ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

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

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags 911 conspiracy theory , thermite , wtc1 , wtc2

Closed Thread
Old 7th April 2009, 09:23 AM   #601
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,149
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Not an intelligent comment, sorry. Nano-thermite is simply thermite ground up smaller. The chemical energy content is exactly the same.

Dave
Dave is correct, and this point must be emphasized. Lurkers, and others: What Dave (and Sunstealer and Ryan Mackey before him) is saying is that the energy release in a ferrous oxide-aluminum "redox" reaction - a thermite reaction - is dicated by the reactants themselves i.e. the iron oxide and the aluminum. Processing the materials so that the particles are finer does not change the energy density of the material; all such processing does is affect the rate of reaction. Joules released (or calories, or whatever unit you want to use) remains the same; it just releases faster. The point is that anyone trying to use the energy density of the chips as a debate point doesn't know what they're talking about.
__________________
"... my favorite meal is grilled filet of spherical cow of uniform density ... with a side of mashed potatoes of indeterminate volume, peas arranged in an optimal packing configuration, and a glass of ideal fluid." (PhysicsForums)
ElMondoHummus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2009, 09:25 AM   #602
Shalamar
Dark Lord of the JREF
 
Shalamar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,830
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
Hey....hat might work. Take a sample of the chips under controlled circumstances and analyse them with some monitors to keep everybody honest. Then synthesise a larger batch with the same exact properties and melt a large steel column on TV. That would do it for sure. Very entertaining TV too. The whole Nation could follow it closely.
However, I will not be holding my breath for any of the truthers to attempt to do this.
__________________

"The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head."
Shalamar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2009, 09:26 AM   #603
JamesB
Master Poster
 
JamesB's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,151
I am probably piling on, but something else occured to me. If you recall, we have been pointing out for years that controlled demolition would have been impractical, since they would have been set off almost immediately, and in an uncontrolled manner by the plane crashes and resulting fires. Jones response in his first paper was to argue that thermite has a very high ignition point, and would have been more resistant to fires. Of course this does not address the issue of what is used as a detonator, but that is a different issue...

But in this paper, alas, guess what, his super-magic-nano-thermite has an ignition point of around 400C, or well below the temperatures of a normal office fire. So how did these thermite coated beams keep from immediately cooking off when the plane hit them?

BTW I e-mailed the good professor asking him if they bothered to identify paint fragments from their debris samples and if so what they had learned from their characteristics. He replied back, completely missing the point of the question, stating that they had determined that their energetic material was not paint. I am still trying to get an actual answer to my question.
__________________
I said lots of things in NPH that I would not say today and that I did not repeat in NPHR, where I specifically corrected at least some of the errors I had made in that earlier book, written 5 years ago.
-David Ray Griffin-
JamesB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2009, 09:27 AM   #604
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,149
Ok, I've seen more than once someone defend the paper by saying that Jones et. al. eliminated paint as a possibility. I read how they did it. Now it's your turn. Explain in your own words how that team determined that the chips weren't paint. Yes, like I said, I did read it, I'm asking for you all to explain it. Let's see if you can figure out what the flaws are in the approach yourselves.
__________________
"... my favorite meal is grilled filet of spherical cow of uniform density ... with a side of mashed potatoes of indeterminate volume, peas arranged in an optimal packing configuration, and a glass of ideal fluid." (PhysicsForums)
ElMondoHummus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2009, 09:29 AM   #605
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 17,936
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
Take a sample of the chips under controlled circumstances and analyse them with some monitors to keep everybody honest. Then synthesise a larger batch with the same exact properties and melt a large steel column on TV. That would do it for sure. Very entertaining TV too.
If somebody took the material Jones analysed, painted it on a steel column made from 1" plate, set fire to it, and waited for the column to melt, I think the resulting TV program might only be of interest to 9/11 conspiracy theory debunkers. For anyone else, it would be about as interesting as watching paint burn dry.

Dave
__________________
"We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy."

- Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo

SSKCAS, covert member
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2009, 09:32 AM   #606
JamesB
Master Poster
 
JamesB's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,151
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Not an intelligent comment, sorry. Nano-thermite is simply thermite ground up smaller. The chemical energy content is exactly the same.

Dave
But David Ray Griffin says nano-thermite is 10 times as powerful as regular thermite! He has a PhD, he must know.

Quote:
With regard to planting explosives, a new technology has developed, known as nano-technology and it has completely changed the nature of discussion about explosives. So thermate, thermite is a very common incendiary, than you had sulfur to it, and it is called thermate because the sulfur added to it greatly lowers the temperature at which steel melts.

But if they used ultra-fine-grained particles then it increases the strength of this many many times, super-thermate is, uhh I don't know 10 times more powerful, something like that. Compared to ordinary thermate. (grumbling in crowd).
__________________
I said lots of things in NPH that I would not say today and that I did not repeat in NPHR, where I specifically corrected at least some of the errors I had made in that earlier book, written 5 years ago.
-David Ray Griffin-
JamesB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2009, 09:47 AM   #607
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,036
Wholesoul,

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

are debunkers a bunch of - ARMCHAIR SCIENTISTS?

peace
There are two "stories" here.

One is a technical story. What happened to the planes, the fuel, the steel & the buildings. This story was put together by NIST.
The other is a crime story. Who did what, when, why & how. It was assembled by the 9-11 Commission.
In this post, I am talking only about the technical story. NIST's story about why the buildings fell down.

When it comes to technical stories, I don't think that you know how this whole science thing works. Let's set aside the 9-11 story for a moment, because it's got so much emotional baggage.

Let's use a different story: "Why did the Tacoma Narrows bridge collapse?"

This collapse has also been well & truly studied by lots of engineers over the years, and they have provided their orthodox answer.

The point is that there is a certain amount of trust in the work of other scientists and engineer that gets built into the system. It is not built in blindly. Youngsters and other people of a conspiratorial inclination consider that trust to be a giant flaw. They see it as unreasonable, credulous, sheepish, etc. it is not.

The truth is that the trust is an earned result of the strengths of the system. It is based on history & experience. And how well the system works, and how it is self policed. The reason that the guys at NIST, in academia & industry do their work so well is that they're aware of, and protective of, their reputations. If they screw up, there will be no hiding it. It will come out.

Look at a counter-example, cold fusion. The boat rocked for a very short period of time within the professions. (MUCH longer in the press.) And then the system kicked in and the boat righted itself.

Someone may come up with one a brand new answer to why the Tacoma bridge fell down. It is that person's job to lay out a convincing case. To cross all the t's & dot the i's. It is not the orthodox world's job to prove him wrong. There are too many questions, and not enough time or money out there.

If he has done his work carefully, rigorously, then he gets a hearing in front of credible experts. With support at each step, he'd move to bigger & bigger audiences. However, if he comes in sloppy, he gets shown the door.

It isn't laziness. It's priorities. And a keen eye to a strong case. You can bet that, if all of Jones' duck were lined up, a bunch of engineers would jump all over the opportunity to be the first to solve the puzzle. If only for the competitive nature that we all have.

Tom
tfk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2009, 10:03 AM   #608
Sunstealer
Master Poster
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,738
Originally Posted by JamesB View Post
Heh, now Jones is arguing that you can't criticize his paper unless you spend $800 and get it published in Pakistan too.

http://911blogger.com/node/19761?page=3
I like this bit
Quote:
Debunkers may raise all sorts of objections on forums, such as "Oh, it's just paint" or "the aluminum is bound up in kaolin." We have answered those questions in the paper, and shown them to be nonsense, but you have to read to find the answers
I wonder where he got that from

Secondly It's hard to digest excrement but I'm slowly working my way through it and I can certainly say I've read the paper. Infact it's taken me 2 hours to just read through the SEM and EDS data along with the text let alone actually doing any analysis. It's painful going because there is so much wrong with it. And no he hasn't made the answers in the paper, his paper throws up dozens more questions and a far more obvious answer that is easily backed with sources.
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2009, 10:07 AM   #609
Sunstealer
Master Poster
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,738
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
They found that the paint dissolved in a chemical solution and that the red/grey chips did not. You might as well accept it- it ain't lookin' good for the paint. Do you have another possibility that can explain all the disparate details like the iron microspherules and the explosive/incendiary nature if the red layer ?, Should we crack the champagne just yet ?
As has been posted by several posters numerous times.

Please point out in Jones' paper where they tell you what type of paint they used and the specification.

This is the problem with truthers they never read anything including papers from their own side.
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2009, 10:10 AM   #610
Sunstealer
Master Poster
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,738
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
As far as I know hey have proven that the stuff is a nano-compound TAM. Nothing 'nano' had any business being in the WTC dust in 2001. It has all the chemical signatures of the components of thermite and it behaves like thermite under physical experimentation. What's left ?- a label ?
Total crap - you know absolutely nothing about what you are talking about, as usual.

Go and do some basic research on oxide powders and the paint industry and you'll see that nano sized particles are common in paint.

I really wish this thread was heavily moderated in order to stop dross like this being posted (by the usual miscreants).
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2009, 10:16 AM   #611
Sunstealer
Master Poster
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,738
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
Mainly that I am enjoying watching you build your case. I suspect that it wil come to nothing in the end though.
You don't understand a word of my case - you haven't commented on a single aspect of it. Infact I don't think you've read any of my posts that are more than a line or two or looked at the links.

Go and do some research on MIO - Micaceous Iron Oxide and it's uses, specifically as an component in structural steel anti-corrosion paint. Then look at the role of Fe2O3 and the type of sizes used in paint. Then do some research on Kaolin and it's varieties. Now compare that with the EDS and SEM data in Jones' paper.

That will take you at least 40 hours work (primarily because it will take you longer to get the information). I'd be interested in the conclusions you make.

Run along now Billy.
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2009, 10:18 AM   #612
Sunstealer
Master Poster
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,738
Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus View Post
Dave is correct, and this point must be emphasized. Lurkers, and others: What Dave (and Sunstealer and Ryan Mackey before him) is saying is that the energy release in a ferrous oxide-aluminum "redox" reaction - a thermite reaction - is dicated by the reactants themselves i.e. the iron oxide and the aluminum. Processing the materials so that the particles are finer does not change the energy density of the material; all such processing does is affect the rate of reaction. Joules released (or calories, or whatever unit you want to use) remains the same; it just releases faster. The point is that anyone trying to use the energy density of the chips as a debate point doesn't know what they're talking about.
Bolded for emphasis and repetition. Truthers - please read and understand this. It is basic chemistry.
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2009, 10:23 AM   #613
Sunstealer
Master Poster
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,738
Originally Posted by JamesB View Post
BTW I e-mailed the good professor asking him if they bothered to identify paint fragments from their debris samples and if so what they had learned from their characteristics.
This is an excellent point. If Jones et al thinks that unreacted thermite is in the dust then it stands to reason that there are paint chips in the dust. Is Jones saying that there are no paint chips or flakes in any of the samples that have been collected? If so then how is that possible.

I'd like to see a direct comparison between a paint chip from the WTC and Jones' samples.

Infact I wouldn't bother with DSC etc until I'd ruled paint out of the equation totally. Simple microscopy on a number of samples likely to be present at the WTC site would do this. Has Jones ever contacted Tnemec and asked for samples or sought their advice?
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2009, 10:43 AM   #614
JamesB
Master Poster
 
JamesB's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,151
I don't know, he avoided answering the question.

Quote:
I have a quick question regarding your recent paper. You argue that your red and grey chip samples are "super-nano-themite" and not paint. Given that we know for a fact that there were large quantities of paint in the towers in general, and on the structural steel in specific, and that it would be a virtual impossibility for some of it not to flake off during the collapse, especially under the additional effect of explosives, what method did you use to separate your "thermite" samples from actual paint flakes in the dust? Also what characteristics did you identify of the actual paint flakes in the dust, and how did those characteristics distinguish these samples from those of thermite?

thanks,

James
Quote:
James, you wrote: "You argue that your red and grey chip samples
are "super-nano-themite" -- not quite right, and I invite you to read
the paper more carefully.

Regarding your other questions:
A number of critical tests are described in the paper, including
characterizations using SEM examination, XEDS analysis and ignition in
a Differential Scanning Calorimeter. These tests sufficed to
distinguish the highly-energetic thermitic red chips from other chips
observed in the dust.

To merit consideration, any assertion that a prosaic sub-
stance such as ordinary paint could match the characteristics we have
described would have to be accompanied by empirical dem-
onstration using a sample of the proposed material, including
SEM/XEDS and DSC analyses.
Steven Jones
I responded, explaining that he had misunderstood my question, but have yet to receive another response.
__________________
I said lots of things in NPH that I would not say today and that I did not repeat in NPHR, where I specifically corrected at least some of the errors I had made in that earlier book, written 5 years ago.
-David Ray Griffin-
JamesB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2009, 10:46 AM   #615
T.A.M.
Keeper of the Kool-Vax
 
T.A.M.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,811
Yes it is quite telling that all of the other analysis of dust samples (that I have read, or read abstracts on) mention paint as one of the components, yet for some reason, Jones makes no mention of paint chips being found in his samples. No mention of them, let alone any Spectral analysis of them, etc...

Hmmmm

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2009, 10:49 AM   #616
T.A.M.
Keeper of the Kool-Vax
 
T.A.M.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,811
Originally Posted by JamesB View Post
I don't know, he avoided answering the question.





I responded, explaining that he had misunderstood my question, but have yet to receive another response.
So the question, which i think is valid, is,

are there paints available that would produce similar results, in terms of energetics, to what Jones observed with his chip samples?

If the answer is yes, then which paints, and could they have been found in the debris?

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2009, 10:53 AM   #617
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,769
Yes, one would think that Jones would have submitted a spectral analysis of a regular paint chip and a thermitic paint chip for comparison. What, he only managed to collect thermitc paint chips?
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison
twinstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2009, 10:55 AM   #618
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
I got a theory, 'they' painted over the thermite in order to conceal it.

There.
Pardalis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2009, 10:58 AM   #619
Julio
Scholar
 
Julio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 71
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
EDS is qualitative not quantitative because it does not give you compounds and their % in the sample unless you use the EDS software package to produce this - nowhere do they state this is done, all they do is estimate peak heights, which gives you an inclination, but it's not conclusive.
Hi, I have some experience with EDS. You can do some quantitative analisys to check about oxigen containing compounds, but you need reference samples to do that. There's also software to do some standarless quatification, but in my experience, it is not really accurate, and only works to know about elemental abundance in the sample, not for knowing how they are binded.

I have made spectra of very simple GaAs, so quantification should yield 50% in atomic for both. Real life tells me I have to ignore Carbon and Oxigen peaks, because if not, they would have a few %at., which would be impossible.
Julio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2009, 10:59 AM   #620
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by JamesB View Post
I don't know, he avoided answering the question.





I responded, explaining that he had misunderstood my question, but have yet to receive another response.
I think you will find that they extracted the red/grey chips with a magnet. This may have distinguished them from the probably non-magnetic paint chips. Between that and the fact that the paint dissolved in a chemical soluton while the r/g chips did not would probably be enough to establish what was what in the dust.
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'
bill smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2009, 11:00 AM   #621
Senenmut
Graduate Poster
 
Senenmut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,345
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
Could you link to that please. I know I sound lazy but I can't find that particular part but I'm interested. Thanks.

It would also help if people put the page number and paragraph when quoting from the Jones paper

ive been looking at the same thing. on page 435, they are talking about weld metal, not paint. the images of the primer are interesting. and on page 438, it shows the compostion of the primer paint. maybe all the carbon in jones sample is coming from linsead oil?
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCST...3C%20Appxs.pdf
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 7th April 2009, 11:00 AM   #622
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,311
Accusing whom of Mass Murder

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Jones paper essentially demonstrates that the red chip were NOT paint. can debunkers through experimentation prove this finding false?
Not true. So far he has only shown results against an unknown paint sample. He hasn't eliminated the original paints used in WTC towers.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
if the red chips are not paint then the only substance in the REAL WORLD that they resemble is nano thermite due to there energy release upon ignition.
Really? Since no one has yet engineered (in a lab or outside one) liquid, paintable nanothermite, how would you know what it would actually look like?



Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Jones does not allege it exists, it exists!
Prove it.The burden of proof is yours.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
How would YOU suggest Jones (anti-govt scientist) obtains samples of nanothermite?
Oh, I see. So Jones' paper is all the proof needed to continue harassing people with these crackpot theories, accusing probably innocent people of mass murder. This is worse than I thought - it really is a witch hunt for the 21st century.


Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
fireproofing is not an immovable substance. you are aware that some weeks prior to the demolition of the WTC towers there was a fireproofing upgrade? this would presumably involve the removal of the old fireproofing before the new fireproofing could be applied.
Prove it. Otherwise you're just handwaving and prevaricating. If you're going to make accusations of mass murder you'd better have real, irrefutable evidence. So far the 9/11 conspiracy cult looks like any other malicious mob. The events of 9/11 are now being exploited to raise fear, superstition and pseudo-science above reason and justice. Nice work.
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 7th April 2009, 11:05 AM   #623
Senenmut
Graduate Poster
 
Senenmut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,345
would the end all tell all be aluminum oxide? when they did the calorimeter test and when the sample reacted at 430C, should they have somehow tested for aluminum oxide? i think alot of this debate revolves around elemental aluminum.
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 7th April 2009, 11:08 AM   #624
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,311
Folks, let's not forget for a single moment that we're not debating some abstract nuances here. The 'truth' movement is specifically and categorically attempting to build a case that your own government and many others DELIBERATELY and SYSTEMATICALLY planned and executed mass murder on 9/11.

This is a very, very serious charge, about as serious as it gets.

To a paranoid cult leader like Steven Jones and his obedient followers, the truth was already known many years ago. The conclusions were firm before any real burden of proof was reached. This new 'proof' is simply a justification for their belief system, no matter how flimsy the science actually is.

It needs to be fought with no hesitation or remorse. You know what happens when lies are elevated above the truth.
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 7th April 2009, 11:13 AM   #625
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,311
FYI, I chose to hang in the youtube arena because I know that's where a lot of these myths are spread.

I keep my identity private for several reasons. As of yesterday, and this latest onslaught of pseudo-scientific malice, youtubers are speculating about the type of executions which should be meted out to, not just the alleged perps of the conspiracy, but the defenders of the 'official' 9/11 story.

Since many weak-minded individuals have now been tricked into thinking that there is real 'proof' that thermite was used to bring the towers down, they need only contemplate retribution. People like yourselves are very easy targets for such blind hatred.

You see how this goes, I think.
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 7th April 2009, 11:14 AM   #626
roundhead
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 824
Originally Posted by alienentity View Post
Folks, let's not forget for a single moment that we're not debating some abstract nuances here. The 'truth' movement is specifically and categorically attempting to build a case that your own government and many others DELIBERATELY and SYSTEMATICALLY planned and executed mass murder on 9/11.

This is a very, very serious charge, about as serious as it gets.

To a paranoid cult leader like Steven Jones and his obedient followers, the truth was already known many years ago. The conclusions were firm before any real burden of proof was reached. This new 'proof' is simply a justification for their belief system, no matter how flimsy the science actually is.

It needs to be fought with no hesitation or remorse. You know what happens when lies are elevated above the truth.

What is so wierd to think our Govt would lie to us. They have before, as have many other Govts, and will continue to. The truth is way more important than defending a known liar.
And i am a vet saying this with zero remorse.

You know they lied about air quality at GZ, know they lied about Iraq, which has gotten thousands killed for absolutely nothing, why doubt they dont do it quite often.

Last edited by roundhead; 7th April 2009 at 11:16 AM.
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 7th April 2009, 11:14 AM   #627
T.A.M.
Keeper of the Kool-Vax
 
T.A.M.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,811
Well here are paraphrased summaries of the papers conclusions...

---------
1. The Red Layer is composed of Aluminum, Iron, Oxygen, Silicon, and Carbon, and in some cases small amounts of potassium, sulfur, lead, barium, and copper

2. In the Red Layer, the presence of Al, Fe, O, Si, and C, occurs in particles at the scale of tens to hundreds of nanometers, with intimate mixing.

3. The Red Layer, on treatment with MEK, produced a segregation of components, such that the elemental aluminum concentrated, and was identified in the pre-ignition material.

4. Within the Red Layer, Iron Oxide particles are 100nm grains, and this qualifies the material as nano-thermite or super-thermite.

5. Pre-ignition, Iron Oxide was found in all 4 samples, and Elemental iron was not.

6. Because the Red Layer had elemental aluminum and iron oxide in it, they conclude that the layer contains the ingredients of thermite.

7. The Red Layer ignites and reacts vigorously at 430C, with a narrow exotherm, both of which match "closely" to a "known" sample of "superthermite". The tests prove that the material is not standard "thermite" which ignites/reacts at 900C or more.

8. Through ignition testing up to 700C, the presence or iron rich spherules was noted, containing elemental iron (based on the changed ratio between the iron and oxygen pre and post ignition). For the sphere to have been formed, an extremely high temp chemical reaction must have occured, to make the iron molten. The chem reaction proposed is a reduction-oxidation reaction...a thermite reaction.

9. The spheroids are without the pre-ignition amounts of both Carbon and Aluminum, which "strikingly" matches spheroids produced after known thermite reactions.

10. The Carbon content, along with the amount of energy release, indicates that it would not be classic thermite, but perhaps superthermite.


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

Now, given the above,

(A) could our resident experts or people who understand all this stuff, please address the above, as best they can, indicating where Jones is right, wrong, and where it is really irrelevant.

(B) Which of the above could occur from any form of paint chip.

(C) Is it possible that the chips are not thermite, not simply paint, but a melded version of paint and other chemicals?

Thanks to those who answer

TAM

Last edited by T.A.M.; 7th April 2009 at 11:19 AM.
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2009, 11:15 AM   #628
Senenmut
Graduate Poster
 
Senenmut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,345
this is from nist, i dont think u guys have posted this yet:

composition of primer paint

pigment:
iron oxide 35.9%
zinc yellow 20.3%
tnemec pigment 33.7%
(proprietary compostion)
diatomaceous silica 10.1%

vehicle:
soya alkyd resin solids 16.5%
hard resin 2.8%
raw linseed oil 35.1 %
bodied linseed oil 6.4%
suspension agents 2.2%
driers and anti skin 4.8%
thinners 32.3%

source sramek 1967
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCST...3C%20Appxs.pdf

page 438

Last edited by Senenmut; 7th April 2009 at 11:18 AM.
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 7th April 2009, 11:16 AM   #629
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by alienentity View Post
Folks, let's not forget for a single moment that we're not debating some abstract nuances here. The 'truth' movement is specifically and categorically attempting to build a case that your own government and many others DELIBERATELY and SYSTEMATICALLY planned and executed mass murder on 9/11.

This is a very, very serious charge, about as serious as it gets.

To a paranoid cult leader like Steven Jones and his obedient followers, the truth was already known many years ago. The conclusions were firm before any real burden of proof was reached. This new 'proof' is simply a justification for their belief system, no matter how flimsy the science actually is.

It needs to be fought with no hesitation or remorse. You know what happens when lies are elevated above the truth.
It may have been a rogue element within the government at best. At worst it came all the way down from the top. I personally opt for this last. So yes....in a nutshell those are the aaccusations.
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'
bill smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2009, 11:18 AM   #630
Sunstealer
Master Poster
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,738
Originally Posted by Senenmut View Post
ive been looking at the same thing. on page 435, they are talking about weld metal, not paint. the images of the primer are interesting. and on page 438, it shows the compostion of the primer paint. maybe all the carbon in jones sample is coming from linsead oil?
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCST...3C%20Appxs.pdf
I've had a look at the relevant sections - thanks to all who posted the links.

Page 433 - D.2.1 Condition of Paint. - Paragraph 2.

That's an important paragraph and deserves attention and gives the corresponding Table D-1 Composition of primer paint, Page 438.

But what really grabbed my attention and I'd wish I'd seen this before is is the photo on Page 442, Fig D-4, that was alluded to by a poster above.

That is striking and cannot be ignored. Compare Fig D-4 with Jones' paper Fig 2 a-d)

Last edited by Sunstealer; 7th April 2009 at 11:19 AM.
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2009, 11:19 AM   #631
JamesB
Master Poster
 
JamesB's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,151
Originally Posted by roundhead View Post
What is so wierd to think our Govt would lie to us. They have before, as have many other Govts, and will continue to. The truth is way more important than defending a known liar.
And i am a vet saying this with zero remorse.

You know they lied about air quality at GZ, know they lied about Iraq, which has gotten thousands killed for absolutely nothing, why doubt they dont do it quite often.
Some fruits are oranges.
An apple is a fruit.
Therefore an apple is an orange.
__________________
I said lots of things in NPH that I would not say today and that I did not repeat in NPHR, where I specifically corrected at least some of the errors I had made in that earlier book, written 5 years ago.
-David Ray Griffin-
JamesB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2009, 11:20 AM   #632
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
Originally Posted by roundhead View Post
You know they lied about air quality at GZ, know they lied about Iraq[..]
These "they" are not the same people.
Pardalis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2009, 11:21 AM   #633
T.A.M.
Keeper of the Kool-Vax
 
T.A.M.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,811
Quote:
tnemec pigment 33.7%
didn't Sunstealer mention something about tnemec.

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2009, 11:23 AM   #634
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,149
Originally Posted by alienentity View Post
Folks, let's not forget for a single moment that we're not debating some abstract nuances here. The 'truth' movement is specifically and categorically attempting to build a case that your own government and many others DELIBERATELY and SYSTEMATICALLY planned and executed mass murder on 9/11.

This is a very, very serious charge, about as serious as it gets.

To a paranoid cult leader like Steven Jones and his obedient followers, the truth was already known many years ago. The conclusions were firm before any real burden of proof was reached. This new 'proof' is simply a justification for their belief system, no matter how flimsy the science actually is.

It needs to be fought with no hesitation or remorse. You know what happens when lies are elevated above the truth.
I agree with you in direction, but it's possible to get too strident about things. Let's remember that professionals in the field who do see these lunatic proposals (if you need an example, think about the ones interviewed for the Popular Mechanics work) pretty much dismiss them out of hand. Even field experts who the conspiracy peddlers try to push as believers - take James Quintierre or Dr. Astaneh-Asl as examples here - have directly addressed the notion of conspiratorial proposals (they're on record as dismissing them).

The fact of the matter is that the 9/11 "Truth" (scare quotes) movement has about as much traction as a greased dolphin on a sheet of ice. Advocates of the fantasies have to either resort to evangelization on obscure and off-topic forums (again, I point to the "Surfer" forum I linked earlier) or interviews with marginal media sources. With just a minimum of thought and research, a commonly educated person can see through the BS. It may take some work, and maybe a reference to Gravy's site, or Mike W's, or here, but they can see though it. I share with you the thought that the charge is serious, but the manner it's presented in and of itself keeps it from being taken seriously (I mean, c'mon, yelling at random public figures is hardly a productive way to forward a view). Simple analysis of the claims convinces the rest. It's a bare minimum who actually ascribe to these theses, and most of those people waste their time here trying to convince us, rather than try to actually accomplish anything.

It's a dead movement. Ask yourself when you have ever in person seen a truther rally, or an ad for a truther presentation. I've seen exactly two, one merely being a bumper sticker, the other being a talk, and I live in a university town. I think even the hangers-on at Ground Zero have severely reduced in number (someone in NY correct me if I'm wrong). You're right, but you don't have to generate that much energy for that small a "movement". It's 99.999% an internet phenomenon, little more.
__________________
"... my favorite meal is grilled filet of spherical cow of uniform density ... with a side of mashed potatoes of indeterminate volume, peas arranged in an optimal packing configuration, and a glass of ideal fluid." (PhysicsForums)

Last edited by ElMondoHummus; 7th April 2009 at 11:28 AM.
ElMondoHummus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2009, 11:28 AM   #635
BCR
Master Poster
 
BCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,276
Originally Posted by roundhead View Post
What is so wierd to think our Govt would lie to us. They have before, as have many other Govts, and will continue to. The truth is way more important than defending a known liar.
And i am a vet saying this with zero remorse.

You know they lied about air quality at GZ, know they lied about Iraq, which has gotten thousands killed for absolutely nothing, why doubt they dont do it quite often.
Please don't confuse apples and oranges. I could write a book (and may yet) regarding the lies I have run into in regards to 9/11. Most of it is just a matter of an agency covering its a** or incompetence. But there is a huge difference between the government lying to cover up something and its active invlovement in the murder of American citizens. The later I have found absolutely no evidence of.
__________________
"Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM
BCR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2009, 11:29 AM   #636
T.A.M.
Keeper of the Kool-Vax
 
T.A.M.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,811
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
I've had a look at the relevant sections - thanks to all who posted the links.

Page 433 - D.2.1 Condition of Paint. - Paragraph 2.

That's an important paragraph and deserves attention and gives the corresponding Table D-1 Composition of primer paint, Page 438.

But what really grabbed my attention and I'd wish I'd seen this before is is the photo on Page 442, Fig D-4, that was alluded to by a poster above.

That is striking and cannot be ignored. Compare Fig D-4 with Jones' paper Fig 2 a-d)
2c especially. The similarity, to quote Jones himself, is "Striking".

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2009, 11:32 AM   #637
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,311
Originally Posted by roundhead View Post
What is so wierd to think our Govt would lie to us. They have before, as have many other Govts, and will continue to. The truth is way more important than defending a known liar.
And i am a vet saying this with zero remorse.

You know they lied about air quality at GZ, know they lied about Iraq, which has gotten thousands killed for absolutely nothing, why doubt they dont do it quite often.

The government is not a monolith. At GZ you're referring to the EPA, and you actually know what happened because of the freedoms that you have. You're free to criticize them for that.

With Iraq, While the rest of the world virtually begged you guys not to invade, Americans chose hysteria and retribution. AMericans not only supported Bush (high approval ratings) at the time, but they seemed uninterested that the evidence was very sketchy. They bought into it when it suited. Where was your skepticism back in the fall of 2001 or early 2002?

I was at anti-war rallies. We saw this coming.

Recently Senator Hilary Clinton signed on to a strong anti-Iran stance, including a bill to declare Iran's military a terrorist organization. Were you outraged by such open warmongering? I was.
Hilary is now Sec State. What do you expect?

Yes, there is a pattern here: hysterical warmongering and a rush to start shooting, then ask questions later. That seems to be America's MO lately. It needs to stop.
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 7th April 2009, 11:32 AM   #638
16.5
Philosopher
 
16.5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,753
Originally Posted by roundhead View Post
What is so wierd to think our Govt would lie to us. They have before, as have many other Govts, and will continue to. The truth is way more important than defending a known liar.
And i am a vet saying this with zero remorse.

You know they lied about air quality at GZ, know they lied about Iraq, which has gotten thousands killed for absolutely nothing, why doubt they dont do it quite often.
Huh, aren't you from Canada? Or am i thinking of some other PFFT/CIT shill?

Nothing wrong with being from Cananda, of course.
__________________
The Fallacy of Pseudo-refuting Descriptions

The art of labeling an argument in a dismissive fashion being used as an argument in and of itself. Ex: Labeling facts as a conspiracy theory
16.5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2009, 11:34 AM   #639
moorea34
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 157
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
But what really grabbed my attention and I'd wish I'd seen this before is is the photo on Page 442, Fig D-4, that was alluded to by a poster above.

That is striking and cannot be ignored. Compare Fig D-4 with Jones' paper Fig 2 a-d)
It was me
moorea34 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2009, 11:37 AM   #640
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,311
ElMondoHummus - perhaps you're right. But I'm going to continue producing youtube videos to counter the anti-knowledge being peddled until further notice.

As I mentioned in my previous post, your elected leaders are still looking for the next war to embark upon. Pres. Obama is determined to escalate in Afghanistan, in spite of the warning signs seen there and in Pakistan.

Canada is about to get out of A'stan for good reasons (we don't have the money, for one).

I see a pattern of violent irrationality in America which shows little sign of abating. One can only hope.
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
Closed Thread

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

Bookmarks

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 06:43 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.