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

Big deal really; a monkey could have produced that paper and the
science still stands.

That is the point. Debate the science, or just don't bother replying.

reply to post by turbofan


There is no science to debate, only bad science to point out. Jones failed to show thermitic reactions of any sort. Jones failed to properly analyze the red chips by failing to use an appropriate solvent to separate the components. Jones failed the scientific method by starting out to prove thermite rather than determining the composition of the red chips.

Since you carry the water for PFT and are Jones defender, you are challenged to show how the paper was scientifically sound.

3. Thermal Behavior
When the chips are heated to about 430ºC (806ºF), they undergo a runaway chemical reaction producing temperatures of at least 1535ºC

Although a trace does not capture the increase in temperature once a sample ignites, the area underneath it approximates the sample's energy density.

The thermal behavior of the chips is analyzed using an instrument (a DSC) that measures the flow of heat into and out of the sample as its temperature is gradually increased.

When the samples are elevated to about 430ºC, they ignite in a run-away reaction that reaches at least 1535ºC. The fact that the reaction reaches those very high temperatures is evident from the reaction's residue of minute solidified iron-rich sphereoids -- residues that had clearly experienced temperatures above the melting point of iron to create molten droplets that became spherical under the influence of surface tension.

A measure of a pyrotechnics' performance is its energy density: how much energy can be packed in a given weight or volume. Estimates of the energy densities of chips ignited in the DSC shows them to be similar to those of conventional high explosives and conventional thermite.

Whereas structural and chemical analysis of the chips shows that they were designed as some kind of pyrotechnic, thermal analysis shows that, despite their fragmented form and age, are still active pyrotechnics, and ones with impressive energy densities.

Although building rubble can contain flammable materials, it is not possible that legitimate materials in the Twin Towers or residues of them formed in the buildings' destruction would be capable of reacting to produce temperatures above the melting point of iron.


Conclusion
As this simplified summary of the findings of the paper Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe shows, the distinctive red-gray chips found consistently in dust samples from the destroyed Twin Towers are clearly an advanced engineered pyrotechnic material. It is not even remotely possible that the material could have been formed spontaneously through any random process such as the total destruction of the Twin Towers. Nor is it possible that the material was present in the Towers for some innocent reason.

911research.wtc7.net...

you see, just like I said before, DSC is not measuring the "burn time" of
anything!

[edit on 20-7-2009 by turbofan]

turbo,

I'm afraid you're the one who doesn't want to deal with what science has to say. Please read through this Italian paper which goes into detail with photos and charts where Jones et al have failed to conduct their experiment properly and have not acknowledge the material tested has the same composition of the paint and insulation used in WTC.

Other links provided show the inefficacy of a thin layer coating of any thermitic material, real or imagined.

11-settembre.blogspot.com...

Abstract:

A recent paper claiming "active thermitic material" in dust collected in the vicinity of the Twin Towers after their collapse is found to have shortcomings in its methodology.
The paper also fails to explore adequately alternative, non-thermitic explanations for its findings.

*
Specifically, the paper's use of methyl-ethyl-ketone (MEK) to demonstrate the presence of elemental aluminum is known to yield inconsistent results because MEK could react with aluminum;
*
alleged elemental aluminum nanoparticles are claimed to remain unreacted after 55 hours of MEK bath, but also contradictorily to react violently already at 430°C;
*
photographic and spectral comparisons between commercial thermite and spheroidal particles in Ground Zero dust omit any other comparison with possible alternative sources of such findings;
*
DSC analysis was conducted in air, but should have been conducted in an inert gas environment in order to obtain reliable results for thermite, which does not require an external oxidizer.

The paper also does not consider the chemical composition of the corrosion-proofing paints and of the vermiculite used as thermal insulation and soundproofing at the World Trade Center and extensively documented by NIST.

These products contain exactly the same elements and exhibit the same structural characteristics as the allegedly thermitic material found by the paper's researchers in their samples.
The researchers therefore appear to have been somewhat hasty in reaching their conclusions.

[...]

The conclusions of the study are obviously favorable to the "alternative" hypotheses. In other words, they suggest that a nanothermite-based substance was used on 9/11 in the Twin Towers and was applied by unknown means, in unknown locations, at an unknown date by unknown individuals, yet it was able to cause the collapse of the two giant steel buildings and of the relatively smaller WTC7 building.

After examining the paper, which we can now describe as pro-conspiracy in its conclusions, I would like to present a few thoughts and consider whether there might be other working hypotheses that should be examined before jumping to the hasty conclusions presented in the paper

[...]

In practice, the red layer of the wafers identified by the researchers contains exactly the same elements that we now know were present in the corrosion-resistant coating used during the construction of the World Trade Center, including the organic base constituted by linseed oil and alkyd resin.

It's not just a matter of the same chemical elements being present. The presence of fossil flour in the paint, too, is compatible with the porosity observed in the samples of the red layer. If one considers, moreover, that mica is also often present in fossil flour, then the presence of laminar particles mixed with crystalline particles of iron oxide might also be explained.

[...]

the researchers that signed the study do not appear to have considered and investigated correctly this possibility before claiming residues of "active thermitic material" in Ground Zero dust.

Mike



[edit on 20-7-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael
...A Truther site...

...who runs a Truther site...

I have a question. Mike, this isn't necessarily directed at you, you just provided the quote segments above, but feel free to give you input of course.

Every instance in which someone presents information from one of these termed "Truther Sites", it seems to be immediately pointed out as such. It's almost as if whenever someone uses terms like what is quoted above, it seems to be in a negative way, ie, a "Truther Site" is automatically pushed aside as false/fake/blasphemous/whatever.

Why do "Truther Sites" even exist? It's because of the holes/anomolies/whatever in the OS correct? Do some people here REALLY believe the OS verbatim? I don't see any other reason why every single "Truther Site" would be knocked on unless that was the case.

I just don't understand this concept. In my opinion, you'd have to have some sort of deficiency to believe the 9/11 OS. And please, don't even consider challenging my personal integrity by assuming that I challenge the OS simply because I've spent time on "Truther Sites". I have intelligence

Originally posted by P1DrummerBoy

Every instance in which someone presents information from one of these termed "Truther Sites,” it seems to be immediately pointed out as such. It's almost as if whenever someone uses terms like what is quoted above, it seems to be in a negative way, i.e., a "Truther Site" is automatically pushed aside as false/fake/blasphemous/whatever.

Why do "Truther Sites" even exist? It's because of the holes/anomolies/whatever in the OS correct? Do some people here REALLY believe the OS verbatim? I don't see any other reason why every single "Truther Site" would be knocked on unless that was the case.

I just don't understand this concept. In my opinion, you'd have to have some sort of deficiency to believe the 9/11 OS. And please, don't even consider challenging my personal integrity by assuming that I challenge the OS simply because I've spent time on "Truther Sites". I have intelligence

Good question. There are many people, and that includes me, who seriously question the media’s and US government's official line on how and why 9/11 happened. Much still needs to be uncovered as to who was aware of the event in advance, how much was known, and why intelligence wasn't acted on in a more timely manner.

It has been rigorously documented how Saudi funding and Pakistani planning and co-ordination were responsible for the attacks on 9/11. But this information is largely suppressed and ignored.

When I use the word "Truther", I think more in terms of the hundreds of sites that are part of a sub-culture which has developed. Rather than impartial and objective investigation, unsubstantiated stories, amateurish analysis, and dot connecting wild speculations are put forward as factual. This has become a business and career for many out there. Selling DVDs, T-shirts, taking subscriptions, etc. With the need to keep ahead of the competition, the claims become more extravagant, the documentation often fabricated, and the level of reliability diminishes geometrically.

In the process the waters are muddied with a lot of rumour and guesswork being passed off as historical data. People with less scientific or political acumen are conned by moonlighting professional academics and unethical journalists who contribute to this.

In this sub-culture outstanding questions that need to be further examined are left in the dust as things like controlled demolition theories are brought to the forefront due to their more sensational nature.

The appeal of these sites is the mistrust of authority and the willingness of so many to ignore factual history in favour of the belief that the US, some say in conjunction with Israel, actually planned and executed 9/11. Tales of high drama and intrigue are woven with facts and fiction. The appeal of this scenario has captured the imagination of millions worldwide. That it is based on a vast assembly of dubious information and rigged scientific examination is lost to most.

I find it particularly offensive in that the foreign perpetrators of the attacks and those in the US who were in some ways complicit, are virtually given a free pass to carry on while the unsubstantiated stories of controlled demolitions and substituted planes or missiles that capture the imagination are thrown out by what I call “Truther” sites. Many young people are taking in all this as if it's unquestionably proven.

We should all want the truth. But a more melodramatic agenda driven "Truth" is not the answer.


Mike




[edit on 20-7-2009 by mmiichael]

reply to post by P1DrummerBoy


You bring up a good point. Anyone who automatically dismisses anything that's on a website because they call it a "truther" site is just showing how fair and unbiased they really are. (Not very.) Instead of a logical debate it becomes a knee-jerk reaction, and you know it's true, I know it's true, everyone here knows it's true. It goes directly from reading a post, to trying to figure out how to attack that post, immature insults and all, and no other kinds of thinking in between. When they don't understand what they are talking about, they just spam links to what other people say, which they also apparently don't understand. In other words just going on faith with a WHOLE lot of sensitive, developing ego pushing it along. Which is where all the insults and condescension, general vitriol come from imo. Only reason I say so is because I used to be the same way when I was a teenager. But I grew up a little.

reply to post by mmiichael

mmiichael, it seems you really want to discuss this blog page since you've linked to it three times so far. I've read it a couple times and there are a few things that don't make sense to me. But here's one I would like to get your opinion about.

He acknowledges early in the post that zinc is only found in some of the samples, yet later during his paint analysis it seems he believes that zinc was found in all the samples. He seems to ignore fig. 7 of the paper which shows samples that contain not a trace of zinc.

I'm wondering if I could get your opinion on this. If this in fact is the primer in the WTC and there is an agreement of the chemical composition of the primer and that 20% of the pigment is known to be zinc yellow, don't you think it's odd that not a trace of zinc is found in at least four of the chips?

Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by mmiichael

 

mmiichael, it seems you really want to discuss this blog page since you've linked to it three times so far. I've read it a couple times and there are a few things that don't make sense to me. But here's one I would like to get your opinion about.

He acknowledges early in the post that zinc is only found in some of the samples, yet later during his paint analysis it seems he believes that zinc was found in all the samples. He seems to ignore fig. 7 of the paper which shows samples that contain not a trace of zinc.

I'm wondering if I could get your opinion on this. If this in fact is the primer in the WTC and there is an agreement of the chemical composition of the primer and that 20% of the pigment is known to be zinc yellow, don't you think it's odd that not a trace of zinc is found in at least four of the chips?

I can't answer you question. We're all dependent on the research of others in this. I can only suggest the provided summary not being fully inclusive.
Also, we don't know how accurate,comprehensive, or representative the elemental breakdown of the chips actually was. That's why larger sampling is important.

You are aware the WTC buildings were constructed over a period of a decade. For various reasons different products were used as formulas were altered, improved, or new ones came on the market.

btw I link to that site as it is the most comprehensive analysis I've ever seen. I consider it as definitive as anything out there.


Mike

reply to post by mmiichael

Okay, but I was just asking your opinion of the facts that have been presented so far. We could make assumptions about things but I'm afraid that might lead us astray into "truther logic."

So let's stick with what is know so far. And let's state it in different terms. Let's get rid of all the chemistry mumbo jumbo and state the problem as a simple case of logic.

We have A.

We know A contains Z.

We would like to see if B, C, D, and E are equal to A.

We find B, C, D, and E do not contain Z.

So how can we say B, C, D, and E are equal to A?

reply to post by mmiichael

Here's another point I'd like to get your opinion on:

On his page he says "in other words, one can deduce that they should be surrounded by a compact layer of aluminum oxide, a material that withstands extremely high temperatures and has a very high hardness" which pretty much is what is stated in the paper when it says "Aluminum particles are covered with a layer of aluminum oxide irrespective of size, thus it is reasonable to find a significant oxygen content with the aluminum, given the very high surface area to volume ratio of these very fine particles." Yet the paper's argument goes on to say "Using a conventional quantification routine, it was found that the aluminum significantly exceeded the oxygen present (approximately a 3:1 ratio). Thus, while some of the aluminum may be oxidized, there is insufficient oxygen present to account for all of the aluminum; some of the aluminum must therefore exist in elemental form in the red material."

In your opinion why do you think this man ended on a point of argument that in fact agrees with the paper, rather than following the paper's argument completely to the end (i.e. the aluminum to oxygen ratio)?

reply to post by mmiichael


Why are you so candid about how little we know and how much research still needs to be done only when talking about YOUR side of this issue, when you can't answer a question? Why is it that I never see you say the same of Jones, Harrit, et. al, only that they are trying to make money and this and that about an "industry" and all number of other nonsense and condescension and insults? Never that their work may have merit and deserves further consideration.

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by mmiichael

 

Why are you so candid about how little we know and how much research still needs to be done only when talking about YOUR side of this issue, when you can't answer a question? Why is it that I never see you say the same of Jones, Harrit, et. al, only that they are trying to make money and this and that about an "industry" and all number of other nonsense and condescension and insults? Never that their work may have merit and deserves further consideration.

Very few professionals with a knowledge of chemistry and/or thermodynamics have shared their opinions on the science in the papers. The ones that have make it clear there are severe problems.

Though there are probably hundreds of papers every year that have errors or have not taken into account all possibilities, this one is particularly egregious because of the willful perversion of science to push an agenda.

That is my opinion and I am not alone with it.

The US govt planting explosives to be detonated after those plane crashed into the WTC is an extraordinary claim and requires extraordinary proof. That would include things such as finding remnants of detonating cord, characteristic explosive residue, an observed sequence of detonations, etc. Controlled demolitions are done at the base level of buildings. None of these were observed visually or forensically. All we have is a couple papers that are at best highly suspect.

If we accept bad science to further their authors's self-serving goals we revert back to the days of snake oil medicine and faith belief in magic.


Mike







[edit on 20-7-2009 by mmiichael]

reply to post by mmiichael


So your response is pretty much because you are arrogant. In so many words. Not because you know any better, or because you can answer NIcon's questions, for example. Thanks for clearing that up.


Edit: I said turbo but I meant NIcon. But either of them really.

[edit on 21-7-2009 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by NIcon
So let's stick with what is know so far. And let's state it in different terms. Let's get rid of all the chemistry mumbo jumbo and state the problem as a simple case of logic.

We have A.

We know A contains Z.

We would like to see if B, C, D, and E are equal to A.

We find B, C, D, and E do not contain Z.

So how can we say B, C, D, and E are equal to A?

I don't think mmiichael is going to understand what you're talking about.

If he does, he's not going to answer directly, he's going to ramble on about something to the effect of "nobody agrees with you so you're wrong." Because you've made it obvious that the page he keeps linking to uses flawed logic.

But good attempt at discussion. Just goes to show that the people who are trying to critique this paper are willing to let a lot of things slide to make a case against it. And you know SOMEONE is going to make a case against it because that's all these people do with their lives, sitting around waiting for someone to do REAL research so they can sit back and pretend that they're somebody important too.

[edit on 20-7-2009 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by mmiichael

 

So your response is pretty much because you are arrogant. In so many words. Not because you know any better, or because you can answer turbo's questions, for example. Thanks for clearing that up.

You obviously can't read. The problems with the Jones et al papers have been elaborated a dozen times by contributors and links.

This forum isn't about showing off one's college science knowledge. The same basic information is accessible in textbooks and available from thousands of others more experienced and qualified.

It's about a certain bad science paper. No arrogance involved in saying something demonstrably false is untrue. I gain nothing from making an observation and pointing it out.

There are objective ethical scientists and there are ones who aren't. We're dealing with the latter strain.

You don't get it, you won't get it.


Mike





[edit on 20-7-2009 by mmiichael]

reply to post by mmiichael

mmiichael, I'm just looking for your opinion on this matter, no one else's. I'm wondering what you think about this argument. I tried to reduce it down to it's basic form, so there is no need for any knowledge of chemistry or thermodynamics. Also, I'm not asking you to admit that this is in fact thermite or if the Bush family took a summer vacation and planted ten tons of it in the towers. I'm just wondering if you (no one else) think this is a logical conclusion that can be made.

Maybe the last version was too abstract, so I reformulated as a more concrete problem:

We have a jar of jellybeans.

By it's label, we know this is a "Grammy's Best" Jar of jellybeans.

We know "Grammy's Best" jars of jellybeans always contain red ones (raspberry - yum!), white ones (coconut -yum! yum!) and black ones (licorice - yuck!)

We have four other jars but there's no label saying that they are "Grammy's Best"

We see these other 4 jars have only red jellybeans and white jellybeans.

so, can we say these four other jars are in fact "Grammy's Best"?

(If you could please give me your opinion on this one, as, if need be, I already have a third rephrasing of this same problem all ready in mind and it involves babies, diapers, and determining if they all ate the same thing...ewwwwwwwwwww! We don't want to see that!)

reply to post by mmiichael



A bad science paper? The same one you continue to attack by posting
links about PAINT?!


This has already been in addressed in the paper, and AGAIN by Harrit
in a separate document which I have alread posted within this thread!

The fact that you and others are still clinging to the paint excuse is just
beyond ignorant.

Still you do not account for iron spheres attached to partially reacted
chips! Explain the source of the spheres, and explain how they are
mechanically attached to a partially reacted chip!?

reply to post by P1DrummerBoy


That is not very logical sir or ma'am. The existance of "truther" sites does not prove the claims contained herein. I could create a site about how the center of the Earth is in fact molten cookie dough. Does that make my claims true?
Just IMHO there are people who see profit in feeding into and feeding off the paranoia of others and THAT is why such sites exist.

Originally posted by NIcon
On his page he says "in other words, one can deduce that they should be surrounded by a compact layer of aluminum oxide, a material that withstands extremely high temperatures and has a very high hardness"

which pretty much is what is stated in the paper when it says

"Aluminum particles are covered with a layer of aluminum oxide irrespective of size, thus it is reasonable to find a significant oxygen content with the aluminum, given the very high surface area to volume ratio of these very fine particles."

Yet the paper's argument goes on to say

"Using a conventional quantification routine, it was found that the aluminum significantly exceeded the oxygen present (approximately a 3:1 ratio). Thus, while some of the aluminum may be oxidized, there is insufficient oxygen present to account for all of the aluminum; some of the aluminum must therefore exist in elemental form in the red material."

In your opinion why do you think this man ended on a point of argument that in fact agrees with the paper, rather than following the paper's argument completely to the end (i.e. the aluminum to oxygen ratio)?

NIcon,

I'm not sure if the Manieri critique is saying a layer of aluminum oxide should be present but is completely absent, or that it is only partially but not completely surrounding the aluminum as would be expected. Possibly this is a problem of the Italian to English translation and better qualification got lost .

The Jones paper explains the lack of available oxygen accounting for elemental aluminum in the red material. It occurred to me there was aluminum cladding on the steel beams which would be in contact with the primer coating, possibly galvanized or mixed with other materials. I wonder if this could have had any effect on the aluminum to oxygen ratio in the red material. I also wonder, wouldn't some aluminum oxidization take place naturally after the samples were exposed to air for all those years in undetermined conditions?

Maybe you can explain in fuller context what Manieri and Jones agreeing or disagreeing on the aluminum oxide formation, or lack thereof, would signify for you.


btw thanks for the jellybean and A B C explanations. On the latter, as we're talking about paint and not arithmetic, just as the same brands of paints had to stop using lead at some point, I imagine zinc can be in some samples and not others.


Mike


[edit on 21-7-2009 by mmiichael]