Yep, It's Thermite! So Much for the "Oxygen" Excuse

Unlike our anonymous GL's, I took it upon myself to contact Dr. Jones and ask
about the reasoning for the presence of oxygen during the DSC testing.

It turns out that our GL's know nothing about this DSC testing and are simply
blowing smoke. 24 knot smoke at that

THis is my message to and from Dr. Jones received only minutes ago:

Dr. Jones,

I read through your thermite dust study and found it quite fascinating.
You, and the other scientists have ruffled many feathers in the loyalist
community.

The most popular excuse is that the experiments are invalid because
oxygen was present during the DSC testing.

Aside from other proof such as the chemical signature, mircoscopic images
and energy release compared to the control sample, what is the proper
response to those who use the 'oxygen' excuse in a debate?

My thought thus far is that the control sample was also tested in air, yet
the "chip samples" were able to produce a higher energy peak over a shorter
duration of time - proving explosive, and energetic material is present in the dust.

Is this accurate?

Thanks again for your quick reply!
Tino

Tino,

Your answer is a good start -- more importantly, we find that iron oxide has been reduced to iron in the process, as we find spheres in the ignition residue which have more iron than oxygen.

The formation of these iron-rich spheres shows the thermite reaction because:
1. elemental iron is produced, and
2. very high temperatures were reached, beyond that which can be reached by burning hydrocarbons, to produce molten iron and iron oxide -- as shown by the formation of spheres.


We used air in the studies to match conditions used by Tillotson et al., so we could compare with their results for known nanothermite -- see Fig. 29 in our paper.


Further discussion on the nanothermite discovery can be found here:
zelikow.wordpress.com...



-- a discussion between Swedish nanoscientist Prof. Nilsen and myself at the bottom. I have responded to him as you will see, and await a further response from him Here is the start of that discussion:


Attachment from Nilsen (grey) with comments from Jones (white) :

I wish to thank you for a careful reading of the paper. I will answer and comment point by point after initial comments.

You write: “If one first assumes that the red scales are of paint, and on metallic iron. Then it is easy to assume that the paint may be some sort of corrosion inhibition layer.”

We have learned the composition of the “corrosion inhibition” or primer paint actually used on the WTC towers from a NIST document; see attached paper by Prof. Niels Harrit (Univ. of Copenhagen and first author on the paper). We find that zinc, chromium and magnesium are significant components of the paint used – yet these elements are ABSENT from the red material, as demonstrated in Figure 7 of our paper. Thus, the red chips cannot be the primer paint used.

On the other hand, the elements which are present in the red chips, namely aluminum, iron, oxygen, silicon, and carbon (Fig. 7) – are precisely those expected in formulations of nano-thermite as described in the literature and delineated in the paper.

Furthermore, iron oxide is found in grains approximately 100 nm across and aluminum in plate-like structures about 40 nm thick – and these particles appear quite uniform and intimately mixed across the four separate samples. It is this ultra-fine, nano-scale structure of the Al and iron oxide in the red material that is emphasized in the paper, which we expect for nanothermite, and that we ask Prof. Nilsen to address. (The term “nano” does not yet appear in your comments to us, perhaps an oversight.)



Best wishes,


Steven Jones

ETA:

This is the paper Jones is referring to:

Tillotson TM, Simpson RL, Hrubesh LW (1999), Nanostructure High Explosives Using Sol-gel Chemistry, 98-ERD-048, LLNL Laboratory Directed Research and Development, Annual Report FY1999

e-reports-ext.llnl.gov... (p 8-11 or 181 of 255)

This is LDRD's home page; just a bit more advanced than GL's lies:

ldrd.llnl.gov...


[edit on 3-6-2009 by turbofan]

reply to post by turbofan


Star and Flag on this one. I really appreciate when someone takes the time and effort to go outside the box and contact the scientists directly, as I know they do as well. Now I wonder how applause can be requested?

Thanks; but let's give the credit to those who thought to test the dust samples! I think this should be a sticky if at all possible?

Any GL's pushing the "oxygen", and/or "paint" excuse might either want to:

a. Come up with a new excuse.

b. Open their eyes and start fresh with their research.

I challenge anyone here that STILL denies this thermite study to sign up
at the forum linked by Dr. Jones and debate him directly for the world
to see. After reading the reply from Jones to Nilsen, I would not want
to be the idiot to push the paint BS over there.

Spread the word people, this is real.

This world is full of walkers, and talkers. You my friend are a walker. Thanks.

I think this is the only way to get any resolution on this issue. Slow calculated study of the remaining evidence.

I would love a comprehensive explanation of nano thermite. (for the dumb folks, ie. me) Perhaps a picture of what it looks like. I associate well with visual evidence. I really liked his interview where the anchor woman was enlightened. That was my reaction as well when I did some research.

reply to post by network dude


Thank you.

Did you by chance see the photos in the PDF released in the scientific
study?

Here is a link to the paper. Just click the green download button:
Nano-Thermite PDF

ETA: Fixed link

[edit on 3-6-2009 by turbofan]

Oh this whole study is absolutely incredible. This evidence at the very least says the official story is absolutely wrong, at the very worst implicates elements of the Military-Industrial complex working inside the USA, including members of our own government.

Either way a new investigation is not only warranted, but required by the constitution itself.

Has there been any movement to forward this information en mass to all media outlets, and representatives for comment?

The report is comprehensive and a bit impressive. All that remains now is to answer the question: How did it get there! I think we may never find out that answer but it proves something beyond a doubt. Something jiggery pokery has been going on in WTC 1, 2 and 7.

Most certainly; especially in Europe. Harrit has been on MSM in Denmark
I believe, and the link above has an audio interview on a talk show
discussing the thermite paper (too bad it's not English!).

Gage has been seen on Fox news recently as well.

Slowly but surely, the word is getting out. Equally important, many
scientists are now receiving word of this document as many Universities
are involved in peer review, study, etc.

I'm sure most reading this will not care but Dr Jones fraudulent claims have been exposed on a number of threads right here at ATS and elsewhere.


Mike

reply to post by mmiichael


All the more reason to keep an eye on this and see how it holds up to peer review. This should be handled with scientific rigor.

reply to post by mmiichael


Could you post some links to these threads?

I'd like to see where these "fraudulent" claims have been disproved.

reply to post by Lebowski achiever


Indeed. Real scientists, real names, real SCIENCE.

I'll take that over the "paint", or "oxygen" BS any day. You can safely
say, the GL's were caught with their pants down buying into either of
those pathetic reasons.

If anyone is interested, here is the Tillotson paper Jones is referring to:

Tillotson TM, Simpson RL, Hrubesh LW (1999), Nanostructure High Explosives Using Sol-gel Chemistry, 98-ERD-048, LLNL Laboratory Directed Research and Development, Annual Report FY1999

e-reports-ext.llnl.gov... (p 8-11 or 181 of 255)

This is LDRD's home page; just a bit more advanced than GL's lies

ldrd.llnl.gov...

[edit on 3-6-2009 by turbofan]

Originally posted by rogerstigers

All the more reason to keep an eye on this and see how it holds up to peer review. This should be handled with scientific rigor.

If you follow the story, Jones self-published with a pay to print peer review.
The editor quit over the fact that she did not approve of his piece being accepted.

Jones has not published in genuine peer reviews for the obvious reason. His research methods are not acceptable.

His goal is to make a career appealing to the Truther market. He was caught trying to steal research from another high profile project, Cold Fusion, years ago.

Professional chemists aren't dazzled by his mumbo-jumbo data and immediately can see he's a fraud.

Check out messages on other threads from ATS member 'pteridine' who has shown how Jones operates.


Mike

[edit on 3-6-2009 by mmiichael]

So basically, in the long convoluted response, they use oxygen so that they can compare their study to another stilted study.

In translation.. Fail.

reply to post by mmiichael



BS! Show me one link and let's cut to the chase. I have Steven Jones
on the line for direct comment on anything you can produce.

Before you submit you links, you better read the discussion between two
Ph.D's on the link above...ya know...just to make sure it already has
not been examined by anonymous kids posting on ATS...

reply to post by CoffinFeeder


Quite funny. YOU are telling us, that THIS lab is a FAILURE?

ldrd.llnl.gov...

I believe you...over them for SURE

Could the hijackers knowingly carry on thermite to ensure the job got finished?

Much like filling a hollow point bullet with poison (or mercury). If the bullet doesn't hit a vital organ, the poisoning eventually will finish off the kill.

Originally posted by turbofan

BS! Show me one link and let's cut to the chase. I have Steven Jones
on the line for direct comment on anything you can produce.

Before you submit you links, you better read the discussion between two
Ph.D's on the link above...ya know...just to make sure it already has
not been examined by anonymous kids posting on ATS...

As posted a few minutes ago, contact ATS member 'pteridine' on another thread or by U2U. I'm sure he'd be happy to engage Jones directly.

And name dropping Ph.Ds doesn't exactly prove much. There must be a millions of Ph.Ds worldwide. Finding a couple that want any kind of controversial media attention and maybe find some extra work isn't exactly hard.

Don't get suckered by credential. If there was a buck to be made proving the world was flat, there would be Ph.Ds lining up to verify it.


Mike

[edit on 3-6-2009 by mmiichael]

reply to post by mmiichael


Sorry to tell you but your 'friend' has been pushing the "Oxygen" excuse
which has already been slammed. I think yuo should start reading
information from professional scientists, rather than "pterdine".

If "pterdine" really wants to engage with Jones, I will pay-pal him
$50.00 if he registers on that site with his real info and puts Jones
to rest.

Here is the site link again:
zelikow.wordpress.com...

The $50.00 cash incentive is open to anyone that can successfully debate
Jones using their real ID and win their case.

I guess i see what you saying....
2nd