|
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. |
7th April 2009, 06:50 AM | #561 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,201
|
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. 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:
|
7th April 2009, 07:14 AM | #562 |
Scholar
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 71
|
|
7th April 2009, 07:17 AM | #563 |
0.25 short of being half-witted
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,282
|
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." |
|
7th April 2009, 07:22 AM | #564 |
Philosopher
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' |
|
7th April 2009, 07:26 AM | #565 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,201
|
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 |
7th April 2009, 07:35 AM | #566 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,201
|
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. |
7th April 2009, 07:39 AM | #567 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,885
|
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:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
7th April 2009, 07:43 AM | #568 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
|
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 |
7th April 2009, 07:45 AM | #569 |
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. 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 |
7th April 2009, 07:51 AM | #570 |
0.25 short of being half-witted
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,282
|
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." |
|
7th April 2009, 07:54 AM | #571 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,885
|
|
7th April 2009, 07:57 AM | #572 |
0.25 short of being half-witted
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." |
|
7th April 2009, 08:08 AM | #573 |
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
|
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 |
|
7th April 2009, 08:09 AM | #574 |
Master Poster
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:
|
__________________
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- |
|
7th April 2009, 08:12 AM | #575 |
Philosopher
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' |
|
7th April 2009, 08:14 AM | #576 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
|
|
__________________
*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' |
|
7th April 2009, 08:17 AM | #577 |
Guest
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,986
|
|
7th April 2009, 08:17 AM | #578 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,397
|
|
__________________
------ Eric Pode of Croydon Chief Assistant to the Assistance Chief, Dept of Redundancy Dept. |
|
7th April 2009, 08:18 AM | #579 |
0.25 short of being half-witted
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,282
|
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." |
|
7th April 2009, 08:18 AM | #580 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,885
|
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. |
7th April 2009, 08:18 AM | #581 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
|
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:
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:
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:
Quote:
So it's obviously some sort of binder that binds the particles together.
Quote:
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. |
7th April 2009, 08:21 AM | #582 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
|
|
__________________
*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' |
|
7th April 2009, 08:22 AM | #583 |
Guest
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,986
|
|
7th April 2009, 08:29 AM | #584 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
|
|
7th April 2009, 08:30 AM | #585 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
|
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. |
7th April 2009, 08:35 AM | #586 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
|
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' |
|
7th April 2009, 08:35 AM | #587 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
|
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 |
7th April 2009, 08:37 AM | #588 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
|
|
7th April 2009, 08:41 AM | #589 |
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
|
|
__________________
There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021 |
|
7th April 2009, 08:43 AM | #590 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
|
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 |
7th April 2009, 08:48 AM | #591 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
|
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' |
|
7th April 2009, 08:53 AM | #592 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
|
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? |
7th April 2009, 08:54 AM | #593 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
|
(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 |
7th April 2009, 08:55 AM | #594 |
Dark Lord of the JREF
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." |
|
7th April 2009, 08:57 AM | #595 |
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. |
7th April 2009, 09:09 AM | #596 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,672
|
NCSTAR 1-3C Appendices (pdf)
|
7th April 2009, 09:11 AM | #597 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
|
|
__________________
*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' |
|
7th April 2009, 09:20 AM | #598 |
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? |
7th April 2009, 09:22 AM | #599 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
|
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' |
|
7th April 2009, 09:22 AM | #600 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
|
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:
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. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|