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 8th April 2009, 09:23 AM   #881
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
IZinc (Zn) is clearly present (most likely in the oxide form - ZnO).
Or Zinc Chromate ZnCrO4 which is commonly called Zinc yellow and used in paints.
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 8th April 2009, 09:25 AM   #882
tarrou
Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 35
As a dane i have had the opportunity to read an interview with Niels Harrit, one of the authors to the article.
( http://www.videnskab.dk/content/dk/t...l_viden_om_911 )

In the interview he is asked:

'How can you be sure that what you have found is nanothermite?'

His reply (paraphrased and translated by me):

'Using a method called XEDS [...] we compared the red chips to conventional thermite, and found a fingerprint-like sign that they are the same. At the same time, they [the red chips] ignite at 430C . Such a low temperature identifies it as nanothermite'.

I guess one just to have refute these two points to make an ex-truther of Niels Harrit
tarrou 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 8th April 2009, 09:26 AM   #883
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
(a) It isn't true. (b) Even if it were, it would be rendered entirely unremarkable by the fact that all but one of the WTC2 impact floors weren't upgraded, unless the Impossibly Vast Evil Conspiracy decided, for reasons only imaginable to the mind of a budding Dr. Evil, to demolish the two WTC towers in different ways. Still, why have an impossibly complicated conspiracy when you can figure out a way to make it twice as complicated?



When you find out why that's an epic fail, you might even find it funny yourself.

Dave
I like to see the Tower collapss as seperate events not inextricably bound together in the technicalities of their collapses. They only looked like peas in a pod.

Why wait ?....why don't you explain the 'epic fail' and give us all a good laugh right away ?
__________________
*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 8th April 2009, 09:27 AM   #884
phunk
Illuminator
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,127
Originally Posted by metamars View Post
In terms of at least some thermite reactions, this is complete and utter nonsense. Anybody's who is interested in the effect of scale on properties of thermite would do well to check out MODELING THE MELT DISPERSION MECHANISM FOR NANOPARTICLE COMBUSTION

From the Conclusion section



Section 1.2 and 1.3 are well worth reading.
Which agrees with what everyone except the truthers are saying, that it releases the same amount of energy, except it does it faster. This is high school chemistry, it's not hard to understand.
phunk 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 8th April 2009, 09:30 AM   #885
Gamolon
Master Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,702
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
I like to see the Tower collapss as seperate events not inextricably bound together in the technicalities of their collapses. They only looked like peas in a pod.
So what were the major differences? You already got one of your claims wrong about the core columns to perimeter wall dimensions.
Gamolon 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 8th April 2009, 09:31 AM   #886
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
Did you happen to notice which floors of WTC1 received a fireproofing upgrade ?
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
Kevin Ryan said something about the only floors in WTC1 that had had a fireproofing upgrade were the ones that suffered the impact or had any longer lasting or fiercer fires. Is that true ? It's a very remarkable coincidence if it is.
Yes it is a coincidence, how could they possibly have predicted not only the impact floors, but that the second plane would hit a few stories lower?
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 8th April 2009, 09:35 AM   #887
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
So what were the major differences? You already got one of your claims wrong about the core columns to perimeter wall dimensions.
Can you tell me where I am wrong to any extent that actually matters in the figures I gave ?
__________________
*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; 8th April 2009 at 09:37 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 8th April 2009, 09:40 AM   #888
nicepants
Graduate Poster
 
nicepants's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,723
Originally Posted by tarrou View Post
His reply (paraphrased and translated by me):

'Using a method called XEDS [...] we compared the red chips to conventional thermite, and found a fingerprint-like sign that they are the same. At the same time, they [the red chips] ignite at 430C . Such a low temperature identifies it as nanothermite'.
Thermite has a very HIGH ignition temperature (Usually requiring a magnesium ribbon lit by a blowtorch, or similar)....does this ignition temperature change based on the size of the reactants?

"Thermite reactions require very high temperatures for initiation. These temperatures cannot be reached with conventional black powder fuses, nitrocellulose rods, detonators, a suitable pyrotechnic initiator, or other common igniting substances. Even when the thermite is hot enough to glow bright red, it will not ignite as it must be at or near white-hot to initiate the reaction. " - Wikipedia
__________________
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen -Einstein
nicepants 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 8th April 2009, 09:40 AM   #889
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
Why wait ?....why don't you explain the 'epic fail' and give us all a good laugh right away ?
Your supposed substantial difference between the two towers was that flight 11 hit WTC1 along the long axis of the core, whereas 175 hit WTC2 along the short axis. You're trying to say two buildings were different because the front of one wasn't the same as the side of the other.

Dave
__________________
There is truth and there are lies.

- President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021
Dave Rogers is online now   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 8th April 2009, 09:44 AM   #890
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Your supposed substantial difference between the two towers was that flight 11 hit WTC1 along the long axis of the core, whereas 175 hit WTC2 along the short axis. You're trying to say two buildings were different because the front of one wasn't the same as the side of the other.

Dave
So you are saying that the core placements in both buildings were identical ? Correct me if I am wrong.
__________________
*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 8th April 2009, 09:48 AM   #891
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
In the data sheet http://www.tnemec.com/resources/product/msds/m10v.pdf it mentions "Stoddard Solvent". I'd never heard of this so a quick google reveals it's nothing more than White Spirit. Coincidentally I'm renovating an old piece of furniture atm using a mixture of 2 parts linseed oil, 1 part turpentine, 1 part vinegar, 1 part white spirit - takes of all the years of stain varnish etc, but doesn't strip the original polish and brings the wood grain up nicely.
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 8th April 2009, 09:53 AM   #892
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
So you are saying that the core placements in both buildings were identical ? Correct me if I am wrong.
The core dimensions and structures in the buildings were identical, and the rest of the structure was identically placed relative to the core. The buildings were oriented differently, which is not a substantial difference, any more so than the fact that they were in different places. Quite simply, you got it wrong.

Dave
__________________
There is truth and there are lies.

- President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021
Dave Rogers is online now   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 8th April 2009, 10:01 AM   #893
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
The core dimensions and structures in the buildings were identical, and the rest of the structure was identically placed relative to the core. The buildings were oriented differently, which is not a substantial difference, any more so than the fact that they were in different places. Quite simply, you got it wrong.

Dave
I am delighted to take accurate information on board at any time. But tell me this. Both planes struck on the long face of their respective buildings. One more in the centre and one more to one side. How come the core was only 37 feet away from the entry hole in WTC1 and around 60 feet away in WTC2 ? Were the cores not aligned equidistant from the perimeter walls ?
__________________
*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; 8th April 2009 at 10:03 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 8th April 2009, 10:03 AM   #894
boloboffin
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,986
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
I am delighted to take accurate information on board at any time. But tell me this. Both planes struck on the long face of their respective buildings. One more in the centre and one more to one side. How come the core was only 37 feet away from the entry hole in WTC1 and around 60 feet aaway in WTC2 ? Were the cores not aligned equidistant from the perimeter walls ?
No. The cores were rectangles. The perimeters were squares (and hence the buildings were squares). The planes struck one building on the long face of one core and on the short face of the other.
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 8th April 2009, 10:06 AM   #895
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
I am delighted to take accurate information on board at any time. But tell me this. Both planes struck on the long face of their respective buildings. One more in the centre and one more to one side. How come the core was only 37 feet away from the entry hole in WTC1 and around 60 feet away in WTC2 ? Were the cores not aligned equidistant from the perimeter walls ?
This is why you believe Jones and his liars due to your lack of knowledge and inability to research the lies they produce for people like you.


lol - long face of a 207 foot square buildings. Like square. One acre; but there is a long and short side to the core; ...

This is your big problem, your failure to research anything about 911 save the lies, hearsay, and delusions you support with only talk.

What was the calcium doing in the thermite chip? Zinc and chromium too? Why?

The dolts put this in their paper of woo...
Quote:
Other peaks included calcium, sulfur, zinc, chromium and potassium.
Oops, Jones dismisses elements in his "paint chip" he does not want to contaminate his findings with.

Last edited by beachnut; 8th April 2009 at 10:12 AM.
beachnut 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 8th April 2009, 10:10 AM   #896
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
Smells fishy

Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
Kevin Ryan said something about the only floors in WTC1 that had had a fireproofing upgrade were the ones that suffered the impact or had any longer lasting or fiercer fires. Is that true ? It's a very remarkable coincidence if it is.
bill, another fascinating question derives from the fireproofing upgrade, regarding the alleged application of Acme Super Duper Nanothermite paint. That is, Steven Jones commented in 2007 that the grey and red chips were 'present in all four samples that I and colleagues are exploring in depth at this time'

So the chips were found in 100% of the samples he had at the time.

Now then. If the ASD Nanothermite paint were applied on only the floors Kevin Ryan alludes to, what are the statistical chances of it winding up in 100% of Jones' samples? Probably extremely low, near zero.

Therefore the most likely reasons:

1) the chips must be an extremely common material to have such distribution
2) if they are indeed ASD Nanothermite paint, perhaps somebody put it into the samples after they were collected.

I can't think of any other scenario, can you? Something is rotten in Utah.
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 8th April 2009, 10:15 AM   #897
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by boloboffin View Post
No. The cores were rectangles. The perimeters were squares (and hence the buildings were squares). The planes struck one building on the long face of one core and on the short face of the other.
I see. A good explanation. I see what Dave meant now. So the cores were rectangles within square buildings. That explains the different distances to the core from the entry holes. Thanks.
__________________
*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 8th April 2009, 10:19 AM   #898
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
The core dimensions and structures in the buildings were identical, and the rest of the structure was identically placed relative to the core. The buildings were oriented differently, which is not a substantial difference, any more so than the fact that they were in different places. Quite simply, you got it wrong.

Dave
Yes I did get it wrong. Thanks for putting me right. I had never considered hat the cores were orientated differently. So are you saying that for the rest the actual contructions were the same with no major differences ?
__________________
*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 8th April 2009, 10:22 AM   #899
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Central New Jersey
Posts: 7,032
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
Yes I did get it wrong. Thanks for putting me right. I had never considered hat the cores were orientated differently. So are you saying that for the rest the actual contructions were the same with no major differences ?

yes. Do you want to know the other details? are you willing to learn?
__________________
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 8th April 2009, 10:23 AM   #900
Swing Dangler
Graduate Poster
 
Swing Dangler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,050
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
Not so far as I noticed -- in typical Truth Movement fashion, they'd rather forego analysis of the million tons of debris in favor of exactly four flecks of random coating...

A more thorough dust study reveals quite a bit of paint, enough to impact the overall elemental and chemical populations significantly.

Four specks. Out of all that. Just imagine what they'd be saying if they stumbled across a book of matches in the debris?
Wow, still misrepresenting things I see. Forgo analysis of millions of tons of debris in favor of four specks? Sorry there was a bit more than 4 specks in their sample.
From the government report you cite:
Quote:
Three bulk samples of the total settled dust and smoke were collected at weather-protected locations east of the WTC on 16 and 17 September 2001 The bulk samples incuded dust and smoke.
3 bulk samples now equal millions of tons of debris at Jref??

Come on Ryan, your a JPL guy, don't you think that misrepresentation would be called out?


Rmackey-
Quote:
Anyway, the one thing that cracks me up the most about this paper is its own self-inconsistency... Several times we are told that the stuff can't be paint, notably in Section 7. But in Section 5 they talk about how their super-nano-destructo-stuff can be "painted" on, and they reference a material science report that uses Viton, a synthetic rubber compound, as a binder. So... they're saying that it can't be paint but it could be "paint?" What?
Come on Ryan? You can't identify term "paint" as a noun versus the term "paint" when used as a verb? See Paint at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paint

The biggest rebuttal happens to be a verbaige issue you don't understand?

The issue of paint being the source of the controversy is covered in the paper. Typical debunker reaction to offer alternatives before reading all of the facts.

Now what I would suggest to all of the alleged scientists here is publish a scientific rebuttal in a peer reviewed journal shut Dr. Jones up is(sorry your "opinion" of a journal in no way discredits the publication itself, especially Benthem.) If so, of course, you automatically reject every article at Benthem Science Journal. Not only that, you may want to contact every expert in their relevant field and let them know their research is junk because they published at Benthem, not because of their work of course, just the title of the publisher. LOL!

I'm sure the great minds here should be able to type up a rebuttal and have it published by a peer review journal.

I doubt that will happen of course because the debunking community will let politics get in the way of the scientific process, including scientific rebuttals.

By the way, have any of you found a structure that will have the top 10% part crush down the bottom 90% yet and remain in tact? I noticed everyone avoided Heiwa's scientific challenge. I suspect because you know it can't be done. It's just like the theoretical math behind a dandelion supporting the weight of an elephant hanging over the edge of a cliff. The math says its possible, but in reality, its not. Sort of like crush down/up crap excuse for the towers collapse.

But anyway, please post at 9/11 Blogger or Scholars for 9/11 Truth or and Justice or here for that matter when you have a suitable rebuttal published by a peer reviewed journal.

If you can't, then your objections to the paper amount to hot air and lack scientific merit irregardless of your title. Cheers!
__________________
"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."-John SKilling-Head Structural Engineer WTC-1993 Seattle Times
Swing Dangler 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 8th April 2009, 10:23 AM   #901
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
Yes I did get it wrong. Thanks for putting me right.
Did I read that right?

Good on you, Bill.
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 8th April 2009, 10:27 AM   #902
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
I doubt that will happen of course because the debunking community will let politics get in the way of the scientific process, including scientific rebuttals.
Did you notice everyone who worked on that paper were already truther activists?
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 8th April 2009, 10:39 AM   #903
Kent1
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,179
Originally Posted by tarrou View Post
As a dane i have had the opportunity to read an interview with Niels Harrit, one of the authors to the article.
( http://www.videnskab.dk/content/dk/t...l_viden_om_911 )

In the interview he is asked:

'How can you be sure that what you have found is nanothermite?'

His reply (paraphrased and translated by me):

'Using a method called XEDS [...] we compared the red chips to conventional thermite, and found a fingerprint-like sign that they are the same. At the same time, they [the red chips] ignite at 430C . Such a low temperature identifies it as nanothermite'.

I guess one just to have refute these two points to make an ex-truther of Niels Harrit
Well, Iron dust will ignite at 430C.
http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/i7500.htm

Last edited by Kent1; 8th April 2009 at 10:43 AM.
Kent1 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 8th April 2009, 10:42 AM   #904
Galileo
Illuminator
 
Galileo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,368
Originally Posted by leftysergeant View Post
My point is that Bentham is no more reputable for having published the works of Nobel laureates if they still do not obey the standards of a peer reviewed journal.
They do obey the standards of peer review. You just make a bogus claim with no evidence.

It is the NIST reports om the WTC that are not peer reviewed. They do not make their computer models public, so it would be impossible to peer review them even if someone wanted to.
Galileo 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 8th April 2009, 10:43 AM   #905
boloboffin
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,986
Originally Posted by Kent1 View Post
Well, Iron dust will also ignite at 430C.
http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/i7500.htm
I guess that makes it protothermite.
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 8th April 2009, 10:50 AM   #906
roundhead
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 824
Originally Posted by tarrou View Post
As a dane i have had the opportunity to read an interview with Niels Harrit, one of the authors to the article.
( http://www.videnskab.dk/content/dk/t...l_viden_om_911 )

In the interview he is asked:

'How can you be sure that what you have found is nanothermite?'

His reply (paraphrased and translated by me):

'Using a method called XEDS [...] we compared the red chips to conventional thermite, and found a fingerprint-like sign that they are the same. At the same time, they [the red chips] ignite at 430C . Such a low temperature identifies it as nanothermite'.

I guess one just to have refute these two points to make an ex-truther of Niels Harrit

Or prove his two points are 100% correct, and effectively send all the OCT slurpers who infest this place home.
roundhead 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 8th April 2009, 10:55 AM   #907
Senenmut
Graduate Poster
 
Senenmut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,372
ill rephrase a question i had pages back....maybe im not asking it right.

the reaction should produce iron (which jones has showed being the iron spheres) and aluminum oxide. ive seen videos where white smoke is said to be the aluminum oxide. i dont see anywhere in the paper that states they found aluminum oxide after the reaction. would it strenghthen their case if they do look and perhaps find it post reaction?
Senenmut 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 8th April 2009, 10:56 AM   #908
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
If he really means that there was only iron and oxygen surely the colour would be more red than grey. I saw a video that said when particle size is reduced to nano-levels that the natural colour can change. Maybe it's got nano properties. I also wonder if ALL the nano thermite they recovered was exclusively backed with the grey material or if some of it was loose and unbacked.
MIO - Micaceous Iron Oxide - Fe2O3 is grey and shares the same characteristics under the SEM. If you look closely at this picture on the left.

Which I just love showing.

You can clearly see a thin dark greyish material flaking off the surface of the steel. It's highly consistent with Jones' macrographs and would be the correct composition because Fe3O4 is known as black rust. This is why it's important to do x-ray powder diffraction or XRD tests in order to determine the crystallography of the sample which will then give you the exact compound.

Fe304 has an isometric - spinnel crystal structure - http://www.reade.com/Products/Minera...magnetite.html explains properties and why it's magnetic.

Fe2O3 is usually rhombohedral (rhomboidal) and non-magnetic. There is another possibility because there is another form of Fe2O3 called Maghemite, y-Fe2O3. http://webmineral.com/data/Maghemite.shtml and this has an Isometric - Tetartoidal crystal structure and is magnetic.

A great site for explaining crystal shapes.

EDS data will only give you the elements.

In light of this photo I'm adding to my theory that the "gray layer" is most likely this "black scale" (with the continuing possibility of it being MIO). The black layer is the result of either

12 FeO(OH) --> 4 Fe3O4 + 6 H2O + O2

6 Fe2O3 --> 4 Fe3O4 + O2

Fe3O4 is haematite and is magnetic where as Fe2O3 isn't. I've read more about Jones and how they separated out this "thermite". They used a magnet.

Thermite is

2Al + Fe2O3

there is no magnetic material there (unless using maghemite) so why are they using that method for separation?

What they will do is pick up anything with Fe3O4 in. The red paint with Fe3O4 attached will be separated. The red paint contains Fe2O3 (in rhomboidal crystalline form, bright white in the SEM pictures).

The more and more I run this through my brain the more and more the simple things come to the surface. Rather than looking at and getting carried away with the pretty pictures and spectra it's always worth gathering more information before launching into the analysis.

I'd also like to thank Bill Smith, because without reading his post I wouldn't have necessarily gone back to basics - thanks truther!
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 8th April 2009, 10:56 AM   #909
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Central New Jersey
Posts: 7,032
slurp on this

Originally Posted by roundhead View Post
Or prove his two points are 100% correct, and effectively send all the OCT slurpers who infest this place home.

nanu nanu. get your rainbow suspenders on rivethead
Quote:
'Using a method called XEDS [...] we compared the red chips to conventional thermite, and found a fingerprint-like sign that they are the same. At the same time, they [the red chips] ignite at 430C . Such a low temperature identifies it as nanothermite'.
Quote:
"Thermite reactions require very high temperatures for initiation. These temperatures cannot be reached with conventional black powder fuses, nitrocellulose rods, detonators, a suitable pyrotechnic initiator, or other common igniting substances. Even when the thermite is hot enough to glow bright red, it will not ignite as it must be at or near white-hot to initiate the reaction. " - Wikipedia
__________________
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 8th April 2009, 10:59 AM   #910
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
Originally Posted by roundhead View Post
Or prove his two points are 100% correct, and effectively send all the OCT slurpers who infest this place home.
Actually, you don't need a conspiracy theory to examine and explain the plane impacts, fires and collapses. That's just physics.

It depends whether you are trying to answer 'what', 'how' or 'why'.

Truthers seem to start with 'why', answer that question with 'US government', then proceed backwards to 'what'.
This unfortunately is the reverse of an objective analysis. That's why the 'truth' movement is constantly driven towards a conspiracy model, since it is the only one they are willing to consider.

Make sense to you?
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 8th April 2009, 11:03 AM   #911
roundhead
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 824
Originally Posted by A W Smith View Post
nanu nanu. get your rainbow suspenders on rivethead
In their experiment, it ignited at 430c.

They said it was a nano technology thermite, not what you referenced.Apples and oranges.

Thats like saying because Magglio Ordonez hits 320, that so so does everybody else. Thermite and nano thermite are two different players with different statistics and characteristics.

If they ignited it at 430c, it ignites at 430c
roundhead 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 8th April 2009, 11:07 AM   #912
Galileo
Illuminator
 
Galileo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,368
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
I don't need to be a materials scientist to know that for Jones to rule out paint after comparing to one completely unidentified type of paint is the smoking gun that this paper has not had anything resembling proper peer review. Requiring rash conclusion to be removed would be the very first thing a technical reviewer would do, and this paper appears to be so full of them that even non-specialists can easily spot them.
That was already considered by the referees. Your comments are typical of a non-scientific conspiracy website, making ignorant statements with no evidence.
Galileo 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 8th April 2009, 11:09 AM   #913
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
Originally Posted by roundhead View Post
In their experiment, it ignited at 430c.

They said it was a nano technology thermite, not what you referenced.Apples and oranges.

...

If they ignited it at 430c, it ignites at 430c
And where is your proof that nanothermite ignites at 430c? Show us some documentation for that claim please.
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 8th April 2009, 11:11 AM   #914
nicepants
Graduate Poster
 
nicepants's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,723
Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
They do obey the standards of peer review. You just make a bogus claim with no evidence.

It is the NIST reports om the WTC that are not peer reviewed. They do not make their computer models public, so it would be impossible to peer review them even if someone wanted to.
The extensive list of engineers, scientists, experts, etc on the report itself was not enough for you? The NIST report was a product of many many more experts than any of jones' papers, and criticism was welcomed from anyone...including the general public. If any of jones papers had as much support from the mainstream experts that the NIST report did, I wouldn't care if he submitted them to legitimate peer review journals....it would be unnecessary.
__________________
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen -Einstein
nicepants 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 8th April 2009, 11:13 AM   #915
roundhead
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 824
Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
That was already considered by the referees. Your comments are typical of a non-scientific conspiracy website, making ignorant statements with no evidence.

HeHe.........

Exactly, what we have on here are armchair quarterbacks that havent conducted scientific experiments on the dust, as these credentialed professionals have, and that being the case, they are slumped in their seats way out on center field in the boo bird section.

Until i see this study scientifically refuted, i have no reason to believe its findings arent accurate.

Neither does anybody else on the planet with more than one brain cell
roundhead 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 8th April 2009, 11:18 AM   #916
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
Excellent! This (below) is good work!!!

Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
MIO - Micaceous Iron Oxide - Fe2O3 is grey and shares the same characteristics under the SEM. If you look closely at this picture on the left.

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g1...d-At-Birth.jpgWhich I just love showing.

You can clearly see a thin dark greyish material flaking off the surface of the steel. It's highly consistent with Jones' macrographs and would be the correct composition because Fe3O4 is known as black rust. This is why it's important to do x-ray powder diffraction or XRD tests in order to determine the crystallography of the sample which will then give you the exact compound.

Fe304 has an isometric - spinnel crystal structure - http://www.reade.com/Products/Minera...magnetite.html explains properties and why it's magnetic.

Fe2O3 is usually rhombohedral (rhomboidal) and non-magnetic. There is another possibility because there is another form of Fe2O3 called Maghemite, y-Fe2O3. http://webmineral.com/data/Maghemite.shtml and this has an Isometric - Tetartoidal crystal structure and is magnetic.

A great site for explaining crystal shapes.

EDS data will only give you the elements.

In light of this photo I'm adding to my theory that the "gray layer" is most likely this "black scale" (with the continuing possibility of it being MIO). The black layer is the result of either

12 FeO(OH) --> 4 Fe3O4 + 6 H2O + O2

6 Fe2O3 --> 4 Fe3O4 + O2

Fe3O4 is haematite and is magnetic where as Fe2O3 isn't. I've read more about Jones and how they separated out this "thermite". They used a magnet.

Thermite is

2Al + Fe2O3

there is no magnetic material there (unless using maghemite) so why are they using that method for separation?

What they will do is pick up anything with Fe3O4 in. The red paint with Fe3O4 attached will be separated. The red paint contains Fe2O3 (in rhomboidal crystalline form, bright white in the SEM pictures).

The more and more I run this through my brain the more and more the simple things come to the surface. Rather than looking at and getting carried away with the pretty pictures and spectra it's always worth gathering more information before launching into the analysis.

I'd also like to thank Bill Smith, because without reading his post I wouldn't have necessarily gone back to basics - thanks truther!
__________________
"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 8th April 2009, 11:20 AM   #917
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
The issue of paint being the source of the controversy is covered in the paper. Typical debunker reaction to offer alternatives before reading all of the facts.
Really. Well if you've read all of the facts please point out in Jones' paper where they describe the source, composition, maker and manufacturer part number of the paint they tested.

If you can't then you cannot claim that they have ruled out paint. Go back and read Jones' paper carefully and slowly and find the information that I need - what paint did they test - Dulux?

I predict a one line answer and a dodge, handwave, etc.
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 8th April 2009, 11:22 AM   #918
roundhead
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 824
Originally Posted by alienentity View Post
And where is your proof that nanothermite ignites at 430c? Show us some documentation for that claim please.
read the paper, its right in there
roundhead 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 8th April 2009, 11:23 AM   #919
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
But anyway, please post at 9/11 Blogger or Scholars for 9/11 Truth or and Justice or here for that matter when you have a suitable rebuttal published by a peer reviewed journal.

If you can't, then your objections to the paper amount to hot air and lack scientific merit irregardless of your title. Cheers!
Oh. My. God. Look what the cat dragged in! Hey Swing, long time no see, well that's not strictly true, we noticed you taking potshots at us time after time over on the CIT board. How are fatty and Craig anyway? It's kind of funny that you suggest that we post over at 911 Blogger, though. They won't No Planer nitwits like the CIT boys post over there, now will they?

But I digress, Anyhow, good to have you back! While you're here, couple of quick comments. First, aren't you troubled by the fact that Jones refuses to disclose the independent test results he got in 2007?

Second, tell you what, when Jones publishes something in an independently peer reviewed journal, not a piece of crap vanity rag like this one, we'll publish a rebuttal. Until then, keep searching for the flyover witnesses, No Planer.

Last edited by The Big Dog; 8th April 2009 at 11:26 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 8th April 2009, 11:25 AM   #920
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by roundhead View Post
HeHe.........

Exactly, what we have on here are armchair quarterbacks that havent conducted scientific experiments on the dust, as these credentialed professionals have, and that being the case, they are slumped in their seats way out on center field in the boo bird section.

Until i see this study scientifically refuted, i have no reason to believe its findings arent accurate.

Neither does anybody else on the planet with more than one brain cell

Maybe Steven Jones should make an analysis along with a bunch of independent chemical engineers . Everything carefully filmed. Then they could synthesise a arger batch of exactly the same stuff and maintain a legal chain of custody. Then they could melt a large steel clumn in front of an audience of professionals using the mixture. That would settle it for once and for 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
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 08:21 PM.
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.