[Closed]Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center

[ozeco41]

Remember also folks that the discussion here is on a narrow focus - it is about alleged thermate residues on the site.

I care not whether the answer is yes or no - though I suspect "no".

BUT why do I care not?

Because even if a truck load of thermate was deposited on site it does not lead to any conclusions about demolition. All the other evidence strongly rebuts demolition by any agent.

So why do we keep feeding the trolls who play "reverse the burden of truth?"

They are the ones saying (by implication - not game to support the statement are they?) ....saying "demolition!" it is their "burden of proof" to support their claims.

OK folks money where mouth is. What structural members of the Towers were cut by thermate? How did that happen? Was it possible? and, naturally, let us see if it could have caused or assisted the "collapse that actually happened"

I can identify only one small window of opportunity - maybe the pro thermate mob can show me where I am wrong or what I am missing.

And my "small window of opportunity"? requires a team of suicide workers to go into the impact zone and apply thermate (or explosives) after the aircraft crash and whilst fires are raging. (Engineers don't read this. For the non engineers who can't work it out for themselves it is on the floor joist lower chords - and after the crash because among the issues against this is the simple fact that the crash would remove it if pre-positioned. Brave men these terrorists intent on getting their 72 clear raisins in paradise)

So you pro thermate claimers prove me wrong.

[240-185]

Quote:

OK folks money where mouth is. What structural members of the Towers were cut by thermate? How did that happen? Was it possible? and, naturally, let us see if it could have caused or assisted the "collapse that actually happened"

Beware! That picture with that truss cut diagonally should reappear!

[ozeco41]

Originally Posted by 240-185

Beware! That picture with that truss cut diagonally should reappear!

I think I have its mate - the one of the bloke cutting said truss - er column - already on my server - but thanks for the warning - I will check.



EDIT: This is probably better:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySHgiUxnLC0

[Henry62]

Originally Posted by 240-185

Beware! That picture with that truss cut diagonally should reappear!

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/200...ugh-steel.html

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/200...t-thermal.html

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/200...ve-simple.html



--------------------------

Visit my English blog:

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/200...h-section.html

[ozeco41]

Originally Posted by Henry62

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/200...ugh-steel.html

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/200...t-thermal.html

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/200...ve-simple.html



--------------------------

Visit my English blog:

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/200...h-section.html

Thanks Henry - those thermic lances are impressive - and they will work underwater.

I met one "truther" on another forum who had thermic lances and thermite confused..

[bill smith]

If a man falls down dead and here are two competing theories for how he died- one saying that he died from a wound and another saying that the wound was not grevious enough to kill him and that they believe that the real reason for his death is that he was poisoned.

Then the first people put in their own coroners who say that the cause of his death was definately the wound and only the wound. Still the second group is not satisfied and come up with several elaborate scenarios for how he died. One of these says it was poison- and not any old poison- they even know the type, which is a rare exotic poison only accessible to the first group of people and their agents.

This goes on for years intil the second group perform an in depth study of the dead man's blood which shows that it is liberally laced with the exact same rare poison that they predicted. Efforts by he first group to disrove this scientific finding appear to fail.

Therefore the second group is fully entitled to an immediate exhumation and reexamination of the body by a group of fully independent coroners. Would anybody find that unreasonable ?

[dtugg]

Originally Posted by bill smith

If a man falls down dead and here are two competing theories for how he died- one saying that he died from a wound and another saying that the wound was not grevious enough to kill him and that they believe that the real reason for his death was that he was poisoned.

Then the first people put in their own coroners who say that the cause for his death was definately he wound and only the wound. Still the second group is not satisfied and come up with several elaborate scenarios for how he died. One of these says it was poison- and not any old poison- they even know the type, which is a rare exotic poison only accessible to the first group of people and their agents.

IThis goes on for years intil the second group perform an in depth study of the dead man''s blood which shows that it is liberally laced with the exact same rare poison that they predicted. Efforts by he first group to disrove this scientific finding appear to fail.

Therefore the first group is fully entitled to an immediate autopsy and reexaniation by a group of international fully independent coroners. Would anybody find that unreasonable ?

To make your little analogy match reality, the second group are actually proven frauds and idiots and what they found in the blood was totally innocuous and to be expected. And the second group of idiots and frauds have never even proven that their alleged poison can even kill a man. So no. They get no second autopsy.

[ozeco41]

Originally Posted by bill smith

If a man falls down dead and here are two competing theories for how he died- one saying that he died from a wound and another saying that the wound was not grevious enough to kill him and that they believe that the real reason for his death was that he was poisoned.

Then the first people put in their own coroners who say that the cause for his death was definately he wound and only the wound. Still the second group is not satisfied and come up with several elaborate scenarios for how he died. One of these says it was poison- and not any old poison- they even know the type, which is a rare exotic poison only accessible to the first group of people and their agents.

IThis goes on for years intil the second group perform an in depth study of the dead man''s blood which shows that it is liberally laced with the exact same rare poison that they predicted. Efforts by he first group to disrove this scientific finding appear to fail.

Therefore the first group is fully entitled to an immediate autopsy and reexamination of the body by a group of international fully independent coroners. Would anybody find that unreasonable ?

Apart from the false analogy and therefore "Off Topic"

A slightly better analogy would be if, after competent post mortem it was concluded death from previously unknown "rare exotic poison" and some nuts came up and suggested the victim had been stabbed and there was no hole in the corpse.

Because that is the situation you seem to be refering to by innuendo as the WTC collapses.

As you should know full well no second group or third or fourth or..... has ever come up with an alternative scenario. Just Jones Thermate company saying "he was stabbed" but refusing to point to the hole.....

And a few others who play the same childish tricks.

Hence my challenge for some truther to "put up". In two years regularly issuing that challenge I have only met one taker. He was pretty good - I let him develop his hypothesis "on the fly" - so he learned something about structures and demolition - but in the end he was Committed CT to the end - had him down to that same "one last window of opportunity" and he sort of forgot to come back to the forum. Like most "truthers" or "CT's" he knew he was wrong but could not bring himself to face up to admitting it.

And, by the way, don't blame me for the remaining defects in the analogy - you put up the ridiculous original and I just corrected the raw material to make a better "fit".

It should be an international day of celebration if EVER a SINGLE truther puts up an alternative scenario.

At least there will be something to think about.

[GregoryUrich]

Originally Posted by KreeL

If you are going to believe someone, just make sure they know what they are talking about. Greening has proven himself daft by trying to make himself an expert in all areas of science - many of which he fails. Collapse physics being only one.

Your saying it doesn't make it true. The physical mechanics involved in the Greening or Ross analyses is not beyond any undergraduate engineer. I know for a fact that Ross made so many mistakes in his work that his conclusions are completes unreliable. I'll be glad to spell it out for you if you are really willing to discuss the issues. Tell us where Greening was wrong and Ross was right.

[GregoryUrich]

Originally Posted by KreeL

Perhaps an explanation is in order.

Thermitic material has been found and verified. It wasn't paint chips. This is fact. This means that all the other threads on this great site don't amount to anything. The party is over for you guys.

I've read the other threads and they are generally 20-30 non-toofers backslapping each other for repeating talking points given to them by the government/NIST/Popular Mechanics until they actually believe the nonsense regardless of reality. They run up about 15 pages wailing against the minority of those seeking the truth until the truthseekers give up from the idiocy. This laughingly equals victory in the minds of the non-toofers -and they rinse/repeat for every thread. As more and more experts piled up against the gov't theory at every critical juncture (scientists, pilots, military, architects, et al), the non-toofers here simply cranked up the backslapping rhetoric.

So why bother posting previous threads? I asked for the serial numbers from the plane debris, photos of hijackers boarding the flights, manifests with arab names, simple stuff if you truly believed what you were arguing, but all we get are links to other threads where supposedly these questions were laid to rest. That's just three easy things to expect just one of you to produce.

Now we have empirical scientific proof that blows the non-toofers out of the water. All the other backslap threads mean squat, because if those that told you what to think lied about the collapses, then they lied to the you about a myriad of other things concerning 9/11. Cognitive dissonance requires you to cling to your theory. The only question is for how long.

The material found by your "scientists" couldn't raise the temperature of the columns more that 48 deg C (assuming it was all 6 layers). Please at least come up with a possible scenario before spreading this nonsense. You have a both a civic resposibility and a responsibility to your activist organization to be somewhat sure of what you are talking about.

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by orphia nay

Figure 14 of the paper shows zinc in the chips.

Okay, I appreciate that a lot, Orphia. I have a hard time making sense of idiot boy's visual aids.

In a prior presentation, Jonesie mentions finding zinc, (and thinking that it somehow figures into there being thermite residues in the dust) and that there is little chromium present, and that this eliminates structural steell as the source for the blobs of metal.

Had that boy two neurons meeting in close proximity, he would by now know that he left the house without some stuff he really needed.

The zinc and chromium were components of paint as "yellow zinc chromate."

The chips are paint. Case closed.

[bill smith]

Originally Posted by dtugg

To make your little analogy match reality, the second group are actually proven frauds and idiots and what they found in the blood was totally innocuous and to be expected. And the second group of idiots and frauds have never even proven that their alleged poison can even kill a man. So no. They get no second autopsy.

Why not rewrite my analogy to conform to your version of the Truth ? Comparing the two could be interesting for everybody. I think the analogy itself works globally quite well.

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by GregoryUrich

The material found by your "scientists" couldn't raise the temperature of the columns more that 48 deg C (assuming it was all 6 layers). Please at least come up with a possible scenario before spreading this nonsense. You have a both a civic resposibility and a responsibility to your activist organization to be somewhat sure of what you are talking about.

I think until he turns 18, he probably has no civic responsibility. He is behaving like a 12 year old boy who thinks he has "PWNED" someone in Halo 3, so I think this is his approach.

The true test for me, will be if I can avoid bringing myself to his level when he is proven wrong. It will be so easy to rub it in his face, but will we.

TAM

[Sunstealer]

This post will form part of the rebuttal to Jones' paper. I've collated the information quickly in order to show JREF posters and any lurkers as soon as possible, but the evidence is quite damning.

Jones claims that samples a-d are essentially the same material and I agree with him. His paper's EDS spectra are very close and this confirms that the materials are identical.

Quote:

An analysis of the chips was performed to assess the similarity of the chips and to determine the chemistry and materials that make up the chips.

Quote:

All of the chips used in the study had a gray layer and a red layer and were attracted by a magnet.

Quote:

Similarities between the samples are already evident from these photographs.

We also have information from another source of Jones' chips namely a chip that has also had SEM and EDS analysis performed on them.

http://darksideofgravity.com/marseille.pdf

Comparing this report and Jones' we see from these SEM photo-micrographs that samples a-d are identical to the chip in the above report.



We can now closely look at the morphology of the chips a-d and compare the structures therein to see whether there are any similarities between observed structures in the sample and known structures.

Jones' paper clearly examines these structures in samples a-d and notes

Quote:

The results indicate that the small particles with very high BSE intensity (brightness) are consistently 100 nm in size and have a faceted appearance. These bright particles are seen intermixed with plate-like particles

Quote:

By placing the beam on a cluster of plate-like particles, the spectrum in Fig. (11a) was generated. The spectrum in Fig. (11b) was acquired from a cluster of the smaller bright faceted grains. Again it was observed that the thin sheet-like particles are rich in Al and Si whereas the bright faceted grains are rich in Fe. Both spectra display significant carbon and oxygen

Quote:

The results indicate that the smaller particles with very bright BSE intensity are associated with the regions of high Fe and O. The plate-like particles with intermediate BSE intensity appear to be associated with the regions of high Al and Si. The O map (d) also indicates oxygen present, to a lesser degree, in the location of the Al and Si. However, it is inconclusive from these data whether the O is associated with Si or Al or both.

Until now.

The following photo-micrograph shows samples a-d (on the left) and Kaolinite (on the right).




Examining the two side by side clearly shows similarity in size, crystal shape and thickness between the two groups of plate-like particles. Note the exact same style of grouping where platelets have "sandwiched" together in the top middle of b) and the top left of c) in Jones' samples and the exact same phenomenon in the photo to the right. This indicates very strongly that these particles are indeed Kaolinite.

There are many such photo-micrographs of Kaolinite available.

Therefore it is now essential that we examine EDS data of known samples of Kaolinite and compare them with the EDS data generated in Jones' paper. Note that I also include data from the chip sent in the report linked earlier. I have scaled these SEM spectra as best I can in a short space of time in order that the KeV scale matches across spectra.

One of Jones' claims, as is that of the author of the above linked report, is that the EDS spectra of the red layer show signs of contamination

Quote:

The resulting spectrum, shown in Fig. (14), produced the expected peaks for Fe, Si, Al, O, and C. Other peaks included calcium, sulfur, zinc, chromium and potassium. The occurrence of these elements could be attributed to surface contamination due to the fact that the analysis was performed on the as-collected surface of the red layer. The large Ca and S peaks may be due to contamination with gypsum from the pulverized wallboard material in the buildings.

Gypsum is a naturally occurring mineral and aswell as being used in wall board or drywall is also used in the manufacture of paint. The following are EDS spectra from Kaolinite with Gypsum, Fig 7 c) of Jones' paper and finally slide/page 14 of the above link.



It is abundantly clear that the spectra share more than enough characteristics to say that not only is gypsum present, but that Kaolinte is too.

The plate-like structures seen in the photo-micrographs, of both "thermite chip" samples, share not only the same crystalline morphology and grouping, but also the same EDS signature.

This means that there is very little doubt remaining as to what these platelets are. In light of this evidence it is safe to say that these platelets consist of Kaolinite, which does not contain any "elemental aluminium". The SEM examination in Jones' paper does not show any other particle type (other than the rhomboidal Fe₂O₃) and no other data in the EDS spectra for samples a-d indicate it's presence.

Therefore these samples CANNOT be thermite.

QED.

For Jones to now claim that elemental aluminium is present then the only way to confirm this is by XRD analysis or a suitable equivalent.

We can also say that because Kaolinite is present and that it is embedded in a Carbon based matrix with Rhomboidal Fe₂O₃ that a more likely explanation for the red material is paint.

When we look at the material that the "red layer" in the samples is attached to and the notable difference in the structure compared to the "red layer" along with it's EDS spectra it is clear to see that this is a form of Iron Oxide. The corresponding Carbon peaks and the possibility of Mn peak at 5.9KeV indicate the source of this oxide as being steel.

If you also not in the second photo on this page you can clearly see this oxide layer is also attached to a crystalline fibrous material that again does not share morphology with the "red layer" or the "gray layer". The French paper linked has EDS data of this layer. Notable we do not see the underside of the "gray layer/iron oxide layer" in samples a-d in Jones paper.


Addition.

We can also see the EDS spectra of pure Kaolin for comparison and untreated clay which will explain any queries with the Carbon peak also noting that Carbon is closely associated with Fe in steel.

http://www.scielo.org.ar/scielo.php?...pt=sci_arttext

We can also confirm the presence in other spectra by comparing them eg Fig 11a), Fig 14 (noting the correlating high Ca, O and S peaks - gypsum), etc.

[Thunder]

why do you hate the truth so much?

[bill smith]

The excellent work by Niels Harrit, Farrer, Jones and Ryan et. al in the recent journal article (Thermitic Material Discovered in WTC Dust) has paved the way for some very good media coverage in Denmark. At around 10:30 pm on Monday April 6, Harrit was interviewed for 10 minutes during the late news program on one of the two most respected Danish television channels (TV2). On Wednesday April 8, Harrit was interviewed for 6 minutes at 8:45 am during a live news and entertainment program on the same channel. In both cases, Harrit, and the claims of the article, were treated with refreshing seriousness and respect.

The first interview has been subtitled in English and loaded onto youtube:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf2...layer_embedded

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by bill smith

The excellent work by Niels Harrit, Farrer, Jones and Ryan et. al in the recent journal article (Thermitic Material Discovered in WTC Dust)

has already been debunked. if they dare to bring it to the major American media, it will be torn into shreds and flushed down the toilet, by real scientists who will debunk this stuff to hell.

i now say..bring it on!!! i wonder what the geniuses at MIT and CalTech have to say about this so-called "evidence".

[bill smith]

Originally Posted by parky76

has already been debunked. if they dare to bring it to the major American media, it will be torn into shreds and flushed down the toilet, by real scientists who will debunk this stuff to hell.

i now say..bring it on!!! i wonder what the geniuses at MIT and CalTech have to say about this so-called "evidence".

So far....zip.

[bill smith]

Originally Posted by parky76

has already been debunked. if they dare to bring it to the major American media, it will be torn into shreds and flushed down the toilet, by real scientists who will debunk this stuff to hell.

i now say..bring it on!!! i wonder what the geniuses at MIT and CalTech have to say about this so-called "evidence".

When and if they do respond Parky it will start the conversation- hopefully on a national scale which is wht we have been striving for all along. If they do not respond that will tell it's own story. I don't know why you guys are so afraid to go mainstream with this. We are all looking for the Truth after all.

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by bill smith

I don't know why you guys are so afraid to go mainstream with this. We are all looking for the Truth after all.

we are afraid to go mainstream? you guys are the ones with the accusation.

its your job to take it to NBC, CNN, NBC, BBC, etc.

don't tell me you want us to do your work for you?

i assume, one of you guys will bring it to an MSM outlet. what they choose to do with it is their business. though, the way u guys treat their reporters on the street, i would not be surprised if they tell you to "piss off". thats what happens when WAC harrasses their reporters time and time again. you can't call people conspirators in murder and them expect them to pay attention to you. people have feelings...u know?

i suggest you send your findings and some samples of the "thermite" to CalTech or MIT. let them do their own analysis. if they find thermite, i will believe it.

infact, I challenge you guys to do it. if you don't we can assume you are afraid.

[dtugg]

Originally Posted by bill smith

Why not rewrite my analogy to conform to your version of the Truth ? Comparing the two could be interesting for everybody. I think the analogy itself works globally quite well.

A famous, important man is shot on live television and the shooter commits suicide. The important man later dies, also on live television, from his wounds. It is glaringly obvious what happened. The shooter even left a suicide note. Because the man is so famous and important, the government conducts a very thorough investigation including an autopsy and confirms the glaringly obvious. The government even makes the results available to the public. Nobody to date has been able make any challenges that stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny.

However, there is a small group of really stupid and/or crazy people that make up wildly impossible conspiracy theories because they are really stupid and/or crazy and thus don't understand that if somebody gets shot he might die. Some of these stupid/crazy people insist that the man wasn't even shot, that the government in collusion with the media faked the footage. Some of the stupid/crazy people who aren't quite as stupid/crazy as the ones who say the man wasn't shot say that he was also poisoned by a huge conspiracy involving thousands of people and that's why he died. They found a substance in what they claim to be the man's blood that they claim to be a deadly poison. But they can't even prove that the blood belonged to the man. Furthermore, it doesn't even matter if they could because the substance they found was actually something innocuous that would be expected to be found anyway. Even worse for these really stupid and/or crazy people, this substance that they falsely claim they found has never killed anybody in the history of ever nor have they even attempted to prove that it could

So, while the vast majority of people can see the glaringly obvious, some really stupid/crazy people make up really stupid/crazy conspiracy theories to explain it because they are really stupid/crazy. They demand a new investigation to justify their really stupid/crazy ideas, but nobody outside of their little club and the one that likes to make fun it even pays attention. These people will never come close to accomplishing anything, ever. The only good they will ever do to the world is provide endless, unintentional comedy.

The end.

[Sunstealer]

I think Bill must have me on ignore - can anyone quote this and get him to read post #1694 where I clearly debunk scientifically with mountains of evidence that Jones' sample a-d cannot possibly be thermite?

Or do truthers just ignore everything that isn't to their liking? My post shatters Jones' paper completely - there is just no other explanation for those platelets to be anything other than Kaolinite given the current data.

Any truther who wilfully reads and understands that post, who then continues to back Jones' paper is dishonest.

Bill et al - read that post - it's conclusive.

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by Sunstealer

This post will form part of the rebuttal to Jones' paper. I've collated the information quickly in order to show JREF posters and any lurkers as soon as possible, but the evidence is quite damning.

Jones claims that samples a-d are essentially the same material and I agree with him. His paper's EDS spectra are very close and this confirms that the materials are identical.

We also have information from another source of Jones' chips namely a chip that has also had SEM and EDS analysis performed on them.

http://darksideofgravity.com/marseille.pdf

Comparing this report and Jones' we see from these SEM photo-micrographs that samples a-d are identical to the chip in the above report.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&pictureid=861

We can now closely look at the morphology of the chips a-d and compare the structures therein to see whether there are any similarities between observed structures in the sample and known structures.

Jones' paper clearly examines these structures in samples a-d and notes

Until now.

The following photo-micrograph shows samples a-d (on the left) and Kaolinite (on the right).

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&pictureid=857


Examining the two side by side clearly shows similarity in size, crystal shape and thickness between the two groups of plate-like particles. Note the exact same style of grouping where platelets have "sandwiched" together in the top middle of b) and the top left of c) in Jones' samples and the exact same phenomenon in the photo to the right. This indicates very strongly that these particles are indeed Kaolinite.

There are many such photo-micrographs of Kaolinite available.

Therefore it is now essential that we examine EDS data of known samples of Kaolinite and compare them with the EDS data generated in Jones' paper. Note that I also include data from the chip sent in the report linked earlier. I have scaled these SEM spectra as best I can in a short space of time in order that the KeV scale matches across spectra.

One of Jones' claims, as is that of the author of the above linked report, is that the EDS spectra of the red layer show signs of contamination



Gypsum is a naturally occurring mineral and aswell as being used in wall board or drywall is also used in the manufacture of paint. The following are EDS spectra from Kaolinite with Gypsum, Fig 7 c) of Jones' paper and finally slide/page 14 of the above link.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&pictureid=858

It is abundantly clear that the spectra share more than enough characteristics to say that not only is gypsum present, but that Kaolinte is too.

The plate-like structures seen in the photo-micrographs, of both "thermite chip" samples, share not only the same crystalline morphology and grouping, but also the same EDS signature.

This means that there is very little doubt remaining as to what these platelets are. In light of this evidence it is safe to say that these platelets consist of Kaolinite, which does not contain any "elemental aluminium". The SEM examination in Jones' paper does not show any other particle type (other than the rhomboidal Fe₂O₃) and no other data in the EDS spectra for samples a-d indicate it's presence.

Therefore these samples CANNOT be thermite.

QED.

For Jones to now claim that elemental aluminium is present then the only way to confirm this is by XRD analysis or a suitable equivalent.

We can also say that because Kaolinite is present and that it is embedded in a Carbon based matrix with Rhomboidal Fe₂O₃ that a more likely explanation for the red material is paint.

When we look at the material that the "red layer" in the samples is attached to and the notable difference in the structure compared to the "red layer" along with it's EDS spectra it is clear to see that this is a form of Iron Oxide. The corresponding Carbon peaks and the possibility of Mn peak at 5.9KeV indicate the source of this oxide as being steel.

If you also not in the second photo on this page you can clearly see this oxide layer is also attached to a crystalline fibrous material that again does not share morphology with the "red layer" or the "gray layer". The French paper linked has EDS data of this layer. Notable we do not see the underside of the "gray layer/iron oxide layer" in samples a-d in Jones paper.


Addition.

We can also see the EDS spectra of pure Kaolin for comparison and untreated clay which will explain any queries with the Carbon peak also noting that Carbon is closely associated with Fe in steel.

http://www.scielo.org.ar/scielo.php?...pt=sci_arttext

We can also confirm the presence in other spectra by comparing them eg Fig 11a), Fig 14 (noting the correlating high Ca, O and S peaks - gypsum), etc.

masterful work my friend. i feel like a speck of dust compared to you.

i expect NO rebuttal from truthers, as they cannot handle the truth.

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by bill smith

When and if they do respond Parky it will start the conversation- hopefully on a national scale which is wht we have been striving for all along. If they do not respond that will tell it's own story. I don't know why you guys are so afraid to go mainstream with this. We are all looking for the Truth after all.

Any comment on Sunstealer's amazing rebuttal to Jones' findings?

Do you have the courage to take it on?

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by bill smith

The excellent work by Niels Harrit, Farrer, Jones and Ryan et. al in the recent journal article (Thermitic Material Discovered in WTC Dust) has paved the way for some very good media coverage in Denmark. At around 10:30 pm on Monday April 6, Harrit was interviewed for 10 minutes during the late news program on one of the two most respected Danish television channels (TV2). On Wednesday April 8, Harrit was interviewed for 6 minutes at 8:45 am during a live news and entertainment program on the same channel. In both cases, Harrit, and the claims of the article, were treated with refreshing seriousness and respect.

The first interview has been subtitled in English and loaded onto youtube:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf2...layer_embedded

bill:

I think you should inform Danish TV that they are being duped, so they have a chance to redeem themselves before the paper they produced is shown to be a fraud.

I think you owe that to them...right?

TAM

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by Sunstealer

I think Bill must have me on ignore - can anyone quote this and get him to read post #1694 where I clearly debunk scientifically with mountains of evidence that Jones' sample a-d cannot possibly be thermite?

Or do truthers just ignore everything that isn't to their liking? My post shatters Jones' paper completely - there is just no other explanation for those platelets to be anything other than Kaolinite given the current data.

Any truther who wilfully reads and understands that post, who then continues to back Jones' paper is dishonest.

Bill et al - read that post - it's conclusive.

proverbial nail on head my friend.

TAM

[metamars]

Originally Posted by parky76

Any comment on Sunstealer's amazing rebuttal to Jones' findings?

Do you have the courage to take it on?

I have a comment on this "amazing rebuttal". And that is

a) in Sunstealer's #1694 post, there is no link immediately after

"The following photo-micrograph shows samples a-d (on the left) and Kaolinite (on the right)."

b) in your post immediately preceeding this one, wherein you quote Sunstealer's 1694 post, there is a link, viz.,

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&pictureid=857

When I click on that link, I don't see anything.


Shouldn't an "amazing rebuttal" have non-disappearing links, which point to web pages that still exist?

[tsig]

Originally Posted by metamars

I have a comment on this "amazing rebuttal". And that is

a) in Sunstealer's #1694 post, there is no link immediately after

"The following photo-micrograph shows samples a-d (on the left) and Kaolinite (on the right)."

b) in your post immediately preceeding this one, wherein you quote Sunstealer's 1694 post, there is a link, viz.,

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&pictureid=857

When I click on that link, I don't see anything.


Shouldn't an "amazing rebuttal" have non-disappearing links, which point to web pages that still exist?

So you didn't understand anything about the technical aspects of the paper and have to resort to nitpicking.

[twinstead]

Originally Posted by tsig

So you didn't understand anything about the technical aspects of the paper and have to resort to nitpicking.

Yes, an actual comment on the substance of the paper would have been more convincing.

[Sunstealer]

Originally Posted by metamars

I have a comment on this "amazing rebuttal". And that is

a) in Sunstealer's #1694 post, there is no link immediately after

"The following photo-micrograph shows samples a-d (on the left) and Kaolinite (on the right)."

b) in your post immediately preceeding this one, wherein you quote Sunstealer's 1694 post, there is a link, viz.,

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&pictureid=857

When I click on that link, I don't see anything.


Shouldn't an "amazing rebuttal" have non-disappearing links, which point to web pages that still exist?

The photo appears for me. One of the photo links didn't work so I edited it 30 seconds after posting to make sure it was there. You should see the photo in post #1694 http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1694.

The public JREF album is http://www.internationalskeptics.com...hp?albumid=181 - pic #4 is the one if you can't see it.

I've tried to make the post as concise and in a non-technical language as much as possible. Do you understand the information and what I have said in it? If there is anything you do not understand then please ask.

[metamars]

Originally Posted by Sunstealer

The photo appears for me. One of the photo links didn't work so I edited it 30 seconds after posting to make sure it was there. You should see the photo in post #1694 http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1694.

The public JREF album is http://www.internationalskeptics.com...hp?albumid=181 - pic #4 is the one if you can't see it.

I see it now, thanks.

Quote:

I've tried to make the post as concise and in a non-technical language as much as possible. Do you understand the information and what I have said in it? If there is anything you do not understand then please ask.

I don't have the time to carefully go through everything. I've already devoted far more time, this past week, than I should have, given my situation. However, I do try to skim intelligently, and focus on whatever is interesting and comprehensible. Sorry if I'm not doing your posts justice.

Some problems:

1) The pictures in wikipedia show a white-ish material. The description says that it can have a red, blue or brown tint from impurities. Why did you not remark on this difference?
2) The kaolinite platelets are much more densely packed than the Jones platelets
3) While I can make out a few candidates for non-platelet particles in the kaolite, it doesn't look like nearly as many as in the Jones photographs
4) You don't tell us what the very few candidates for non-platelets particles in the kaolite are made of. (Though I note that wikipedia says, " In many parts of the world, it is colored pink-orange-red by iron oxide". So, it should not surprise anybody if these candidates turn out to be iron oxide.")
5) You say that they are "similar in size", but while I see a scale in the Jones pictures, I don't see one in the kaolite picture. So, how do you know that they are "similar in size"? You mentioned something earlier about a mesh. Please elaborate.
6) The wikipedia page says

Quote:

Kaolin is used in ceramics, medicine, coated paper, as a food additive, in toothpaste, as a light diffusing material in white incandescent light bulbs, and in cosmetics. It is generally the main component in porcelain.
It is also used in paint to extend titanium dioxide (TiO2) and modify gloss levels; in rubber for semi-reinforcing properties and in adhesives to modify rheology.[6]

Thus, it doesn't sound like it's a major constituent of paint, but just an additive.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but since it's used to extend TiO2, and TiO2 is used to make paints more opaque and skim milk whiter, as far as I can tell, the same should apply to kaolinite. Consequently, why would anybody make a red paint composed mostly of white pigment? The only answer I can think of is that it's much cheaper than the red pigment, and (perhaps) since the kaolinite makes the paint opaque, if the red is 'red enough', this is the cheap and effective way to go.

Would you please show us photomicrographs of a
1) red paint made with kaolinite?
2) red paint made with kaolinite, with whatever primer you are currently touting?

Note that this link says that

Quote:

Automotive paint can be compared to more than 40,000 samples in the National Automotive Paint File, helping identify color, make, model and year of an automobile. The melted ends of a hot filament break indicate that the headlights were on when an accident occurred. Sharp ends indicate the headlights

were off when the break occurred. The SEM reveals telling information.

Also, would you please tell us what the resistance of a red paint chip, made with kaolinite, is? ( I suppose that we need a range of values. )

[WilliamSeger]

Oh, well, at least "truthers" still have the CT that Jones is a disinfo agent, out to discredit their "movement." The wonderful thing about conspiracy theories is that you can explain anything that does or doesn't happen by putting whomever you don't like into the conspiracy.

[alienentity]

Thanks Sunstealer!

I've posted a link on a twoofer channel about the 'Thermite Scientifically Confirmed in 911'

Suggest you guys spread this data around.

Happy Easter to all


To all you twoofers: stop the madness.

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by metamars

I have a comment on this "amazing rebuttal". And that is

a) in Sunstealer's #1694 post, there is no link immediately after

"The following photo-micrograph shows samples a-d (on the left) and Kaolinite (on the right)."

b) in your post immediately preceeding this one, wherein you quote Sunstealer's 1694 post, there is a link, viz.,

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&pictureid=857

When I click on that link, I don't see anything.


Shouldn't an "amazing rebuttal" have non-disappearing links, which point to web pages that still exist?

whoa! you nailed him. You PWNed him with that one.

TAM

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by metamars

I see it now, thanks.



I don't have the time to carefully go through everything. I've already devoted far more time, this past week, than I should have, given my situation. However, I do try to skim intelligently, and focus on whatever is interesting and comprehensible. Sorry if I'm not doing your posts justice.

Some problems:

1) The pictures in wikipedia show a white-ish material. The description says that it can have a red, blue or brown tint from impurities. Why did you not remark on this difference?
2) The kaolinite platelets are much more densely packed than the Jones platelets
3) While I can make out a few candidates for non-platelet particles in the kaolite, it doesn't look like nearly as many as in the Jones photographs
4) You don't tell us what the very few candidates for non-platelets particles in the kaolite are made of. (Though I note that wikipedia says, " In many parts of the world, it is colored pink-orange-red by iron oxide". So, it should not surprise anybody if these candidates turn out to be iron oxide.")
5) You say that they are "similar in size", but while I see a scale in the Jones pictures, I don't see one in the kaolite picture. So, how do you know that they are "similar in size"? You mentioned something earlier about a mesh. Please elaborate.
6) The wikipedia page says



Thus, it doesn't sound like it's a major constituent of paint, but just an additive.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but since it's used to extend TiO2, and TiO2 is used to make paints more opaque and skim milk whiter, as far as I can tell, the same should apply to kaolinite. Consequently, why would anybody make a red paint composed mostly of white pigment? The only answer I can think of is that it's much cheaper than the red pigment, and (perhaps) since the kaolinite makes the paint opaque, if the red is 'red enough', this is the cheap and effective way to go.

Would you please show us photomicrographs of a
1) red paint made with kaolinite?
2) red paint made with kaolinite, with whatever primer you are currently touting?

Note that this link says that

were off when the break occurred. The SEM reveals telling information.

Also, would you please tell us what the resistance of a red paint chip, made with kaolinite, is? ( I suppose that we need a range of values. )

You do realize that all that needs to be done is show significant doubt on Jones findings, with possible outcomes that were more likely than his, to prove that his entire paper is a worthless piece of biased OUTCOME HUNTING, rather than a truly scientific analysis, right?

TAM

[Thunder]

um..the links work for me. i guess truther computers can't handle non-truther evidence images.

=)

[bill smith]

Originally Posted by Sunstealer

This post will form part of the rebuttal to Jones' paper. I've collated the information quickly in order to show JREF posters and any lurkers as soon as possible, but the evidence is quite damning.

Jones claims that samples a-d are essentially the same material and I agree with him. His paper's EDS spectra are very close and this confirms that the materials are identical.







We also have information from another source of Jones' chips namely a chip that has also had SEM and EDS analysis performed on them.

http://darksideofgravity.com/marseille.pdf

Comparing this report and Jones' we see from these SEM photo-micrographs that samples a-d are identical to the chip in the above report.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&pictureid=861

We can now closely look at the morphology of the chips a-d and compare the structures therein to see whether there are any similarities between observed structures in the sample and known structures.

Jones' paper clearly examines these structures in samples a-d and notes





Until now.

The following photo-micrograph shows samples a-d (on the left) and Kaolinite (on the right).

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&pictureid=857


Examining the two side by side clearly shows similarity in size, crystal shape and thickness between the two groups of plate-like particles. Note the exact same style of grouping where platelets have "sandwiched" together in the top middle of b) and the top left of c) in Jones' samples and the exact same phenomenon in the photo to the right. This indicates very strongly that these particles are indeed Kaolinite.

There are many such photo-micrographs of Kaolinite available.

Therefore it is now essential that we examine EDS data of known samples of Kaolinite and compare them with the EDS data generated in Jones' paper. Note that I also include data from the chip sent in the report linked earlier. I have scaled these SEM spectra as best I can in a short space of time in order that the KeV scale matches across spectra.

One of Jones' claims, as is that of the author of the above linked report, is that the EDS spectra of the red layer show signs of contamination



Gypsum is a naturally occurring mineral and aswell as being used in wall board or drywall is also used in the manufacture of paint. The following are EDS spectra from Kaolinite with Gypsum, Fig 7 c) of Jones' paper and finally slide/page 14 of the above link.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&pictureid=858

It is abundantly clear that the spectra share more than enough characteristics to say that not only is gypsum present, but that Kaolinte is too.

The plate-like structures seen in the photo-micrographs, of both "thermite chip" samples, share not only the same crystalline morphology and grouping, but also the same EDS signature.

This means that there is very little doubt remaining as to what these platelets are. In light of this evidence it is safe to say that these platelets consist of Kaolinite, which does not contain any "elemental aluminium". The SEM examination in Jones' paper does not show any other particle type (other than the rhomboidal Fe₂O₃) and no other data in the EDS spectra for samples a-d indicate it's presence.

Therefore these samples CANNOT be thermite.

QED.

For Jones to now claim that elemental aluminium is present then the only way to confirm this is by XRD analysis or a suitable equivalent.

We can also say that because Kaolinite is present and that it is embedded in a Carbon based matrix with Rhomboidal Fe₂O₃ that a more likely explanation for the red material is paint.

When we look at the material that the "red layer" in the samples is attached to and the notable difference in the structure compared to the "red layer" along with it's EDS spectra it is clear to see that this is a form of Iron Oxide. The corresponding Carbon peaks and the possibility of Mn peak at 5.9KeV indicate the source of this oxide as being steel.

If you also not in the second photo on this page you can clearly see this oxide layer is also attached to a crystalline fibrous material that again does not share morphology with the "red layer" or the "gray layer". The French paper linked has EDS data of this layer. Notable we do not see the underside of the "gray layer/iron oxide layer" in samples a-d in Jones paper.


Addition.

We can also see the EDS spectra of pure Kaolin for comparison and untreated clay which will explain any queries with the Carbon peak also noting that Carbon is closely associated with Fe in steel.

http://www.scielo.org.ar/scielo.php?...pt=sci_arttext

We can also confirm the presence in other spectra by comparing them eg Fig 11a), Fig 14 (noting the correlating high Ca, O and S peaks - gypsum), etc.

Would this not mean that we were dealing with highly engineered nano-kaolin ?

[beachnut]

Burnt pages similar to National Geographic.

[KreeL]

Originally Posted by GregoryUrich

The material found by your "scientists" couldn't raise the temperature of the columns more that 48 deg C (assuming it was all 6 layers). Please at least come up with a possible scenario before spreading this nonsense. You have a both a civic resposibility and a responsibility to your activist organization to be somewhat sure of what you are talking about.

False. Likely source: Greening

[Thunder]

looks like paint to me.