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

Originally posted by turbofan
Sorry "exponent", it's not bias when nine Ph.D.'s and further peer review
solidify the science.

Excellent, I hope you'll accept the official story then as far more than 9 PhDs worked on it and many articles in relation to it have been peer reviewed by journals with quite a reputation.

Do you know of any PAINT that can do that?

I don't, but then again I am not a chemist, and I don't think many companies are in the habit of conducting reviews of their paint from a conspiracy theory point of view.

Did Dr Jones successfully eliminate the paint from the WTC? Did he even attempt to? If he did not do this, and the chemical composition and physical attributes closely match such paint, how exactly are we supposed to conclude that it is Thermite after all?

For someone who comes across well educated, you're not making a case
for yourself here "exponent".

Yes I apologise for requiring extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims. (I don't apologise, that was sarcasm).

Tell me, why wouldn't the planners just use a normal fuse?

Let me tone this down for you a little bit:

1. You have a chip containing iron oxide, aluminum, and other chemicals
as outlined in the paper mixed perfectly in micron sized particles.

2. You ignite the 'chip' and one of the end results is an iron sphere.

3. You measure the energy of this reaction and it exceeds the known
control sample of a super-thermite tested by an independent lab.

You ask yourself, "If this was a paint chip where did the energy stem
from to produce an iron sphere?"

Then you ask yourself, "Did the oxygen really effect the production of
this iron sphere?"

Now, run down to the nearest hardware store and grab some paint.
Go light it off, along with all the other elements found in Jones' study
and see if you can produce some spheres.

Oh...but before you do, reduce that paint sample to a few microns and
see how much energy you can produce. I'll even let you use some
ambient air to help your cause.

I think this will follow the model of the NIST report, to be honest. Lots of people cited its inaccuracies as the word of God before they were known to be innacuracies when the final draft came out. Then all of the people believed the revisions as the word of God but dont ever again mention the points they once quoted like scripture.

If you want to say that what jones found wasn't thermite thats fine, and if you want to try to debunk it thats fine too, but remember that it doesn't matter what scientist says what, thermate is thermate and sooner or later you're going to have to deal with that fact. I admit that statement is speculation on my part but its well founded speculation based on my wisdom and insight.

My degree is in electronics but my experience includes working on silicon wafers down to the molecular level. 10nm and 100nm meter uniform layers don't just happen naturally, and they sure as hell aren't found in paint or primer. It just doesn't happen like that.

Originally posted by turbofan
1. You have a chip containing iron oxide, aluminum, and other chemicals
as outlined in the paper mixed perfectly in micron sized particles.

Which also appear, in similar mixtures, in paint

2. You ignite the 'chip' and one of the end results is an iron sphere.

This has not been done with any paint samples afaik

3. You measure the energy of this reaction and it exceeds the known
control sample of a super-thermite tested by an independent lab.

Indicating that it is probably not thermite, as items like normal paper have more energy than thermite.

Now, run down to the nearest hardware store and grab some paint.
Go light it off, along with all the other elements found in Jones' study
and see if you can produce some spheres.

Okey dokey, you're paying for the time with XEDS/DSC machines right?

reply to post by exponent

...10nm and 100nm meter uniform layers don't just happen naturally, and they sure as hell aren't found in paint or primer. It just doesn't happen like that...

Exponent - since you are clearly a knowledged and intelligent person (regardless of your modesty to me in a previous post), I would very much like to hear your thoughts on what I quoted above.

Those 'spheres' are obviously extremely tiny. And, as Jprophet, as well as the scientists associated with the paper of this threads topic, has already stated, that type of product does not happen naturally, as in the collapse of a building. I too, find it very hard to believe that this very specific, nano-sized particle is the product of burning paint, or steel beams being pulvurized.

This is an honest question, no ignorance intended, just wanna hear an explanation of this from a legitimate source.

Originally posted by P1DrummerBoy
This is an honest question, no ignorance intended, just wanna hear an explanation of this from a legitimate source.

I'm definitely not a legitimate source. I hated chemistry and really know almost nothing about it. What's been pointed out before is that nano sized spheres of iron are actually common in certain things like fly ash, which is used in the production of concrete. Now, whether they are used in the production of paint or whether they are proof of thermite I certainly cannot say.

My issue with the paper is as I stated, I don't feel Jones et al really conducted their experiments with the intention of eliminating other causes, and instead decided to declare that it was definitely thermite, even though quite a lot of doubt remains.

I still haven't seen a good answer to this question though:

If the 'thermite' ignites at 400-500C, and it was to be used as a fuse

• Why didn't they use regular fuse, which is surely cheaper, harder to detect and more reliable
  
• How did it survive aircraft impacts, which undoubtedly produced temperatures very much in excess of 500C?

Dr Jones says that future tests will not be published in Bentham, which is hopeful, but I hope he will not go back to publishing in JONES.

reply to post by P1DrummerBoy

I'm not referring to the iron spheres in the dust, I'm referring to the paint chip like substance found...

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

For reference, 45 nanometers is the size of the transistor gate on the average CPU. These pieces of aluminum were smaller than that, and uniform.

What's been pointed out before is that nano sized spheres of iron are actually common in certain things like fly ash, which is used in the production of concrete. Now, whether they are used in the production of paint or whether they are proof of thermite I certainly cannot say.

Right, however, the aluminum is plate shaped and 40nm thick. That is not part of paint from this planet, especially mixed uniformly with iron. Also, naturally occurring iron is not uniform. Whoever made this stuff did it with scientific precision and aint paintin' with it.



[edit on 17-6-2009 by jprophet420]

Originally posted by exponent
What you're seeing is just the top of the pile though. The WTC did have extensive basements

This shows how far they went (compare perimeter column transition to photos below):



The topmost floor with floor pans that you see is actually the first floor after the lobby, which was open and took the space of 2 or 3 normal floors.

Those trusses you see on the sides is where tons of concrete flowed in, much of which was pulverized into fine dust that was perpetually dug up from the basement floors.

As the ground in lower Manhattan was largely landfill, engineers would have to dig down 70 feet to reach bedrock. Excavating machines dug a three-foot-wide trench down to the bedrock, and as dirt and rock were removed, they were replaced by slurry: a mixture of water and bentonite, a type of clay that expands when wet to plug any hole along the side of the trench. Workers then lowered a 22-ton, seven-story-high steel cage into the trench, and filled it with concrete by using a long pipe. As the concrete flowed in, it displaced the bentonite slurry. By making more than 150 of these slurry trench segments, workers enclosed an area two blocks wide and four blocks long. Called the "bathtub," it was used to seal the basements of the towers and keep water from the Hudson River out of the foundation.

www.history.com...


So then you're suggesting a lot of mass was still in the footprints, except in the basement where you can't see it from the photos I posted. Which is another assumption you didn't offer anything to really support. But there are still photos of the excavations of the basements and things like that.

I think I said in an earlier post that I don't think a significant amount of mass (from above) went into the basements, and I base that on several things. For one, you can see the core structure and the foundation of the perimeter structure were still intact at and above ground-level (and the columns below them), especially in WTC1. The core structure itself represented a lot of area that was still intact and not penetrated by heavy debris. If you can't see it in any of the images I posted earlier, you can see the top of what was left of the core structure here, with people even standing there for a size reference:



As they tore the pile down, they found more core columns still intact, as you'll see in excavation images. The next photo (from construction) shows how far up the tree columns split into the sections of three columns, like the transition you see in the photo above, and how deep the basements were.



Another reason is that I haven't seen lots of weighty steel packed into the basements from excavation photos like I have all over the ground around the complex and beyond. There are lots of excavation photos starting here: www.studyof911.com...

Here are a few:












In the basements I see a lot of stone aggregate from pulverized concrete, dust feet-deep, a lot of wiring, piping, things of that nature being dug out, but not a lot of steel columns, or even pancaked floors (again, not that anyone is saying that theory has any credence). In other words a lot of things that would have already been down there (I'm not considering those things as "ejected mass"). Can you find any evidence of a significant amount of the total mass of the building falling there?

and while they weren't completely compacted with debris, they certainly contained quite a lot, it's hard to quantify as even in the image you posted before only the WTC basements are shown and density is not differentiated.

I agree there was a lot of mass down there, but there was already a lot of mass down there before the towers were destroyed, and I don't see stacks of perimeter columns crammed down there like I do laying out on the ground over so much of the rest of the WTC complex, or anything else to suggest a lot of mass from the building above was packed into those floors.

Because we know very few parameters with excellent accuracy, this needs to be done to see whether the model is reasonable.

If you find better parameters, I think that is a better route to take than to just keep fudging parameters until you get what you set out for like the authors of the paper. You can prove any theory like that.

I guess what should be done next is to read the rest of the paper, see if you can find any other parameters you disagree with.

I don't really care to. I had a suspicion they didn't take all the mass into account, I looked, and they didn't, and I would have lost a lot of respect for their opinion for that alone if I had any respect for them to begin with. I have seen a lot of other things from Greening and other JREFers and I always have the same problem of a model having trouble taking account for all the facts. They set out to prove a point and they don't let anything stop them, because after all, how could they be wrong?


Someone suggested this discussion be taken to another thread to stop distracting from the OP, which is about a different paper. If you want to start another thread, I might keep responding there, even though I feel like I've already said about everything I had to say about it. Otherwise I'll just stop short of the last word about the Bazant, Greening, etc. paper here.

Okey dokey, you're paying for the time with XEDS/DSC machines right?

Which is excactly why nobody here is in the position to question Jones.
All you can do is state opinion as you don't have the equipment to
peform proper testing as do the scientists.

That is exactly why nobody will confront Jones. That is exactly why the
theories put forth have been picked apart by the paper.

You can wait until the next study is published in a,"non bentham" journal...
ultimately delaying the inevitable, or you can open your eyes now.

Actually, I'm ready for the next wave of excuses once Jones performs
an inert DSC test, and publishes the results in the journal of 'choice'.

reply to post by turbofan


Open your own eyes, Turbo. I know science and engineering is not your strength which is why you place such weight on the Jones team "evidence." It is not well executed and full of logic faults. I pointed out many of them on this and JREF Forums. The fact that some authors have PhD's doesn't cut any ice in the science community; many in the science community have PhD's and make errors. The peer review process prevents many poorly written papers from being published and forces the authors to rewrite, repeat, or do additional research. Unfortunately, this paper was not peer reviewed and was prematurely published in a journal that publishes anything if you pay the $800. Maybe they'll get it right the next time around.
The chips as thermite make no sense. They look like paint, physically and chemically, on an iron oxide layer. If they were thermite they wouldn't do much as a thin layer on steel. There is no rationale for thin layers of thermite on anything; massive amounts would be necessary. There is no evidence that nano-structured materials were available in quantity before Sept 2001 and no evdence that they were painted on any structures; it would be pointless to do so. Even Jones said that maybe it was "fuse material" when confronted about this.
I will wait for the next paper and will predict that if it claims thermite based on the complete lack of evidence displayed in the first paper, it will be published in Bentham or similar vanity "journal," yet again.

Originally posted by pteridine
The fact that some authors have PhD's doesn't cut any ice in the science community; many in the science community have PhD's and make errors.

Like the NIST report?

The peer review process prevents many poorly written papers from being published and forces the authors to rewrite, repeat, or do additional research.

Unlike the NIST report?

Originally posted by turbofan


Anyone that denies the evidence in the paper should:

a. Put forth a theory explaining what the chips represent according
to the chemical signature.

I think it might be thermite. Could you point to any evidence that it isn't thermite?

b. Describe what errors the nine scientists made with respect to the
tests.

They didn't make any errors.

None at all. It's thermite. Any idiot can see that, just open your eyes, look at the videos.

It doesn't need a series of chemistry experiments.

c. Provide your contact information so that I may connect you with
Dr. Jones to debate the issue.

May I ask why you need this information?

Isn't this recruiting?

If I'm not mistaken, the award for successfully proving the nine
scientists wrong is $1000.00

Could you provide a link to this?

Posting up your opinion within this thread means nothing.

According to who?

You?

reply to post by tezzajw

Apparently, science and engineering is not your strength either. I recommend a few courses in science before you graduate.

Originally posted by undermind
I think it might be thermite. Could you point to any evidence that it isn't thermite?

No, can you?

They didn't make any errors.

None at all. It's thermite. Any idiot can see that, just open your eyes, look at the videos.

Agree

May I ask why you need this information? Isn't this recruiting?

Those who want to disprove Jones and shock the world can debate him
via e-mail. There are references within this thread about the award money.

According to who?

You?

According to Jones. See the links in the OP, or read up at 911Blogger.

He's calling out the anonymous experts to prove him wrong.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by pteridine
The fact that some authors have PhD's doesn't cut any ice in the science community; many in the science community have PhD's and make errors.

Like the NIST report?

The peer review process prevents many poorly written papers from being published and forces the authors to rewrite, repeat, or do additional research.

Unlike the NIST report?

The NIST report was used to rebuild WTC7 as well as ensure all future structures will not fail as they did for the first time on 9/11. There was a precedent set that day that showed engineering of the 60's were not adequately prepared to handle jet hitting it at over 500 mph.

It has been show in this thread an others that it is fruitless to attempt to call the members of NIST inept. Accolades aside, Dr Jones seemed fine until his first press conference, YEARS after 9/11.

Take a look at this thread...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I think it is Disinfo. Look at the links to the people who he worked with on the Truth movement. There are even (gasp) Bush administration and supporters...hmmm?????

Oh, and by the way. I did send am email to him and have YET to receive a response as to if I can test the material he tested. Nothing. Trust me, I will let everyone know if I get a response...

Jones seeks attention. The last time he had it, 20 years ago, was in the non-riser Cold Fusion debacle.

9/11 is controversial and there is a large undiscriminating audience.

Those with something to conceal in the intelligence community and earlier shady admin figures welcome a deflection with something like this dubious thermite claim.

Even though thermite is not something anyone wanting to secretly demolish buildings would consider, the fact that someone with an academic background is poking around in a lab and claiming suggestive results is enough to make hardcore Truthers salivate.

In the world of honest scientific investigating, Jones is a comedy act. And there is an audience for his self-hype.

Unfortunate, a wild goose chase like this just serves to further distance the public from the real outstanding issues regarding 9/11.

Someone somewhere must find this all hilarious.


Mike



[edit on 18-6-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael
9/11 is controversial and there is a large undiscriminating audience.

Considering every time we get into something like the eutectic reaction that DID melt through steel within those buildings, and things like that, you tend to claim your chemistry isn't up to snuff. So who has the discrimination problems?

Originally posted by bsbray11

Considering every time we get into something like the eutectic reaction that DID melt through steel within those buildings, and things like that, you tend to claim your chemistry isn't up to snuff. So who has the discrimination problems?

I'm just an anonymous guy on a thread on a conspiracy site. I do not claim expertise only some ability to weigh that of others and their sources.

But the world awaits your paper on the eutectic reaction being a cause for the collapse of those buildings.

You can pay Bentham the $800 to publish. Proper peer review not necessary. Then have someone organize a $1000 contest to disprove it, win, and make a profit.

Dr Jones is an expert in these type of matters and would make a valuable consulting resource.


Mike

Originally posted by mmiichael
I'm just an anonymous guy on a thread on a conspiracy site. I do not claim expertise only some ability to weigh that of others and their sources.

But that doesn't stop you from attacking the credibility of people who ARE experts on various subjects, depending on whether or not you feel like agreeing with what they say. That's what gets me.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by mmiichael
I'm just an anonymous guy on a thread on a conspiracy site. I do not claim expertise only some ability to weigh that of others and their sources.

But that doesn't stop you from attacking the credibility of people who ARE experts on various subjects, depending on whether or not you feel like agreeing with what they say. That's what gets me.

There are demonstrably credible experts and ones who aren't.

Why don't we just compromise and say that we conflict on what we consider admissable evidence.


Mike