radioheads Bodysnatchers) was sung

"I have no idea what I am talking about"

Indeed.

P.S. - stop linking to videos without explanation - care to comment on the steadily increasing evidence that this material is paint?
Mainly that I am enjoying watching you build your case. I suspect that it wil come to nothing in the end though.
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'

Last edited by bill smith; 7th April 2009 at 09:16 AM. Reason: spelling
bill 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, 09:20 AM   #598
boloboffin
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,986
Now that we know that the WTC was a nano-free zone...

Hey, bill, the "at least one scientific paper" you're referring me to at JONES, was it published in a refereed scientific journal?
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 7th April 2009, 09:22 AM   #599
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by Shalamar View Post
Ok. The truthers have a working, testable hypothesis: Nano-Thermaite was found in the wreckage of the towers.

Their next step, is to take a steel beam, similar to that used in the towers, and paint it with this nano-thermite. They must then detonate this substance (Must be the same thickness of the paint used in the buildings) and show that it can cause a catastrophic failure of the support structure.

This nano-thermite used MUST display the same spectra of properties seen in the paper. It should also be verified by a secondary non-biased source.

If these things are not done, then all they have is an unverified hypothesis. More work is needed to provide proof.
Hey....hat might work. Take a sample of the chips under controlled circumstances and analyse them with some monitors to keep everybody honest. Then synthesise a larger batch with the same exact properties and melt a large steel column on TV. That would do it for sure. Very entertaining TV too. The whole Nation could follow it closely.
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'
bill 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, 09:22 AM   #600
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
How do YOU suggest Jones will obtain nanothermite?
Easy, buy some Aluminium powder of a specific size. This stuff is 2µm.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/GERMAN-DARK-Al...3A1|240%3A1318

Buy some Fe2O3 http://www.reade.com/index.php?optio...=178&Itemid=10

Quote:
various powder granulations custom size reduced down to ~ 1 micron
Mix the two together - and that's thermite. If he want to bind it then any commercial binder like urethane will do.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Jones demonstrated that red paint turns to ash when exposed to a flame.
What paint did he use?

Sorry I hate using bigger fonts but this is critical.

Jones does NOT state in his paper what type of paint he uses. TWS - acknowledge this and also acknowledge that there are hundreds of different types of paint.


Like I said the red paint he tested turns to ash when exposed to a flame. He proved that the red chips ARE NOT PAINT. so what else could they be? what else has an energy release by mass GREATER than TNT when ignited? Are you going to respond to that question dude?[/quote]No he didn't. He took an unspecified material that he claims is paint and exposed it to a flame. That does NOT prove anything. We don't even know what paint he used because he does not say. Show where in the paper he indicates what paint he used.

Secondly the fact that this material releases more energy than thermite proves it's NOT thermite!The total energy released is not going to change just because you use smaller particles. The energy is released quicker but there isn't greater energy released.

/sigh.
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
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 12:42 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.