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

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by mmiichael

 

My job from now on will be spreading new
information to people with enough brain power to make their own decision.

Are you ready to spread some DSC analysis information or has your brain power abandoned you? Many are waiting for your decision.

Gat Daym some people are blind...
Which of the two previous replies did you miss?

Your statments are UNFOUNDED because a known control sample
of NANO THERMITE had a WIDER and LESS ENERGETIC exotherm
than Jone's result!

How the F can you stand by your statement knowing this? You just
told the world that a known nano thermite cannot have this output.



Thrid time NO, I have not heard back yet and i have not really pressed
for further information. I have no interest debating anonymous kids
that can't even see the basics of logic.

Any pea brained fool can see that your claim is based on nonsense
due to the control sample output.

Originally posted by turbofan
Your statments are UNFOUNDED because a known control sample
of NANO THERMITE had a WIDER and LESS ENERGETIC exotherm
than Jone's result!

How the F can you stand by your statement knowing this? You just
told the world that a known nano thermite cannot have this output.

[...]

Any pea brained fool can see that your claim is based on nonsense
due to the control sample output.

Looking at other 9/11 forums I see why believers cluster here. They form a majority. Elsewhere, im places where science, reason and logic predominate, they'd get clobbered.

An example outside opinion to mull over.

forums.myspace.com...

While the substances Dr. Jones discusses contain small particles, those same substances are not precision-engineered and therefore do not qualify as "nanotech." For instance, the energy output of his samples varies by roughly a full order of magnitude. This is not the hallmark of a special-purpose application incendiary or explosive. If the production varied that much, the mythical saboteurs would have no choice but to plan their demolition using the lower bound on energy, which means using about ten times as much of the stuff as would be needed were the quality control a bit better. Nobody would be stupid enough to do this, not even the Truth Movement.

Harritt claims 100 tons of the super-duper-magic-nano thermite was used in EACH tower. And no one noticed.

Sure.

[...]

... there were no detonations, no freefall, and the collapses began where the planes struck begging the question-how did these imaginary "explosives" survive the impact and fires since C-4 can malfunction in those temperatures and since "thermate" is so flammable? Were they planted after impact? (sounds pretty stupid, huh?)

Then consider the photos of both WTC1 and WTC2's core columns standing after the floors have collapsed and the perimeter columns have tipped outward-further evidence of the gravity driven collapse which would have been impossible had "explosives" destroyed them.

Then you have to remember the 40,000 volunteers at GZ who found no det cord, blasting caps etc. Then you have the consider the thousands more who sorted debris at Fresh Kills and other landfills looking for human remains who found no evidence of CD. Then the CD experts who examined the steel found NO EVIDENCE

Mike




[edit on 16-7-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by exponent

First of all, I notice that an explanation for the source of the "corrosion" is completely lacking, at least from what you just quoted.

They extend FEMA's results, slightly modifying the mechanism and temperature requirements (upwards in fact, but not high enough I'm afraid).

Sorry, reread what I posted. SOURCE of the "corrosion." Did they mention one? Did they determine where the nano-sized particles of sulfur, iron, etc. came from, and how they came together in a distribution that was able to produce such a powerful eutectic reaction? I'm sure we are not in disagreement that not even commercial thermite will corrode steel so severely, so this is obviously a powerful eutectic that formed on these samples. Is there any reason to believe this mixture could form any more easily than commercial thermite could have?

Now are you going to tell me that similar corrosion cannot be found on any other debris, or just that it can't be found on any other samples that NIST analyzed in such a way (which I'm going to assume was none since they didn't even look at the other FEMA sample)?

I can't tell you that it cannot, I can only tell you that it was not.

And that is all that I need to know. I see nothing to suggest they looked for it on any other samples. Do you see where they say that anywhere?

Your posted pictures do not show the same corrosion at all

I would love to know how you determined this simply by looking at a picture.

I notice you don't seem interested in the images I posted even though they are incredibly bizarre to me. Is there something you know about them that I don't, or are you just that jaded?

Looking at other 9/11 forums I see why believers cluster here. They form a majority. Elsewhere, im places where science, reason and logic predominate, they'd get clobbered.

An example outside opinion to mull over.

Just for the record, I posted the results of a scientific poll here a few times and it shows that most people in fact DO NOT believe the OS, and posted non scientific polls to illustrate the SAME conclusion.

So heres what I see:

Denial of scientific polls as evidence
Denial of non scientific polls as evidence
The majority of posts in this forum are anti OS.

How can you possibly expect me to believe that people "flock here" because it is "biased"? When asked to provide any evidence contrary to "the majority of people don't believe the OS" No one can present any, but a simple google search provides multiple sources?

And to bring this 'round full circle, the thread made AFTER this this one by OP had an article stating that it was not paint, and it goes unanswered while people bicker in this thread.

I have said this before and I will keep saying it until deniers understand or go away:

Just because you debunk a CT does not make the OS true.
The OS remains to this day an unsolved CT by its own admission.

Originally posted by jprophet420

Just for the record, I posted the results of a scientific poll here a few times and it shows that most people in fact DO NOT believe the OS, and posted non scientific polls to illustrate the SAME conclusion.

So heres what I see:

Denial of scientific polls as evidence
Denial of non scientific polls as evidence
The majority of posts in this forum are anti OS.

How can you possibly expect me to believe that people "flock here" because it is "biased"? When asked to provide any evidence contrary to "the majority of people don't believe the OS" No one can present any, but a simple google search provides multiple sources?

And to bring this 'round full circle, the thread made AFTER this this one by OP had an article stating that it was not paint, and it goes unanswered while people bicker in this thread.

I have said this before and I will keep saying it until deniers understand or go away:

Just because you debunk a CT does not make the OS true.
The OS remains to this day an unsolved CT by its own admission.

The first 3 pages of any Google search comes up with the Truther websites filled with maniputed data and facts, if not outright misinformation.

Half the population has an 1Q under 100. MacDonald's is the most popular restaurant in America. The average American watches 38 hours of television a week.

An open question poll asking Americans what they believed might also produce results like: UFOs are real, the government should abolish taxes, beer should be free, etc.

There has been overwhelming evidence posted or linked here demonstrating there was absolutely no evidence of a controlled demolition found by people sorting out WTC debris. The vast majority of those looking were volunteering citizens.

Any variant of thermite, which is not an explosive, has repeatedly been shown to be impractical as a way of weakening steel. Jones's crony, Harrit estimate 100 tons per building would be needed.

In a world of millions of scientists, academics, professionals, we have handful of scientist with a claim of thermite, and a refusal to have their results independently reproduced by recognized experts or institutions.

What you call the Official Story is accepted by knowledgeable people because there are thousands of pages of detailed proof, literally tons of evidence to back it up, hard science.

With the Jones claim we're not even talking about objective science. More like a professor's claim of finding "magic beans" with wonderful properties only he and his compatriots can show.


Mike

Half the population has an 1Q under 100. MacDonald's is the most popular restaurant in America. The average American watches 38 hours of television a week.

100 is average, of course half the population has lower than average. Do you know what a bell curve is? You post facts like that and expect it to debunk what I'm saying?

What you call the Official Story is accepted by knowledgeable people because there are thousands of pages of detailed proof, literally tons of evidence to back it up, hard science.

With the Jones claim we're not even talking about objective science. More like a professor's claim of finding "magic beans" with wonderful properties only he and his compatriots can show.

Right, and the 7 other PHD's are in on the conspiracy.
and the peer review process
and Architects and engineers for 911 truth
and pilots for 911 truth
and of course the misinformation in the FEMA report that was later debunked was put in there by disinformation agents
and the information in the NIST report that changed between the preliminary and final reports was also interjected by stark raving mad tin foil hat conspiracy theorists.

* Denial (this isn't happening to me!)
* Anger (why is this happening to me?)
* Bargaining (I promise I'll be a better person if...)
* Depression (I don't care anymore)
* Acceptance (I'm ready for whatever comes)

You're on stage 1.

[edit on 16-7-2009 by jprophet420]

reply to post by mmiichael


More circular BS. Keep the circle going mm.

No challenge to the science, but you post your garbage...

Then you have to remember the 40,000 volunteers at GZ who found no det cord, blasting caps etc. Then you have the consider the thousands more who sorted debris at Fresh Kills and other landfills looking for human remains who found no evidence of CD. Then the CD experts who examined the steel found NO EVIDENCE

Did they find desks, chairs, and stuff like that too? You would THINK
a 110 story building would have at least a few chairs and stuff huh?

Originally posted by jprophet420
Right, and the 7 other PHD's are in on the conspiracy.

Though there are millions of PHDs throughout the world, they scraped to dig up 7 for the paper. Not sure, but you can check it - a couple of the guys are Brigham U cronies of Jones, Ryan is a Truther website manager, and a couple others are also career Truthers.

and the peer review process
and Architects and engineers for 911 truth
and pilots for 911 truth

No peer review. Self published for $800 bucks in a vanity journal unrecognized by the other 99.7% of their peers. So where is the colleague peer feedback report? As recently reported. a couple college kids did a random generated gobbledy-gook science paper and the same flaky journal publisher accepted it - on condition of payment of $800.

To their credit, the other hundreds of thousands of architects, engineers, firemen, do feel compelled to not form organizations or set up websites dedicated to their beliefs on 9/11. Notably there is no huge rush for them to join these clubs.

and of course the misinformation in the FEMA report that was later debunked was put in there by disinformation agents
and the information in the NIST report that changed between the preliminary and final reports was also interjected by stark raving mad tin foil hat conspiracy theorists.

NIST behaves like any scientific body. Constantly refining it's analysis and correcting it's errors.

FEMA is disinformation according to Truthers. Don't believe everything you read. The government may lie, but it doesn't mean everyone else tells the truth. Google has hundred of pages with bunk websites on 9/11. Scientific professional don't have to blast their information, sell DVDs or T-shirts. They publish papers in credible journals.

If a significant percentage even as low as 15% of related field professionals found serious issues with these published reports it would have be a serious concern. That hasn't happened.




Mike







[edit on 16-7-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by turbofan
More circular BS. Keep the circle going mm.

No challenge to the science, but you post your garbage...

Then you have to remember the 40,000 volunteers at GZ who found no det cord, blasting caps etc. Then you have the consider the thousands more who sorted debris at Fresh Kills and other landfills looking for human remains who found no evidence of CD. Then the CD experts who examined the steel found NO EVIDENCE

Did they find desks, chairs, and stuff like that too? You would THINK
a 110 story building would have at least a few chairs and stuff huh?

A few hundred tons of steel, wall material, cement falling hundreds of feet will crush most chairs.

No science to challenge. Lots of issues about government 9/11 concealment, but we have a substantiated explanation of why and how the WTC buildings were destroyed.

Do you think it's possible the fixation on this cul-de-sac aspect of 9/11 might be an intended deflection from the more serious issues? I sometimes wonder.

Happy investigoogling.


M

reply to post by mmiichael

Def. peer reviewed, do your homework then come back.
Of course we know you wont and you will, in that order.

If a significant percentage even as low as 15% of related field professionals found serious issues with these published reports it would have be a serious concern. That hasn't happened.

Again you have no frame of reference and you don't cite a single fact. You tell me how many professionals have looked at the scenario and what opinions they formed and you can start to make your case.


Mod Edit: Nope on the personal attacks. Cheers -alien

[edit on 16-7-2009 by alien]

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by mmiichael

 

Def. peer reviewed, do your homework then come back.
Of course we know you wont and you will, in that order.

You're right. I stand corrected.

I was referring to the Jones original paper in the the Bentham journal.

Just checking, there was the more recent group one in Netherlands based "the Environmentalist" which is said to be peer-review. As far as I can tell no formal peer feedback or commentary, which may indicate it was accepted as a courtesy without due process.

One has to keep in mind keep peer review journals publish pieces that often conflict in their conclusions. It's the criticism that is significant.

And significantly in the world of science, no American or British publisher.
Where almost all authoritative journal originate.

Interesting Jones' original publisher, the dubious Bentham, is based in the United Arab Emirates. I recalled this recent article:

chronicle.com...

June 10, 2009
Open-Access Publisher Appears to Have Accepted Fake Paper From Bogus Center

The medical-research industry is under growing pressure to improve its ethical standards. Similar pressure has extended to peer-reviewed medical journals, after Elsevier, a publishing leader, admitted to publishing at least nine fake journals from 2000 to 2005.

In other words, it’s an especially bad time for a medical journal to be duped by an author who, say, submits a fake computer-generated research paper from a fake institution he named the Center for Research in Applied Phrenology — or CRAP.

And yet that’s exactly what appears to have happened.

The deception was the work of Philip M. Davis, a doctoral student in communication at Cornell University who serves as executive editor of the Society for Scholarly Publishing’s Scholarly Kitchen blog.

Mr. Davis said he had concocted the plan after receiving numerous “aggressive” unsolicited e-mail messages from Bentham Science Publishers, which finances its line of 200 open-access scientific journals by charging authors a publication fee.

Mr. Davis and the blog’s editor in chief, Kent R. Anderson, submitted two research papers that were created by a computer program at MIT called SCIgen that describes itself as generating random text intended to “maximize amusement, rather than coherence.”

One of the papers was rejected by Bentham, and the other — a nonsensical five-page report with footnotes and graphical charts that purported to describe an Internet process called the “Trifling Thamyn” — was accepted after the publisher said it had been peer-reviewed. Mr. Davis reported that an invoice for $800 had been issued by Bentham, without any evidence that the article was actually peer-reviewed.

The publications director at Bentham, Mahmood Alam, told The Chronicle by e-mail that, “to the best of our knowledge, we have not published any article from the Center for Research in Applied Phrenology in any of our journals.” Mr. Davis said he had written to Bentham to withdraw the paper after its publication was approved.

Bentham’s subscription manager, Pradeep Menon, reached by telephone at the company’s headquarters in the United Arab Emirates, said he was aware of the accusation but had no further details and could not offer any other company official to comment.

Mike


[edit on 16-7-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by bsbray11
Sorry, reread what I posted. SOURCE of the "corrosion." Did they mention one? Did they determine where the nano-sized particles of sulfur, iron, etc. came from, and how they came together in a distribution that was able to produce such a powerful eutectic reaction?

They speculate, but there is very little proof really. The horizontal position of the element gives us a nice hint that it was liberated sulfur, likely from drywall. Here's a thought though, why don't you read the section yourself? Devoting 3-4 pages to the analysis is certainly more than you thought they had done

I'm sure we are not in disagreement that not even commercial thermite will corrode steel so severely

Indeed, thermite, commercial or otherwise, will simply melt the steel much much more quickly than any corrosive material could degrade it.

so this is obviously a powerful eutectic that formed on these samples.

I guess, we don't really know how long it took for the steel to be degraded to this level, so I'll freely concede that it could be considered powerful over certain timescales.

Is there any reason to believe this mixture could form any more easily than commercial thermite could have?

Well considering thermite is just stochiometric iron oxide and aluminium, both could reasonably form in rubble piles etc. In fact I would almost certainly expect that at least some small scale spontaneous thermitic reactions occured.

And that is all that I need to know. I see nothing to suggest they looked for it on any other samples. Do you see where they say that anywhere?

Debris was passed through a sorting process where they looked for exceptional or interesting damage types, and only these 2 sections were discovered. Obviously this isn't proof that no others existed, but the lack of them is interesting, and we see no evidence of it on any other recovered steel.

I would love to know how you determined this simply by looking at a picture.

I notice you don't seem interested in the images I posted even though they are incredibly bizarre to me. Is there something you know about them that I don't, or are you just that jaded?

I 'determined' this because I know that no tests indicating a eutectic reaction were performed on the sample, and therefore I know that any 'corrosion' you are claiming, you are determining simply by looking at a picture, the very method you are chastising me for.

Where exactly am I supposed to be seeing this corrosion? On the rebar that was formerly embedded in concrete?

I am interested in the facts, and unless you have performed some testing I am not aware of on this item, you are relying on your visual analysis just as much as I am, except I don't see any corrosion that's remotely the same, so I don't know what you're trying to point out.

reply to post by turbofan


Turbo,
I explained to you that the DSC of the known thermite in air would show oxidation of the aluminum before the ignition temperature was reached.
Jones' paper is flawed. His DSC interpretation is wrong. There is no evidence or rationale for the red stuff to be anything but paint.
Explain the DSC trace or accept that Jones is wrong and you got sucked in like the other folks without a technical background. You should seriously consider taking a chemistry course next semester.

reply to post by pteridine


BOTH were done in air. The WTC dust is more potent and explosive
than a known nano-thermite. PERIOD.

Your analogy does not dismiss Jones' sample as a form of thermite.

Love this song. Notice the title:
www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by exponent
They speculate, but there is very little proof really. The horizontal position of the element gives us a nice hint that it was liberated sulfur, likely from drywall

I've asked this before but can you show me where the chemical analysis shows the composition is consistent with drywall in a crushed-up form? I know there is sulfur in drywall but I'm not sure how you think the sulfur is extracted by itself without the rest of the drywall coming with it, or what size particles you are supposed to get from mechanically crushing drywall.

I'm sure we are not in disagreement that not even commercial thermite will corrode steel so severely

Indeed, thermite, commercial or otherwise, will simply melt the steel much much more quickly than any corrosive material could degrade it.

But conventional thermite will not actually melt this grade of steel. You realize that right? There are videos on YouTube of soldiers putting thermite grenades on top of steel safes, and it does nothing to them. And many other examples that conventional thermite is not nearly energetic enough to erode steel so severely.

I guess, we don't really know how long it took for the steel to be degraded to this level, so I'll freely concede that it could be considered powerful over certain timescales.

You have no more reason to believe it was a longer time scale than you do a shorter time scale, unless there are somefacts that I am missing here. Do you know of an EUTECTIC reactions that take weeks/months to occur?

Well considering thermite is just stochiometric iron oxide and aluminium, both could reasonably form in rubble piles etc. In fact I would almost certainly expect that at least some small scale spontaneous thermitic reactions occured.

Having iron oxide and aluminum does not automatically make thermite, you know that right? You have to have fine particles, in the right proportion to one another.

Debris was passed through a sorting process where they looked for exceptional or interesting damage types, and only these 2 sections were discovered. Obviously this isn't proof that no others existed, but the lack of them is interesting, and we see no evidence of it on any other recovered steel.

I have no faith to believe NIST looked for any other samples, when they do things like fail to look for explosive residue and then declare they found no evidence of it, etc. I thought you just said NIST did not even analyze the other sample FEMA had?

I 'determined' this because I know that no tests indicating a eutectic reaction were performed on the sample

What makes you think NIST analyzed that piece of debris at all? Do you think you are looking at something normal or that has a ready explanation?

Where exactly am I supposed to be seeing this corrosion? On the rebar that was formerly embedded in concrete?

I can see steel in the blob that has the same texture, especially near the bottom, but I find it more interesting that steel, concrete, and paper are apparently fused together into a solid mass.

I am interested in the facts

Then it's really too bad you aren't getting them from the people that you SHOULD be getting them from, isn't it?

[edit on 16-7-2009 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by pteridine

 

BOTH were done in air. The WTC dust is more potent and explosive
than a known nano-thermite. PERIOD.
www.youtube.com...

Output per unit mass of anything that burns will likely have more energy than any sort of thermite. Peanut butter has more energy per unit mass than thermite when burned in air. The WTC dust has a carbonaceous binder which burns over a four minute timeframe. Yes, burning paint has more energy than thermite.
You really don't understand this stuff, do you.

reply to post by bsbray11


BS,
Drywall is frangible and in the WTC collapses, a great deal of CaSO4.2H2O dust was in the air and coated much of the material at ground zero. Reduction of sulfates to sulfides readily occurs at 400 to 500C in a reducing atmosphere, much like that found in slow burning underground fires. Once the sulfides were formed, they could form a eutectic mixture with the steel surface.
The dust from the wallboard was by far the largest source of sulfur compounds at the site.

Then why do we ALL petition Jones for a sample and the chain of custody? Do not make this an argument we have amongst ourselves when it is based on a non-peer reviewed paper that someones weekly grocery bill paid for.

There are some very sharp and intelligent people on this site and within this thread. I have attempted contact with him, but maybe we all should. If he got 500 emails in one day with the same subject would he not have to respond. Kind of like a POD attack to make him notice that there are people who want to verify what he has done.

This way we can stop calling is magic thermy dust and know the answer for ourselves. Is this not an option or again will I be silenced because if we did, some of us may not get the answer we are looking for... including myself.

Send an email here..... [email protected] and put his name in the subject line.

reply to post by esdad71


It's funny to me that you don't question federal authorities in the least but private citizens seeking an independent investigation are all suspicious as hell to you. I guess I am just surprised that you would ever even make an account on a conspiracy theory website, with such unwavering trust in government officials as you have.

Originally posted by bsbray11
I've asked this before but can you show me where the chemical analysis shows the composition is consistent with drywall in a crushed-up form? I know there is sulfur in drywall but I'm not sure how you think the sulfur is extracted by itself without the rest of the drywall coming with it, or what size particles you are supposed to get from mechanically crushing drywall.

You would really be better off asking someone knowledgeable in chemistry. I hated it even more than biology. Give me Physics any day of the week.

Pteridine seems to have answered the question anyway.

But conventional thermite will not actually melt this grade of steel. You realize that right? There are videos on YouTube of soldiers putting thermite grenades on top of steel safes, and it does nothing to them. And many other examples that conventional thermite is not nearly energetic enough to erode steel so severely.

It will, but the question is mass. Thermite will produce molten iron, which will be at 1500C. Whether it will melt what it is in contact with depends on the amount of thermite, the amount of steel, and the thermal conductivity of the steel. I can show you a video of over a pound of thermite being unable to get through an iron skillet.

I don't know why you think nanothermite would do any better though, the reaction is faster but does not release a greater amount of heat. If you could make it explode with a significant shock front then ok maybe you could do some physical damage, but it is also quite unlikely.

You have no more reason to believe it was a longer time scale than you do a shorter time scale, unless there are somefacts that I am missing here. Do you know of an EUTECTIC reactions that take weeks/months to occur?

From my understanding the reaction will continue as long as the hot slag was in contact with the steel. Again you're better off asking a chemist

Having iron oxide and aluminum does not automatically make thermite, you know that right? You have to have fine particles, in the right proportion to one another.

That's what stoichiometric means, and the particles only have to be fine enough to react which is not particularly fine at all. I don't expect large scale reactions, but there's nothing stopping small scale ones.

I have no faith to believe NIST looked for any other samples, when they do things like fail to look for explosive residue and then declare they found no evidence of it, etc. I thought you just said NIST did not even analyze the other sample FEMA had?

They did not analyse the other sample as it was from WTC7, rather than WTC1 and 2, which was the focus of the reports. The sorting process was not carried out by NIST, it was carried out by FEMA BPAT members, and people staffing Fresh Kills etc. There is plenty of documentation of this and so you don't have to believe NIST.

What makes you think NIST analyzed that piece of debris at all? Do you think you are looking at something normal or that has a ready explanation?
...
I can see steel in the blob that has the same texture, especially near the bottom, but I find it more interesting that steel, concrete, and paper are apparently fused together into a solid mass.

Right, so while chastising me for using my powers of observation, you were using exactly the same mechanism to cast suspicion! Really bsbray you can do better than this, please don't complain at me for doing something which you know damn well you are also doing.

Then it's really too bad you aren't getting them from the people that you SHOULD be getting them from, isn't it?

How do you know that we're not? Can you come up with a plausible alternate hypothesis?