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 8th April 2009, 11:25 AM   #921
roundhead
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 824
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
Really. Well if you've read all of the facts please point out in Jones' paper where they describe the source, composition, maker and manufacturer part number of the paint they tested.

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

I predict a one line answer and a dodge, handwave, etc.

I suggest you write a peer reviewed rebuttal to this paper, something nobody on earth has done even with the "14 points" paper.

Until then, this verbal jabbering is simply that, an excercise in gill plate flapping that has zero scientific merit.
roundhead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th April 2009, 11:27 AM   #922
roundhead
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 824
Originally Posted by nicepants View Post
The extensive list of engineers, scientists, experts, etc on the report itself was not enough for you? The NIST report was a product of many many more experts than any of jones' papers, and criticism was welcomed from anyone...including the general public. If any of jones papers had as much support from the mainstream experts that the NIST report did, I wouldn't care if he submitted them to legitimate peer review journals....it would be unnecessary.
many people wrote rebuttals to the NIST report, and they allowed only a very short window to accept such rebuttals, once the report was made public.

Lets see if anybody on the planet scientifically rebutts this nano thermite paper.I would think people would be crawling out of the woodwork to do so.
roundhead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th April 2009, 11:27 AM   #923
Swing Dangler
Graduate Poster
 
Swing Dangler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,049
Originally Posted by Pardalis View Post
Did you notice everyone who worked on that paper were already truther activists?
Sorry, the paper offers no political theory about the findings which is even more reason to publish a scientific rebuttal to the paper in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Frankly, I don't care if they are CT'ers or OCT'ers, let the science stand where it may.

I think we can agree there should be no politics in science.
__________________
"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."-John SKilling-Head Structural Engineer WTC-1993 Seattle Times
Swing Dangler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th April 2009, 11:29 AM   #924
roundhead
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 824
Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
Sorry, the paper offers no political theory about the findings which is even more reason to publish a scientific rebuttal to the paper in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Frankly, I don't care if they are CT'ers or OCT'ers, let the science stand where it may.

I think we can agree there should be no politics in science.

Wow, you earned some respect from me
roundhead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th April 2009, 11:33 AM   #925
Sunstealer
Master Poster
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,735
Originally Posted by Kent1 View Post
Well, Iron dust will ignite at 430C.
http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/i7500.htm
Interesting - we also know that rusting is an exothermic reaction (that truthers means it gives off heat) and therefore is an increase in energy. They observed a matrix of a Carbon based material (most likely some form of binder) in the SEM photos and EDS. Could this also ignite?
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th April 2009, 11:33 AM   #926
TexasJack
Penultimate Amazing
 
TexasJack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 10,903
Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
Sorry, the paper offers no political theory about the findings which is even more reason to publish a scientific rebuttal to the paper in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Frankly, I don't care if they are CT'ers or OCT'ers, let the science stand where it may.

I think we can agree there should be no politics in science.
Hey
Edited by Myriad:  personal name removed
is back, still spewing out the same garbage...

Mod WarningPlease do not use a member's personal name, if that name is not public knowledge. This comes under Rule 8: You will not post a person's private information that is not otherwise publicly available or if it is not required for a discussion. (If the name is publicly available, I was not able to find it in a casual search, and better safe than sorry where Rule 8 is concerned.)
Posted By:Myriad

Last edited by Myriad; 8th April 2009 at 01:33 PM.
TexasJack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th April 2009, 11:34 AM   #927
Swing Dangler
Graduate Poster
 
Swing Dangler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,049
Please publish your findings in a scientific peer-reviewed journal...

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

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

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

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

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

A great site for explaining crystal shapes.

EDS data will only give you the elements.

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

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

6 Fe2O3 --> 4 Fe3O4 + O2

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

Thermite is

2Al + Fe2O3

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

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

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

I'd also like to thank Bill Smith, because without reading his post I wouldn't have necessarily gone back to basics - thanks truther!

For the sake of science, please publish your findings in a scientific peer-reviewed journal along with the description of sample dust you used to arrive at your findings instead of photographs.

I look forward to viewing your evidence in a scientific peer-reviewed journal in the form of electron images, optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) results.

And for the sake of science, please also list the methods, materials,and conclusions you use when producing your paper as well.

Thanks!
__________________
"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."-John SKilling-Head Structural Engineer WTC-1993 Seattle Times
Swing Dangler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th April 2009, 11:38 AM   #928
Galileo
Illuminator
 
Galileo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,368
Originally Posted by nicepants View Post
The extensive list of engineers, scientists, experts, etc on the report itself was not enough for you? The NIST report was a product of many many more experts than any of jones' papers, and criticism was welcomed from anyone...including the general public. If any of jones papers had as much support from the mainstream experts that the NIST report did, I wouldn't care if he submitted them to legitimate peer review journals....it would be unnecessary.
You are arguing from authority, not from science. Did you not learn your Galileo when you were young?

The NIST report does indeed have many qualified scientists. But their report has not been peer reviewed by referees, nor have they released their computer models, so it is impossible at this time to subject them to peer review.

the NIST report is just that, a government report, nothing more.

Also, NIST is suspected in the 9/11 cover-up. Real science regarding 9/11 should not be left to the very people who are suspected.
Galileo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th April 2009, 11:40 AM   #929
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,330
Originally Posted by roundhead View Post
HeHe.........

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

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

Since the chemical composition of these chips is fairly well established, it can be calculated what the energy potential is (as Mr. Mackey did earlier) http://www.internationalskeptics.com...66#post4588566

and given the very thin coating of this material it is irrelevant whether it's call 'nanothermite', 'paint' or whatever. That's a moot point.

You can't heat and destroy a steel beam with the stuff. It would be no more effective than burning paint. Worse, you don't need to rebut Jones' paper to understand the impossibility of trying to paint this stuff onto structural steel throughout both towers.... anybody with more than one brain cell can see that.

Do you really think this needs a full-on scientific rebuttal to be viewed skeptically?
alienentity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th April 2009, 11:41 AM   #930
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 21,845
Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
...
If you can't, then your objections to the paper amount to hot air and lack scientific merit irregardless of your title. Cheers!
Why are you drank the Kool-aid followers challenged in science. Here is Jones cherry picking his evidence by ignoring the other elements. Jones delusion is funny as hell when you take the time to be skeptical, or exercise your own mind. Why does Jones act like a moron? Funny you fall for his insanity.
Quote:
Prior to soaking the chip in MEK an XEDS spectrum was acquired from an area of the red-layer surface. 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.
If you lack knowledge you fall for the insanity of Jones’ implied conclusions and the center of thermite in the ceiling tile Jones endorses.

If that is not the silliest ideas, then your post supporting Jones’ delusions is. Keep drinking the Kool-aid from the cult of Jones Thermite with calcium for healty bones.

You have to pay to have Jones' tripe published but seeing the insanity is priceless.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th April 2009, 11:42 AM   #931
Sunstealer
Master Poster
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,735
Originally Posted by roundhead View Post
Or prove his two points are 100% correct, and effectively send all the OCT slurpers who infest this place home.
You don't know what XEDS stands for nor do you understand how it works. How much SEM experience do you have Roundhead? I am going to bet 0 hours. If you knew what this method is capable of then you would know that you cannot determine compounds only the presence of elements. If you'd bother to read my posts you'd have seen that I mention this atleast 3 times and another poster with SEM experience confirms this. You have to use the semi-quantitative EDS/EDX/XEDS software in order to get a rough read out of what compounds (not elements it's difficult I know) are present.

This is why you use a different technique. For example XRD would be good in this instance or FTIR for organic compounds.

It's blatantly obvious that you don't know the difference so click on the links and learn something new today.

The guy you quote also doesn't know the difference.
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th April 2009, 11:43 AM   #932
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,162
Enough about "nano" being used as a crutch! How many times are we going to have to beat this into the ground?? Nanothermite is thermite, it's just been processed to a finer degree! Nothing - I say again, nothing - about processing changes the energetic property of the reactants!

Does "nano"wood ground to a sandlike state have any more joules/calories/BTU/whatever per gram than wood planks or logs? Does "nano"gasoline have any more heat per unit of mass because it's in smaller drops than gasoline in a cup? No! So why in God's name do we try to handwave the energy differences away with that stupid, ridiculous "It's nanothermite" argument?

Once again: The energy available in a ferrous-oxide/aluminum reduction-oxidation reaction is the same regardless of how fine the individual reactants are ground! What about the fact that this mysterious "nano" property is supposed to change the basic energy available in the redox reaction? And what about the fact that it's some "nano" material is supposed to change the activation energy? Does anyone here advocating this paper even know what "activation energy" is without clicking on either of these links??

Waving the prefix "nano" around like a talisman does not hide the fact that the substance Jones et. al. has tested is not thermite. It's not "nano" thermite, it's not "super" thermite. He's not seeing a rust-aluminum redox reaction! That's basic! When a liquid freezes at some different temperature than 32oF (0oC), do we try to pass it off as "super-water"? Or do we do reach basic intelligent conclusion and realize we're not dealing with water??

Gaaaaah... I can't believe that people are trying to handwave these differences as being due to "nano" thermite. Apples and oranges, NO. They are NOT!
__________________
"... 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 8th April 2009, 11:43 AM   #933
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,330
Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
For the sake of science, please publish your findings in a scientific peer-reviewed journal along with the description of sample dust you used to arrive at your findings instead of photographs.

etc etc

Thanks!
Hey, Swing Dangler, I trust you've been giving the same advise to all those truther websites who jumped to CD conclusions BEFORE this paper was published by Bentham?

I just know you did that. After all, we wouldn't want the 9/11 truth movement to be unscientific, would we? They might come to erroneous conclusions!

Nice to know people like you are keeping things honest. good for you.
alienentity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th April 2009, 11:49 AM   #934
Sunstealer
Master Poster
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,735
Originally Posted by Senenmut View Post
ill rephrase a question i had pages back....maybe im not asking it right.

the reaction should produce iron (which jones has showed being the iron spheres) and aluminum oxide. ive seen videos where white smoke is said to be the aluminum oxide. i dont see anywhere in the paper that states they found aluminum oxide after the reaction. would it strenghthen their case if they do look and perhaps find it post reaction?
Another valid question.

The big problem they have is that they cannot distinguish the source of the aluminium present because of the method they use - EDS. The pre-DSC sample will almost certainly contain alumina in some form. The difficulty will be ascertaining how much is there in the first place and how much post DSC testing. However, I would expect to see clear photomicrographs with accompanying EDS on separate alumina particles because as you say this is evidence of the thermite reaction. They haven't done this. They managed it for "iron-microspheres".

In all honesty I actually think that the source of these spheres in the WTC dust is burnt paint.
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th April 2009, 11:52 AM   #935
16.5
Philosopher
 
16.5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,758
Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
For the sake of science, please publish your findings in a scientific peer-reviewed journal along with the description of sample dust you used to arrive at your findings instead of photographs.

I look forward to viewing your evidence in a scientific peer-reviewed journal in the form of electron images, optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) results.

And for the sake of science, please also list the methods, materials,and conclusions you use when producing your paper as well.

Thanks!
Swing, swing is back, back again....

Hey Swing, let me let you in on a little tip, in "science" you don't necessarily have to repeat a test! You can take the data that the proponent of a theory publishes, and analyze that data, and using that same data, point out where they have gone wrong.

Am I going to fast here, Swing?

Say, looking at the data that Jones uses, I notice he doesn't publish the results from his tests in 2007. Now what do you think about that Swing?

Hey Swing, we are taking bets on what type of paint jones tested. Given Ryan's involvement, we are guessing "water" colors (snicker).
__________________
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 online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th April 2009, 11:52 AM   #936
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,330
Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus View Post

Gaaaaah... I can't believe that people are trying to handwave these differences as being due to "nano" thermite. Apples and oranges, NO. They are NOT!
Don't you know it's a proven scientific fact that nanothermite ignites at 430c?

That's the difference!

The jets were used to ignite the thermite paint, which then quickly burned right through the buildings down to the ground. You can see the nanosmoke pouring out all the way down.

That's why the towers collapsed almost instantly after the plane impacts, and faster than freefall speed.
alienentity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th April 2009, 11:52 AM   #937
The Platypus
Graduate Poster
 
The Platypus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,883
What i see going on here is another religion.

The arrogant claims of, and self given labels of "truth, truther, the only ones that know the truth, etc"
The attempts to do end runs around proper established scientific methods.
Automatic infallibility, without any verification, to anyone that is in or agrees with the "truther" side in any way.
The lame mental gymnastic apologetics to attempt too cover up truck sized holes.
The false dicotomy of only two choices. With or against.
The demonizing of everyone that isn't in the "truther" cult.
The lack of reason, logic, or thinking, instead choosing blind faith.
The leaders are never wrong about anything.
The arrogant superiority complex of being a "truther".
The claims of expertise if everything and anything while dismissing the vast majority of real experts that totally disagree.
The quickness to insult and dismiss anyone that doesn't just immediately agree with everything and anything they propose.
The sectarian divides within the cult. All claiming to be the only ones that have it right.
The constant snake oil salesman games to convince people through trickery and emotion.
The childish level of their behaviour and mentality.
The delusions of grandeur.
The veiled threats to everyone that isn't in their cult, "you'll be sorry one day"
The backbone of fear and paranoia.
The lack of a grasp on reality.
The constant lying and fabrications. (this one really bugs me)
They propose some of the most ridiculous nonsense i have ever heard.

I can go on and on...

This all looks to me like nothing more than religion repackaged and resold in the 21st century...

Yet they seriously think they can fool us all with these pathetic tactics...

Last edited by The Platypus; 8th April 2009 at 11:55 AM.
The Platypus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th April 2009, 12:00 PM   #938
boloboffin
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 5,001
Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus View Post
Enough about "nano" being used as a crutch! How many times are we going to have to beat this into the ground?? Nanothermite is thermite, it's just been processed to a finer degree! Nothing - I say again, nothing - about processing changes the energetic property of the reactants!

Does "nano"wood ground to a sandlike state have any more joules/calories/BTU/whatever per gram than wood planks or logs? Does "nano"gasoline have any more heat per unit of mass because it's in smaller drops than gasoline in a cup? No! So why in God's name do we try to handwave the energy differences away with that stupid, ridiculous "It's nanothermite" argument?

Once again: The energy available in a ferrous-oxide/aluminum reduction-oxidation reaction is the same regardless of how fine the individual reactants are ground! What about the fact that this mysterious "nano" property is supposed to change the basic energy available in the redox reaction? And what about the fact that it's some "nano" material is supposed to change the activation energy? Does anyone here advocating this paper even know what "activation energy" is without clicking on either of these links??

Waving the prefix "nano" around like a talisman does not hide the fact that the substance Jones et. al. has tested is not thermite. It's not "nano" thermite, it's not "super" thermite. He's not seeing a rust-aluminum redox reaction! That's basic! When a liquid freezes at some different temperature than 32oF (0oC), do we try to pass it off as "super-water"? Or do we do reach basic intelligent conclusion and realize we're not dealing with water??

Gaaaaah... I can't believe that people are trying to handwave these differences as being due to "nano" thermite. Apples and oranges, NO. They are NOT!
It's more like comparing apples and applesauce.
boloboffin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th April 2009, 12:01 PM   #939
Sunstealer
Master Poster
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,735
Originally Posted by roundhead View Post
I suggest you write a peer reviewed rebuttal to this paper, something nobody on earth has done even with the "14 points" paper.

Until then, this verbal jabbering is simply that, an excercise in gill plate flapping that has zero scientific merit.
Dodge noted.

I see that the time between my post and your response was 5 minutes. Did you actually manage to open the document and read the entire thing in 5 minutes? You did eh? But you couldn't find the answer to my question could you?

Nope like the dog your are to Jones the master, you can't even be bothered to actually read his paper you just spout regurgitated nonsense.

I'll spell it out for you and any other brain dead moron why it is important to have the information that I ask for.

Jones claims they tested paint in order to rule out paint as a source for the chips. He does not state what paint he is comparing the chips to, so without that information his test is void.

There is absolutely no way in a million years I or any other person producing a legitimate paper would ever get away with that colossal mistake before the paper was published. It would be spotted because there should be a reference (that's those little number superscript numbers and corresponding references at the end of the paper) to either a data table and or manufacturers information sheet.

It's plainly obvious that people like roundhead and other truthers have very little experience with scientific papers or what is required when writing one. At the moment we don't need a peer review rebuttal - there are so many elementary mistakes in the paper that it's going to take alot of time to correlate them all.

Instead of being such a puppet why don't you actually bother to go back to the start of this thread and read the posts (not the bickering) that point out some of these errors which are backed up by alternate 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 8th April 2009, 12:03 PM   #940
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 21,845
Originally Posted by roundhead View Post
I suggest you write a peer reviewed rebuttal to this paper, something nobody on earth has done even with the "14 points" paper.

Until then, this verbal jabbering is simply that, an excercise in gill plate flapping that has zero scientific merit.
Jones debunks himself; if only you could read and understand the paper.

Quote:
Prior to soaking the chip in MEK an XEDS spectrum was acquired from an area of the red-layer surface. 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.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th April 2009, 12:03 PM   #941
ConspiracyKiller
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 184
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
Interesting - we also know that rusting is an exothermic reaction (that truthers means it gives off heat) and therefore is an increase in energy. They observed a matrix of a Carbon based material (most likely some form of binder) in the SEM photos and EDS. Could this also ignite?
It appears that Dr. Greening is of the impression that the XEDS spectrum in Figure 14 "Is" from material also containing primer paint but is clearly quite different to the material that gave the Figure 6 and 7 spectra.

TAM has made some good points in regard to the amounts of zinc. So I'm curious as to how Dr. Greening is sure there is a deference, is he basing his opinion on just the zinc or is there any thing else that stands out in http://www.tnemec.com/resources/product/msds/m10v.pdf that I'm missing.

For example do the Flash, boiling, or explosive properties listed in the MSDS tell us anything new?

In your opinion do you, after seeing the MSDS for Tnemec's Series 010 Red Primer, think the red/gray chips are paint or is it some other material?

Sorry for all the questions and thanks for your time/sharing you expertise.
ConspiracyKiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th April 2009, 12:06 PM   #942
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,900
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
Dodge noted.

I see that the time between my post and your response was 5 minutes. Did you actually manage to open the document and read the entire thing in 5 minutes? You did eh? But you couldn't find the answer to my question could you?

Nope like the dog your are to Jones the master, you can't even be bothered to actually read his paper you just spout regurgitated nonsense.

I'll spell it out for you and any other brain dead moron why it is important to have the information that I ask for.

Jones claims they tested paint in order to rule out paint as a source for the chips. He does not state what paint he is comparing the chips to, so without that information his test is void.

There is absolutely no way in a million years I or any other person producing a legitimate paper would ever get away with that colossal mistake before the paper was published. It would be spotted because there should be a reference (that's those little number superscript numbers and corresponding references at the end of the paper) to either a data table and or manufacturers information sheet.

It's plainly obvious that people like roundhead and other truthers have very little experience with scientific papers or what is required when writing one. At the moment we don't need a peer review rebuttal - there are so many elementary mistakes in the paper that it's going to take alot of time to correlate them all.

Instead of being such a puppet why don't you actually bother to go back to the start of this thread and read the posts (not the bickering) that point out some of these errors which are backed up by alternate sources?
For a moment I thought you were going to be above this type of rhetoric.
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
RedIbis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th April 2009, 12:10 PM   #943
16.5
Philosopher
 
16.5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,758
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
For a moment I thought you were going to be above this type of rhetoric.
well Red, he is fairly frustrated with the fact that just about every truther under the sun has coming crawling back from what ever rock they were hiding under to spout off nonsense about something that not only do they not understand, they have not bothered to even read the thread.

Hey Red, where does Jones say what type of paint he tested, and more importantly, where are the results from 2007???

Jones is leading you sheep right into a buzzsaw.
__________________
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 online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th April 2009, 12:14 PM   #944
Sunstealer
Master Poster
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,735
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
Hey Swing, let me let you in on a little tip, in "science" you don't necessarily have to repeat a test! You can take the data that the proponent of a theory publishes, and analyze that data, and using that same data, point out where they have gone wrong.
Exactly.

Why are truthers so stupid and assume the only way you can refute something is to do your own tests. The great thing about this paper is the data that is clearly displayed on public view. They will no doubt have other spectra and photos, but ofcourse there is limited space for a paper.

If people actually bothered to look at Fig 2 with an objective mind and if they actually knew what thermite was "nano" or not they would know that the two do not correlate. They would also note the scale in the bottom right hand corner and work out approximate thickness's. The mind might start to work and throw up the anomaly: how can approximately 20 microns of thermite melt steel 5000 times it's own thickness (for a 5mm thick)

I know it's hard because everyone has problems with scale when looking at SEM images - it's hard to get it into your head exactly how small things are when magnified 50,000 times.

Here is a mm to micron (µm) converter. Play around with it to see just how big these sample thickness's are compared with the macro world.

http://www.convertunits.com/from/mm/to/micron
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th April 2009, 12:17 PM   #945
Sunstealer
Master Poster
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,735
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
For a moment I thought you were going to be above this type of rhetoric.
Yep, me too, but there comes a point when my patience limit is reached. And roundhead's complete dishonesty and clear refusal to read the paper was it.
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th April 2009, 12:17 PM   #946
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,330
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
For a moment I thought you were going to be above this type of rhetoric.
Fair point. Red, what do you think of the validity of Jones' hypothesis?

Do you think it's plausible that a 20 micron thick coating of a material with less energy density than wallpaper could destroy structural steel?

I don't see how. Maybe you guys know something....
alienentity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th April 2009, 12:24 PM   #947
T.A.M.
Keeper of the Kool-Vax
 
T.A.M.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,816
SO it took another paper by Jones, the first bit of joy the truther have had in a year or more, to bring Swing out of the shadows.

All the more sweet when Jones is proven to be wrong, and a charlatan, and an incredibly poor (or at least extremely bias to the point of making him behave poorly) scientist.

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 8th April 2009, 12:25 PM   #948
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,330
RedIbis, can you explain to me how red chips were discovered in 100% of the four samples Jones had in 2007?
alienentity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th April 2009, 12:28 PM   #949
The Platypus
Graduate Poster
 
The Platypus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,883
How much do they really believe Jones?

As i'm sure many of us know, Stephen Jones is the same guy that also wrote: "Behold My Hands: Evidence for Christ's Visit in Ancient America"

I take it since Jones is so infallible and his credibility is (trying to hold a straight face) unquestionable, that these works of his, in which he claims to have archeological evidence of Jesus visiting the Americas, are also quite popular and accepted completely by the "truthers"?

How many of them accept that? But they are on a quest for "the truth"?

Ya... sure...
The Platypus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th April 2009, 12:30 PM   #950
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,900
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
Yep, me too, but there comes a point when my patience limit is reached. And roundhead's complete dishonesty and clear refusal to read the paper was it.
Don't let that bother you too much. There are people on both sides of this debate who haven't read the paper. Like I said earlier, I think you're asking important questions, just try to take some of the vinegar out of your posts.
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
RedIbis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th April 2009, 12:31 PM   #951
GregoryUrich
Graduate Poster
 
GregoryUrich's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,316
How much paint would be necessary?

Dr. Greening does a quick calc of the boundry (maximum) temperature rise for a box column with a 100-micron coating of what ever it is that Jones and Co. are on about here:

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/ac...-15.html#p2605

He gets 8 deg C, but there are a number of factors that would reduce that, because clearly every Joule will not be transferred to the steel. For one, it takes TIME to heat steel and a thin layer of thermite "burns" very quickly. The other is that energy would invariably go into gas expansion.

So, if you wanted to attain a temperature of > 400 deg C, you would probably need a coating at least 10mm thick. We're talking cookies not chips. I wonder if they found any of those bad boys...(not really).

It would only be necessary to do this on one floor, but then the problem is getting the radio controlled airplane to hit the right floor.
__________________
"My father would womanize, he would drink, he would make outrageous claims, like he invented the question mark. Sometimes, he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy - the sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament." - Dr. Evil

Last edited by GregoryUrich; 8th April 2009 at 12:32 PM.
GregoryUrich is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th April 2009, 12:33 PM   #952
Lenbrazil
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 974
Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
They do obey the standards of peer review. You just make a bogus claim with no evidence.

It is the NIST reports om the WTC that are not peer reviewed. They do not make their computer models public, so it would be impossible to peer review them even if someone wanted to.
Galileo since you aren't a native speaker your reading comprehension erroe was understandable. I don't believe Bentham ever published anything by a Nobel laureate, they only claim to be ENDORSED by 7 of them. Most of those endorsements were for traditional journals put out by Bentham which don't charge authors for publication. IIRC 1 or 2 were for the concept of open publishing but didn't mention the company by name, this didn't stop them from counting them as endorsements.

As for NIST's models as has been explained more than once they only run on super computors not PC's or even Macs IIRC they have offer to make the models available to people with the requisite computing capacity.

Their report wasn't peer reviewed because it wasn't a journal article, Several articles supporting the collapse theory have been published in ESTABLISHED scientific journals that DON'T charge their authors fees.
Lenbrazil is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th April 2009, 12:36 PM   #953
T.A.M.
Keeper of the Kool-Vax
 
T.A.M.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,816
So what we have are:

7-8 year old samples, with no valid chain of custody, and no details about their storage over those 8 years.

Chips found within those samples that produce a spectral pattern that could easily be in keeping with any number of paints.

Chips found that look remarkably like paint chips from the tnemec primer used on the beams of the WTC.

Heat testing done on the samples, and one type of paint, for which no details are given in terms of the type, chemical make up, etc...

And from this, this testing with a horrible lack of control testing, a horrible lack of evidence detail in terms of chain of custody and storage, we are suppose take the results as what???? interesting? ok.

I tell you what I see. I see a man pushing himself as a quality scientist, who along with the others "scientists" he has dragged along, went looking for a particular chemical, and ignored, or made a minimal effort to investigate, all other possibilities.

That is BAD SCIENCE 101.

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 8th April 2009, 12:37 PM   #954
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,330
Originally Posted by GregoryUrich View Post
Dr. Greening does a quick calc of the boundry (maximum) temperature rise for a box column with a 100-micron coating of what ever it is that Jones and Co. are on about here:

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/ac...-15.html#p2605

He gets 8 deg C, but there are a number of factors that would reduce that, because clearly every Joule will not be transferred to the steel. For one, it takes TIME to heat steel and a thin layer of thermite "burns" very quickly. The other is that energy would invariably go into gas expansion.

So, if you wanted to attain a temperature of > 400 deg C, you would probably need a coating at least 10mm thick. We're talking cookies not chips. I wonder if they found any of those bad boys...(not really).

It would only be necessary to do this on one floor, but then the problem is getting the radio controlled airplane to hit the right floor.

Mr. Urich, Dr. Jones has stated publicly that the towers fell too quickly to be simple gravitational collapse, so it would have required doping the whole structure with thermite paint, by implication.

He argued this point in a debate with Leslie Robertson, after Robertson stated his opinion that, as soon as the collapse began, nothing could have stopped it from continuing all the way down.
Jones vehemently disagreed arguing that the collapse may actually have stopped if not for the further removal of structure.

Jones may change his tune of course.
alienentity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th April 2009, 12:39 PM   #955
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,162
Originally Posted by alienentity View Post
Don't you know it's a proven scientific fact that nanothermite ignites at 430c?

That's the difference!

The jets were used to ignite the thermite paint, which then quickly burned right through the buildings down to the ground. You can see the nanosmoke pouring out all the way down.

That's why the towers collapsed almost instantly after the plane impacts, and faster than freefall speed.


Yeah... I'm going to go out and buy some nanochicken. That way, I won't have to heat my oven so high to cook it.
__________________
"... 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 8th April 2009, 12:41 PM   #956
GregoryUrich
Graduate Poster
 
GregoryUrich's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,316
Originally Posted by alienentity View Post
Mr. Urich, Dr. Jones has stated publicly that the towers fell too quickly to be simple gravitational collapse, so it would have required doping the whole structure with thermite paint, by implication.

He argued this point in a debate with Leslie Robertson, after Robertson stated his opinion that, as soon as the collapse began, nothing could have stopped it from continuing all the way down.
Jones vehemently disagreed arguing that the collapse may actually have stopped if not for the further removal of structure.

Jones may change his tune of course.
Doubt it.
__________________
"My father would womanize, he would drink, he would make outrageous claims, like he invented the question mark. Sometimes, he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy - the sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament." - Dr. Evil
GregoryUrich is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th April 2009, 12:43 PM   #957
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,900
Originally Posted by GregoryUrich View Post
Dr. Greening does a quick calc of the boundry (maximum) temperature rise for a box column with a 100-micron coating of what ever it is that Jones and Co. are on about here:

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/ac...-15.html#p2605

He gets 8 deg C, but there are a number of factors that would reduce that, because clearly every Joule will not be transferred to the steel. For one, it takes TIME to heat steel and a thin layer of thermite "burns" very quickly. The other is that energy would invariably go into gas expansion.

So, if you wanted to attain a temperature of > 400 deg C, you would probably need a coating at least 10mm thick. We're talking cookies not chips. I wonder if they found any of those bad boys...(not really).

It would only be necessary to do this on one floor, but then the problem is getting the radio controlled airplane to hit the right floor.
That's an excellent discussion. Do I have this right that Dr. G is suggesting that the red chips analyzed in the different spectra are not the same? So that some are possibly primer paint, and some are definitely not paint, due to either the presence or lack thereof, of zinc?
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
RedIbis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th April 2009, 12:43 PM   #958
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,330
Here's a link to the Jones/Robertson debate. If memory serves I believe Dr. Jones alleges a 10 second collapse time for one of the towers. I was very surprised at his lack of awareness of basic facts, as he is supposed to be a scientist.

http://www.911podcasts.com/files/aud...n_20061026.mp3
alienentity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th April 2009, 12:45 PM   #959
T.A.M.
Keeper of the Kool-Vax
 
T.A.M.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,816
I see Dr. Greening is also reading the forum, and despite his dislike of most of us, he has taken some of our criticisms to heart, and emailed S. Jones with some questions around it.

Here is what I would like to know, and if anyone can get this to Dr. Greening, or if someone can answer it here, i would like to know....

In many of the "Red Chip" Spectra, there is no Zinc or Chromium spikes. Is there an explanation for this, if we assume that the chips are those of primer paint. In other words, could a reaction (physical or chemical) have taken place either during the explosion, or due to exposure to the elements or improper storage of the samples, that might have caused the removal of the Zinc and Chromium?

Thanks

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th April 2009, 12:47 PM   #960
T.A.M.
Keeper of the Kool-Vax
 
T.A.M.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,816
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
That's an excellent discussion. Do I have this right that Dr. G is suggesting that the red chips analyzed in the different spectra are not the same? So that some are possibly primer paint, and some are definitely not paint, due to either the presence or lack thereof, of zinc?
I agree this part of the discussion is interesting, which is why I asked my question about the Zinc absence in the other Spectra, and whether or not any physical or chemical reactions in the 8 years since the samples came about, may have caused the absence of the Zinc (and Chromium).

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
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 06:56 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.