• There is a problem with the forum sending notifications via emails. icerat has been informed. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Ed JREF Forum questions for prof Jones concerning his new paper

Senenmut

Graduate Poster
Senenmut
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
1,372
I was wondering if you guys would like to start a thread about questions that you would like see answered concering prof jones' new paper entitled “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” .

DO NOT DEBATE ON THIS THREAD. USE THE OTHER THERMITE THREAD!!

i was thinking we could just post questions and when you want to add more, just copy the ones already posted and add your own. so in the end, we could end up with many questions that then could be sent to prof jones or posted on http://www.911blogger.com. i saw metamars is a member over there so he could post the questions for prof jones et el. maybe the resident geniuses like sunstealer could look through them and make sure they are valid questions concerning the research paper. if this works like im thinking, then hopefully by monday or tuesday (since this is easter weekend) everyone could put up their own questions concerning the paper. this is for truthers and debunkers alike because i know all of us have serious questions!!


1. Why wasnt aluminum oxide tested for during or after the reaction of the material?
2. Why wasnt wtc primer paint (primer at the time of building the wtc and primer from the upgraded areas of the wtc) tested so it could be ruled out?
3. Was brooklyn bridge primer/paint analyzed to rule that out, even though this is the area of one sample?
4. Could you give the details concerning the paint you guys did test.
5. Is there anyway to split the multi-layered chips up so you could analyze the red and grey areas within to make sure they have the same makeup throughout?
6. are there any differential scanning calorimetry machines that go beyond the 700C range so we could know the exact temp this material gets too?
 
7. Can you please demonstrate how (nano)thermite(mate) can horizontally cut a steel box column like the ones in the WTC?
 
Last edited:
I have a simple one.

1. Please provide the manufacturer's Specifications (in terms of composition, etc...) of the type of paint used in the "control" testing to eliminate paint as a possible source of the red/grey microchips?

ie. #4 in your list, but with DETAIL

Thanks

TAM:)
 
Why won't you prove that super-duper-mega-nanotherm*te can do what you claim?
 
2. Have you submitted your paper to any Legitimate Journals that are not "Open Access" or "Pay to Publish" types, and if so, has it been accepted by any of them?

Thanks

TAM:)
 
3. What other INDEPENDENT LABS (besides Basile and your french friend) have you submitted your samples to for analysis, and will you be providing unaltered documents with their results for general consumption?

Thanks

TAM:)
 
4. Did BYU Verify the results of your paper, or did they merely read through it, and give it the "ok"?

Thanks

TAM:)
 
ozeco41 said:
Which structural elements of which WTC buildings do you claim were cut with thermate?
Click to expand...

None. The truthers won't claim what part of the structure was cut with thermate. I can't get them to go beyond "MOLTEN METAL TOTAL PROOF OF THERMITE ARRGHGHGHGHGHGHG!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
 
5. Given the MEK caused significant "swelling" of your chips, do you feel confident that this did not damage your sample, and as a result, cause an inaccurate post solvent Spectra?

TAM:)
 
Last edited:
Why are you so stupid on 911?

Why did you make up the thermite in September 2005 with zero evidence?

Why are you backing in evidence and ignoring other elements?

What happen to the super duper thermATE, which had sulfur and we told you there was tons of sulfur in the wallboard but you said it was not the same, but now the sulfur in the wallboard contaminated your sample of super thermite?

Why are you so bad on 911 issues?

Why have you decided to fool those who lack knowledge and mislead them with your delusional implications on 911?
 
damn good questions!! keep them coming. im sure we will have to give some order to these and ill post the long list before it is sent to prof jones for everyone to comment on.

1. Why wasnt aluminum oxide tested for during or after the reaction of the material?
2. Why wasnt wtc primer paint (primer at the time of building the wtc and primer from the upgraded areas of the wtc) tested so it could be ruled out?
3. Was brooklyn bridge primer/paint analyzed to rule that out, even though this is the area of one sample?
4. Could you give the details concerning the paint you guys did test.
5. Is there anyway to split the multi-layered chips up so you could analyze the red and grey areas within to make sure they have the same makeup throughout?
6. are there any differential scanning calorimetry machines that go beyond the 700C range so we could know the exact temp this material gets too?
7. Can you please demonstrate how (nano)thermite(mate) can horizontally cut a steel box column like the ones in the WTC?
8. Please provide the manufacturer's Specifications (in terms of composition, etc...) of the type of paint used in the "control" testing to eliminate paint as a possible source of the red/grey microchips?
9. Why won't you prove that super-duper-mega-nanotherm*te can do what you claim?
10. Have you submitted your paper to any Legitimate Journals that are not "Open Access" or "Pay to Publish" types, and if so, has it been accepted by any of them?
11. What other INDEPENDENT LABS (besides Basile and your french friend) have you submitted your samples to for analysis, and will you be providing unaltered documents with their results for general consumption?
12 Which structural elements of which WTC buildings do you claim were cut with thermate?
13. Did BYU Verify the results of your paper, or did they merely read through it, and give it the "ok"?
14. Did you know any referee involved?
15. What were the refs issues with your work?
16. Given the MEK caused significant "swelling" of your chips, do you feel confident that this did not damage your sample, and as a result, cause an inaccurate post solvent Spectra?
17. Why are you backing in evidence and ignoring other elements.
18. What happen to the super duper thermATE, which had sulfur and we told you there was tons of sulfur in the wallboard but you said it was not the same, but now the sulfur in the wallboard contaminated your sample of super thermite?
 
Why do these two identical photos have different colors?

136394734263b02c86.jpg

13639473b5aac94e02.jpg
 
N. What evidence do you have that a thermitic redox reaction can start at 430oC?

N+1. What percentage of the original aluminum and iron oxide underwent a thermitic reaction?

N+2. What evidence do you have that the thermitic reaction was "explosive?"

N+3. Do your chips have metal crystals hanging on the underside, like Merseille's?

N+4. Have you attempted to get any paint samples from the actual WTC steel?
 
Although not directly related to the actual paper, maybe Jones could answer a simple question about the media he choose to publish his paper in.

1. Was you ever spammed by this organisation?

My first spam award goes to Bentham Publishers, a "publisher" of "over 200" author-pays open access journals. In the past couple of months
Click to expand...

And my recommendation for fellow scientists /researchers would also be to make it a principle to not submit anything to journals that engage in the practice of spamming.
Click to expand...

Not only does Bentham spam for authors. They are also spamming for editors.
Click to expand...

I was particularly pleased with the following:

Based on your record of contributions in the field of Education, I would like to invite you to submit to me your CV with current list of publications so that we may consider you as a possible *Editorial Board Member* for the journal.
​
Since I my record in the field of Education is nil, I feel particularly well-qualified. I have never written a thing in an Education journal. I don't know whether or not to be honored to be invited to contribute to the Open Journal of Sleep.


http://gunther-eysenbach.blogspot.com/2008/03/black-sheep-among-open-access-journals.html
Click to expand...


http://www.library.yale.edu/~llicense/ListArchives/0804/msg00027.html

http://gunther-eysenbach.blogspot.com/2008/03/black-sheep-among-open-access-journals.html

Just curious.
 
How about this one?

-will you submit samples to NIST or any other nationwide chemistry or engineering organization or University for analysis?
 
What analyses did you undertake to determine that the compounds found and claimed to be "thermite" were indeed "thermite" and not compounds that may be found in an office environment?
 
What is the tested energy release rate in BTU/Hr for the material?

Provide calculations for the estimated amount of said tested material required to fatally compromise a box girder column of the same size and composition of those known to be used at the WTC.
 
Professor Jones:

I know that you are focussed on the existence of thermite, rather than whether or not it was used. Nevertheless, many of my questions are about how it would be used. I will divide my questions into two groups.

Existence of Thermite, paper specifics
==============================
1) what do other domain experts have to say about whether your method of determining elemental Al in your chip samples is foolproof or not? AFAIK, all aluminothermics utilized Al particles in spherical form. Thus, unless your method of determining elemental Al is considered foolproof, I expect that material scientists will be demand more proof. What, in fact, does a sample of, say, 5 - 10 material scientists have to say about this issue (even queried on an informal basis)? Have you asked, or do you intend to ask?

2) Can the nanofoil, multilayer technology employed by rtn (see rtnfoil.com) be used to layer ferrous layers with sol-gel layers? It seems to me that their layers are of single metals, not more complicated sol gels. This company was founded in 2001, by the way. Also, please note that their nanofoils can be made thousands of layers thick, and even be used as structural elements. They can be engineered to be parts of missiles, and function as incendiaries.

Formed in thick
sheets and rods, this material can bear loads
and act as structural members. The material
can be designed to ignite on impact or ignite
with high heat for use in applications that
include missile skins and frames, shell casings,
and shape-charge liners.
Click to expand...

3) Do you intend to do more investigations of paint chips, to see if they can explain your results? In particular, the 'gray' layer has been suggested to be rust spall. Also, a poster at JREF posted the following:

Someone on Usenet nominated this. Apparently its been around for decades.
http://www.rustrustler.com/

"As the paint dries, 6 to 8 layers of aluminum flakes rise to the surface to form a metal barrier that protects against the elements. It also works well on metal surfaces that have already begun to rust, and will help prevent further corrosion. Rust Rustler Aluminum Paint also comes in a spray can that covers 50 square feet per can - 3 to 4 times the coverage of ordinary spray paints! Rust Rustler covers more and lasts longer!"

4) Why did you not clearly identify the specific paint used in your paper? Would you please do so, now, if possible? Some people would like to consult it's manufacturer's data sheet.

5) Googling: SEM images "paint chip"
will yield many hits. Do you intend to contact other researchers who have already studied paint chips using a SEM? (I assume that you haven't already done so.)


Use of thermite
=================
I realize that you are focussing on the existence of thermite, not it's use. Consequently, these questions should probably be thought of as future research questions, and not questions you can answer, at the moment.

1) While nano-scale aluminothermics are expected to be explosive, there is a problem in terms of matching the sounds of explosions to whatever sounds exploding thermite might make in a building which has not been emptied (and thus has some muffling due to absorption by carpets, etc.). As nanoscale aluminothermics are comparable to high explosives, we expect them to have a similar sound. Do you intend to study sound output of engineered aluminothermics? What sound, e.g., is associated with micron scale aluminothermic?

2) The most plausible use of aluminothermics, by far, seems to me to be as an igniting agent for the jet fuel, in order to make a large fireball. I do not believe that jet fuel is very volative, and at 450 mph or so, the fuel will have traversed the building in about 1/3 of a second. Yet, by looking at videos of the impacts, it appears that the deflagration has encompassed the length and breadth of any available fuel in this short space of time. While flowing by and through columns and such, at such high speed, will act to aerosolize the fuel, somewhat, there is a constraining factor, provided by floors sections which remain intact.

Do you intend to study the use of aluminothermics with respect to fireball production?

Note that, as nanofoils can be used to make structural, load-bearing components, one can imagine such components incorporated into the jet planes.

3) Non-explosive aluminothermic could be studied in terms of heating up columns asymetrically to 600 deg C, or so. However, would not any plausible use of aluminothermics to cause weakness, leading to a tilt, leading to a collapse, also cause melting at the contact surface?
 
This post will form part of the rebuttal to Jones' paper. I've collated the information quickly in order to show JREF posters and any lurkers as soon as possible, but the evidence is quite damning.

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

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

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

Similarities between the samples are already evident from these photographs.
Click to expand...

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

http://darksideofgravity.com/marseille.pdf

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

picture.php


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

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

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

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

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

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

picture.php


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

There are many such photo-micrographs of Kaolinite available.

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

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

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.
Click to expand...

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

album.php

picture.php

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

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

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

Therefore these samples CANNOT be thermite.

QED.

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

Why was XRD analysis not performed on the samples?
 
Last edited:
metamars said:
Professor Jones:

I know that you are focussed on the existence of thermite, rather than whether or not it was used.
Click to expand...

Boy, that was dumb. I meant to say "I know that you are focussed on the existence of thermite in the dust samples, rather than how it was used.".
 
How did you acquire these "red chips"? I remember reading somewhere that "some guy" picked them up on the Brooklyn Bridge and gave them to you.

Have these "red chips" been compared to the red auto paint used on FDNY vehicles?
 
you know, the Brooklyn Bridge does need a new paint job. the existing paint has been pealing for years.

and what color is the steel painted? a ruddy, muddy color, sort of like a reddish brown.

=)
 
metamars said:
Boy, that was dumb. I meant to say "I know that you are focussed on the existence of thermite in the dust samples, rather than how it was used.".
Click to expand...

No, you got it right the first time.
Professor Jones:

I know that you are focussed on the existence of thermite, rather than whether or not it was used.
Click to expand...
Sadly most twoofers will never get it, I have hopes for you! You seem intelligent enough, I could be wrong.
 
Why are there different proportions or mixtures of elements from one chip to the next, as though they were not all made by the same formula?
 
Dear Dr Jones,
doesn't the Mormon church take a very dim view of deliberate dishonesty? Doesn't your new paper put you in serious danger of eternal hellfire?
I'm an Atheist myself, but I thought that a devout Mormon such as yourself would be a bit more worried about all that damnation stuff than getting a bit of fame amongst a tiny following of ignorant adolescents. If I'm wrong and you aren't a Mormon, I apologise.
Sincerely
Brainache.
 
I was always a little concerned about why Steven Jones made his breakthrough announcement of the red/grey chips of unreacted thermite at the Boston Conference in 2007 and then nothing happened for so long. He had said he was sending out some samples for independent analysis which should have taken at the most a couple of months, It seemed to me that momentum was being wasted and Dr..Jones hardly mentioned the matter again until the recent publication of his new paper a full eighteen months later.

I would hate to see the same thing happen again with nothing further hppening and the momentum being lost again. It would be good to see Dr.Jones making regular appearances on the media and giving more lectures. Generally keeping the heat on so to speak. The same for Kevin Ryan and the others. New credentialled scientists confirming his results by reproducing them every couple of weeks would be a big help to keep the iron in the fire.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
I was alwys a little concerned about why StevenJones made his breakthrough annoncement of the red/grey chips of unreacted thermite at the Boston Conference in 2007 and then nothing happened for so long. He had said he was sending out some samples for independent analysis which should have taken at the most a couple of months, It seemed to me that momentum was being wasted and Dr..Jones hardly mentioned the matter again until the recent publication of his new paper a full eighteen months later.

I would hate to see the same thing happen again with nothing further hppening and the momentum being lost again. It would be good to see Dr.Jones making regular appearances on the media and giving more lectures. Generally keeping the heat on so to peak. The same for Kevin Ryan and the others. New credentialled scientists confirming his results by reproducing them every couple of weeks would be a big help to keep the iron in the fire.
Click to expand...

Is there a question in there somewhere, or something related to the content of the paper, or just worship and praise?

TAM
 
bill smith said:
New credentialled scientists confirming his results by reproducing them every couple of weeks would be a big help to keep the iron in the fire.
Click to expand...

Any scientist with a decent reputation won't touch Jones' garbage if he has any hope of maintaining any shred of credibility in the scientific community. The MSM won't touch it either. Jones is definitely confined to fringe media.
 
T.A.M. said:
Is there a question in there somewhere, or something related to the content of the paper, or just worship and praise?

TAM
Click to expand...

there is a question in there TAM if you read it carefully. An important question that has not been answered.
 
Looks like my first post did not go through, but there are some clarifications on Dr. Jones "pay to play" by someone who should know.

However, until a solid rebuttal paper is published, or actual flaws documented in the peer-review process for the “Active Thermitic Materials” paper, to claim that Bentham is a “pay to play” or “vanity” journal and the paper is bogus science- as has been done ad nausem on the JREF forum, including by John Farmer- is simply ignorant, or dishonest. Incidentally, in one such comment Farmer says, “There is evidence FDR knew Pearl Harbor was coming, LBJ “faked” the Gulf of Tonkin, but again, apples and oranges. Churchill also allowed an attack on civilans to go ahead without warning in order to keep the Enigma secret. But again, apples and oranges and I don’t see any evidence, including Dr. Jones little “pay to play” paper that indicates the government was involved in the WTC attack in any way what-so-ever.”

forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4595687&postcount=656

Farmer’s “conspiracy theories” aside, as Dr. Jones said, “IF it is so easy to publish in Bentham Scientific journals, or if these are “vanity publications” (note: there is no factual basis for these charges) — then why don’t the objectors write up their objections and get them peer-reviewed and published?? The fact is, it is not easy, as serious objectors will find out.” And “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.” - Matthew Honan [Editorial Director, Bentham Science Publishers]
Click to expand...

Of course I should add, someone corrected this article before I posted it. The original text said...

Google Blogs Alert for: 9-11 commission

JREF, Bentham and Media Coverage of the ‘Active Thermitic Material ...
By Erik Larson
... to claim that Bentham is a “pay to play” or “vanity” journal and the paper is bogus science- as has been done ad nausem on the JREF forum, including by 911Files (John Farmer- Team 8 Leader, 9/11 Commission)- is simply ignorant, ...
9/11 Reports - http://911reports.wordpress.com/
Click to expand...

This is from the email alert. Someone must have pointed out that it is hard to call something "ignorant" when misidentifying yours truly at the same time. However, what I want to know is where are the control samples and their spectra? I'm still waiting.
 
Last edited:
911files:

You may want to reorganize your quote, as it gives the impression that the quote is from Matthew Honan, editorial director of Bentham, when it is not (If you go to your link it is clear those comments are those of Jones and Jones alone.

TAM:)
 
As for why people here haven't published their own rebuttal in the sham mag, well who has $600 to throw around on a rebuttal to a useless article, in a useless mag.

It is Jones' obsession, let him pay all he wants.

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
911files:

You may want to reorganize your quote, as it gives the impression that the quote is from Matthew Honan, editorial director of Bentham, when it is not (If you go to your link it is clear those comments are those of Jones and Jones alone.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

In the linked (original), the impresson given is that it is a quote by him. That is how it came to my attention. Thanks for the clarification though.
 
911files said:
In the linked (original), the impression given is that it is a quote by him. That is how it came to my attention. Thanks for the clarification though.
Click to expand...
Who is the dolt who said a paper should be put in the same vanity journal to rebut Jones' super thermite junk?

Who posted the energetic thermite material statement about releasing energy? Does the dolt know jet fuel or organic material in the sample can or will release more energy than thermite?

What has happen to science? I stopped reading the web site it is organized as bad as I write.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom