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

"Active thermitic material" in Ground Zero dust?

Henry62 said:
Hi friends,
here is avaiable an English article about the last prof. Jones' paper:

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2009/04/active-thermitic-material-claimed-in.html

ciao
Henry


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

Visit the English section in my blog:

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/04/english-section.html
Click to expand...

While I'm glad that somebody is thinking about the reliability of MEK treatment as a precursor of judging elemental Al content, you have looked at this in just the opposite way that I have. You write

If the intention of the researchers was to break up the carbon matrix of the red layer to allow analysis of the nanoparticles embedded in it, the result regarding the presence of aluminum does not appear to be compatible with this goal, since it is well-established that MEK might react more or less violently with elemental aluminum.
Click to expand...

In "normal" nano-aluminothermics, the elemental Al is encased in Al-oxide. Therefore, if the MEK cannot get past the Al oxide, it cannot do anything to the Al. So, the first question is "can MEK dissolve Al oxide"? If it cannot, we do not expect it to react with elemental Al protected behind the Al oxide encasing.

Now, let's say that Jones, et. al., are mistaken, and the Al is really in the form of Al-oxide, entirely. In this case, if the MEK can strip away the oxide, leaving elemental Al, and when the MEK is withdrawn, an oxide layer can form without igniting all of the Al, then it would be unsurprising if Jones measured elemental Al, but it was not there, to begin with.

This is why I have questioned whether or not the MEK method empoyed by Jones is foolproof, or not.

If what you say is true, however, about it being "well-established that MEK might react more or less violently with elemental aluminum", then this is an argument for why this second option is forbidden. Thus, this would constitute an argument for why Jones, et. al., are correct. (For which they are likely thankful for your input. :) )


The logical conclusion is that one should therefore hypothesize the very opposite of what is claimed in the study, i.e., that there is no elemental aluminum in the compound and that aluminum is present in chemical bonds, or that elemental aluminum is present but in highly oxidized conditions and therefore scarcely reactive.
Click to expand...

In light of the above, this statement is false, as written. The Al oxide forms a protective layer around the Al, in the normal spherical Al nano-aluminothermics. You are implying, I believe, that it not only protects the Al from reacting at room temperature, from it's oxidizer neighbors, but that it can also protect it from MEK. Thus, you have arrived at exactly the wrong conclusion, for the case of spherical nano-aluminothermics.

It remains to be seen what the situation is for Jones' platelets.


This appears to be a rather important methodological error by the researchers, since such a test might yield inconsistent results depending on whether the temperatures are suitable for the triggering of chemical reactions.
Click to expand...

Well, in light of the above, it doesn't look like an "important methodological error" to me. However, since the second scenario, for a chemistry ignoramus like myself, is not a sure thing, one does have to wonder whether or not the Jones team even thought this through. Do they even know that MEK might react more or less violently with elemental aluminum? Because it's obviously an important point, though not for the reason you are indicating. It's important because it makes their case stronger if the Al is protected by Al oxide, as it is in "normal" nano aluminothermics, and the MEK will not dissolve the Al oxide.

But, let's say that the platelets found by Jones have Silicon or SO2 as protection on one of their sides (I doubt this, but I'm not a chemist. I'm just guessing - reasonably, I hope - that silicon nano-platelets were used to deposit Al, on both sides of it, and an oxide layer formed over that. So, just like the normal, spherical Al particles in nano-aluminothermics, the Al is protected exclusively by Al oxide.) If the MEK can dissolve the SO2, then it can react with the Al.

So, this is something that needs to be checked for. In this scenario, your observation would also be important, however it would cast doubt on Jones' argument, not buttress it.
 
Thanks for the link - I'll read that later.

The "red layer" on the sample for MEK testing (Chip Fig 13) is of a different composition to that of samples a)-d) in the paper. Compare "red layer" EDS spectra in Fig 14 to Fig 7, a)-d).

Also notice how (Chip Fig 13) does not have any detailed SEM analysis, therefore we have no idea what the characteristics are of the particles that make up that chip. Therefore it is impossible to know what the MEK is doing to that chip.

It means that you cannot say that there are aluminosilicates in "Chip Fig 13" and that it does not represent any of the testing performed on samples a-d).

Without seeing the morphology and the EDS spectra of that chip then nothing can be determined from it in relation to any other sample in the paper - it stands on it's own.

It's becoming more obvious each time I do any work on the paper that samples a-d) are similar, sample "Chip Fig 13" is different material to samples a-d) and sample "Chip Fig 31" is different material again. There is no continuity amongst the samples therefore one cannot use data from the MEK chip and correlate it with data (DSC specifically) from samples a-d).

I'll go into this in more detail in the moderated thread because it will open up some questions to put to Jones et al in this thread http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=139960

(and while you are there have a look at the "sample test table" I produced to help people understand the paper- it's a WIP atm, but I should finish it today.)
 
Last edited:
how many threads on this do we need?

FYI, there were no explosives in any of the WTC buildings on 9/11.
 
Request for Sunstealer and Henry62

Would both of you consider requesting moving your respective threads to the Science forum? There's a poll on that forum that shows that 48% of the respondents were "qualified scientists (degree or above)". Also, my experience posting and reading in that thread confirms that it's a higher quality than this one.

I'm also requesting that Henry62 request moderation, if not immediately, as soon as he notices that his thread is getting spammed with inane posts.
 
Henry,

We have a thread, a moderated one, dedicated to the Jones paper. I would strongly suggest that you post a link to your article there, so those of us following closely are aware of it.

Thanks for your contributions, as always.

TAM:)
 
What I don't understand is how you guys can go into all the technical details of Aluminothermic reactions, while ignoring the fact that these red chips actually produced thermitic reactions.

You can go on and on about chemistry and details, but look at the pure case evidence here. You have unreacted components of nano thermite. How did those get there?
 
what I don't understand is that there were no explosives or squibs in the building but some of us are still stuck on thermite.
 
ACGravity said:
What I don't understand is how you guys can go into all the technical details of Aluminothermic reactions, while ignoring the fact that these red chips actually produced thermitic reactions.

You can go on and on about chemistry and details, but look at the pure case evidence here. You have unreacted components of nano thermite. How did those get there?
Click to expand...

Paint.

Some paints contain iron oxide -- it's a common element of primer.

Some paints contain tiny particles of aluminum. It's a common pigment.

Most paints burn. That's the organic binder combusting in oxygen. Dr. Jones basically proves that the binder has more energy content than the metallic substances, which makes no sense for thermite.

You've made an unsustainable leap in logic to call this "thermitic." The fallacy is one of Assuming the Consequent: Thermite burns, contains aluminum, and contains iron oxide, but not all things that burn and contain aluminum and iron oxide are thermite. An old washing machine has those same three properties.
 
firecoins said:
what I don't understand is that there were no explosives or squibs in the building but some of us are still stuck on thermite.
Click to expand...
Similar position to mine firecoins.

I understand that some folks are interested in the science - that is their right and they are entitled to discuss that interest here.

My interest is the technical question of "demolition or not at WTC on 9/11?"

That there was no demolition can be established easier by other paths of logic than the argument over thermate residues.

Even if there was residue it is no more than circumstantial evidence of thermate use for assisting collapse by demolition. The proof or otherwise of demolition lies in other aspects.

The most that resolving the thermate issue, if it is resolved "no thermate", is to remove illogical noise from debate of the priority question "demolition or not?"
g
 
T.A.M. said:
Henry,

We have a thread, a moderated one, dedicated to the Jones paper. I would strongly suggest that you post a link to your article there, so those of us following closely are aware of it.

Thanks for your contributions, as always.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

Hi T.A.M. ,
I copied my post in the moderated thread.

I ask everyone to post answers in the moderated thread only.

Thanks and bye,
Henry

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

Visit the English section in my blog:

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/04/english-section.html
 
ACGravity said:
What I don't understand is how you guys can go into all the technical details of Aluminothermic reactions, while ignoring the fact that these red chips actually produced thermitic reactions.
Click to expand...

This has not been proven. The chips burned in air. Burn one in a vaccuum and you have something. Paint is HIGHLY flammable, in cvase you haven't noticed, especially in small chips. If you think that Jonesie's demonstration with a mini-torch proves anything, you have obviously never welded primed steel that has been ground and sanded without cleaning all the dust out of the way. It has been my experience that hitting such rsidues with a torch produces a lot of energy. That is one of the reasons the local fishing company pays people to sit and watch welders at work on their boats.

You can go on and on about chemistry and details, but look at the pure case evidence here. You have unreacted components of nano thermite. How did those get there?
Click to expand...

You have the ELEMENTS that go into thermite, but not neccessarily the COMPOUNDS. You also have them suspended in a binder that may inhibit them from acting as thermite. Linseed oil disables the thermitic reaction in one of the cast thermites I used to make. What are the chances that a paint vehicle will disable thermitic reactions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom