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

reply to post by pteridine


You just don't understand. I can't explain any more.

If they were comparing nano-thermite enery potential vs. nano-thermite
energy potential, you may have a point. But they are not.

They are comparing an explosive, nano-thermite to ordinary thermite
in this context.

The only thing I can do at this point is contact someone other than
Jones/Harrit with experience in this field to explain it further.

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by pteridine

 

You just don't understand. I can't explain any more.

If they were comparing nano-thermite enery potential vs. nano-thermite
energy potential, you may have a point. But they are not.

They are comparing an explosive, nano-thermite to ordinary thermite
in this context.

The only thing I can do at this point is contact someone other than
Jones/Harrit with experience in this field to explain it further.

Actually, you never could explain it. I do understand and know exactly what they were doing. I'll explain it to you, again.
They realized that they failed to prove thermite because of the exotherm in excess of thermite and had to invoke combustion of the binder to augment the energy output.
The carbonaceous material that is purportedly the "explosive" component has to have air to provide any exotherm, otherwise it just volatilizes and uses some heat in an endothermic process. While it may provide "explosive" pressure on volatilization, it does not provide any additional heat unless there is air present and it can burn.
The method to determine the source of the exotherm is to run the DSC in the absence of oxygen. You may not realize it, but this is the key experiment to prove thermitic reaction; all the other stuff in the paper is pointless filler until this experiment is done.
Here's the way it works: No exotherm, no thermite. Exotherm, maybe thermite.

Originally posted by turbofan
They are comparing an explosive, nano-thermite to ordinary thermite
in this context.

So far all we've been told is there some kind of nano-thermite, supposedly secretly in development at the time.

Well its 8 years later. What is the chemical composition? How was it applied to the steel columns to effectively weaken them? How did the ignition sequencing work? And a hundred other questions?

Sounds more and more like 'magic beans' as we probe deeper.

Jones and Harrit and their buddies can probably spin this forever.

The scientific community sits on the sidelines rolling their eyes.


Mike

reply to post by pteridine


This has more to do with the iron spheres than the exotherm. That is
the point which escpaes you (the temperature and conditions to create
the spheres. The connecting of spheres to partially reacted chips, etc.).

I'm in the process of locating someone who can explain this further,
as well as Jones.

[edit on 25-8-2009 by turbofan]

reply to post by turbofan


The spheres are "iron containing." They are not metallic iron. Look at the data again.

The iron containing spheres are of inderminate origin. You are assuming that they are from a thermitic reaction but until the reaction runs in the absence of air, we are wasting our time looking at the spheres.

Originally posted by turbofan
This has more to do with the iron spheres than the exotherm. That is
the point which escpaes you (the temperature and conditions to create
the spheres. The connecting of spheres to partially reacted chips, etc.).

I'm in the process of locating someone who can explain this further,
as well as Jones.

You're contacting Jones? Great. Tell him to join the discussion.

Wasn't he looking for people to ask him questions?

Lots of questions here.

[CASH PRIZES]

Mike

Originally posted by mmiichael
Well its 8 years later. What is the chemical composition? How was it applied to the steel columns to effectively weaken them? How did the ignition sequencing work? And a hundred other questions?

Why do none of your questions have anything to do with the scientific data in the article you are talking about? That's like me questioning the NIST report because they didn't say which hijacker was sitting in which seat when the planes impacted, or because they didn't prove that the hijackers were competent enough pilots in the first place. Do you know what "non-sequitur" is? "Does not follow." It's a logical fallacy that means your questions are irrelevant to the data you are talking about, and you are changing the subject to something else.

Jones and Harrit and their buddies can probably spin this forever

I find that ironic coming from someone who probably spends 2 or 3 times the amount of time posting on this forum that either of those two scientists do pursuing this work. Dr. Harrit is tenured, which means he has a job.

[edit on 25-8-2009 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by mmiichael
Well its 8 years later. What is the chemical composition? How was it applied to the steel columns to effectively weaken them? How did the ignition sequencing work? And a hundred other questions?

Why do none of your questions have anything to do with the scientific data in the article you are talking about? That's like me questioning the NIST report because they didn't say which hijacker was sitting in which seat when the planes impacted, or because they didn't prove that the hijackers were competent enough pilots in the first place. Do you know what "non-sequitur" is? "Does not follow." It's a logical fallacy that means your questions are irrelevant to the data you are talking about, and you are changing the subject to something else.

Jones and Harrit and their buddies can probably spin this forever

I find that ironic coming from someone who probably spends 2 or 3 times the amount of time posting on this forum that either of those two scientists do pursuing this work. Dr. Harrit is tenured, which means he has a job.

Dropping first year logic terminology and acting as the final arbiter of what's right and wrong may work in your conversational circles. No one particularly cares when you decide something is a non-sequitur or ad-hominem.

This overly long thread started with the proclamation the "Oxygen" excuse was summarily dismissed. I didn't see it.

I don't even remember if it was this thread - the offers to confront Jones for $$$. Well, he's got a waiting audience for him.

Your arbitrary deferment to who is authoritative are inconsistently selective. A Nobel Prize winner on NIST can be questioned. But Harrit being tenured somehow puts him above questioning. Well Jack the Ripper was a practicing physician.

The validity of his science, documented properly, and reproducible is what he can offer. So far many questions and many unsatisfactory answers. There is bad science and there are bad scientists.

And again this is a matter of Forensic Science not pure Experimental. Like solving a murder mystery through evidence. New parameters and demands are put on demonstrating results of a singular event 8 years ago. A high level of rigouressness required.

So far we have poor procedures, dubious conclusions, endless speculations. Deferment to some super duper secret military nano-thermite which somehow will provide answers. So, 8 years on, why aren't samples of this material obtained with comparative and double blind tests done?

It's entertaining arguing this stuff. Few would even look twice.
Most scientists would just shake their heads.

Isn't the agenda here self-evident?


Mike

[edit on 25-8-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael
No one particularly cares when you decide something is a non-sequitur or ad-hominem.

Nope. I care, because that's what you're posting. And then I respond to you, telling you that you're posting them. And then you care enough to respond to me. So that's two people that care, and wouldn't you know it, it happens to be me and you, who are talking to each other?

A Nobel Prize winner on NIST can be questioned. But Harrit being tenured somehow puts him above questioning.

You weren't questioning anything, you were ranting and making personal attacks. There has been zero science in your last string of posts, only trash talk. And this post was just more of the same. Yes, the agenda is self-evident. You just like reading your own posts.

Originally posted by bsbray11
I respond to you, telling you that you're posting them. And then you care enough to respond to me. So that's two people that care, and wouldn't you know it, it happens to be me and you, who are talking to each other?

You weren't questioning anything, you were ranting and making personal attacks. There has been zero science in your last string of posts, only trash talk. And this post was just more of the same. Yes, the agenda is self-evident. You just like reading your own posts.

Actually I hate reading something I just typed. Like looking into a toilet bowl after you're finished.

You must realize I make an effort to pull my punches with you. You don't. I don't track how often you post, how many times you drag in your cherished Eutectic Reactions. Insults are the recourse of the inarticulate. Once you start you are admitting defeat.

There is some begrudging mutual respect I sense. That we're dealing with a seeking intelligence out there.

I don't attach my identity to all this, though I think you do.

I learn a lot by interfacing with fairly aberrant belief systems that mean a lot to some people. So much that they will seek reinforcement even in the face of conflicting information. It's often like telling a Creationist humanity evolved over millions of years. They will still default to the beliefs that contribute to their identity.

It becomes less about hard facts and more about being right.

Not the way to go if you're trying to learn.


Mike

Originally posted by mmiichael
Insults are the recourse of the inarticulate. Once you start you are admitting defeat.

If you really believed that you wouldn't post them so often. We've had this conversation before.

It becomes less about hard facts and more about being right.

Not the way to go if you're trying to learn.

I'm glad you're so candid but can you back-track and post some kind of data that debunks the paper instead of just attacking Harrit and Jones instead for the trillionth time? Yes? No? Maybe?

Originally posted by bsbray11
I'm glad you're so candid but can you back-track and post some kind of data that debunks the paper instead of just attacking Harrit and Jones instead for the trillionth time? Yes? No? Maybe?

I rarely try exchanging scientific information on this thread any more because either:

1) it gets no response

2) the source gets dismissed as unreliable

3) uncomfortable questions just get bundled off

4) it's become apparent anything that pushes the Jones-Harrit theorem is open to further discussion, anything conflicting really isn't

In these pages I've seen the thermite claim blasted to smithereens on a number of fronts. And that just gets ignored.

No one really wants to be informed, just have their pet theories reinforced.

My remarks are in response to this phenomenon.


Mike

[edit on 25-8-2009 by mmiichael]

reply to post by mmiichael


Huh.... so..... you aren't even going to try to post any actual science anymore. From here on out, insulting rants and even more insulting rants about how we don't post science and don't listen to you. Gotcha. That ends this discussion.

reply to post by bsbray11


I recall reading how astronomers use various kinds of telescopes to derive information about distant star formations based on visible and non visible light bands. I am wondering if it is possible to re-examine photos of the incident using such devices to reveal what elements are escaping the fires and at what rates, etc.

Probably not a scientific idea, but an idea nonetheless.

reply to post by skycopilot


That data would already have to have been recorded using special cameras. I don't think there is any way to go back and extract invisible forms of light radiation out of the videos; what they recorded is what you see and hear. I remember someone took footage with a heat camera but that's the closest to what you ask I have seen. Unless someone took it that day but never released it, which wouldn't surprise me much.

Originally posted by pteridineThe iron containing spheres are of inderminate origin. You are assuming that they are from a thermitic reaction but until the reaction runs in the absence of air, we are wasting our time looking at the spheres.

inderminate? Indeterminate?

If the latter, that is incorrect. We know they are produce from the red/gray
chips.

We know the chips have a chemical signature and DSC trace that
resembles a known control sample of nano-thermite.

The back-scattered images also compare closely to the control sample.

Three distinct items which parallel each other. Coincidence? Hardly.

I will look at the data again, and discuss it with Jones, or whomever
I can find that is qualified to respond. When I return I will be posting
a breakdown in simple terms for the entire community to understand.

reply to post by turbofan


Indeterminate origin of the spheres means we don't know how they came to be, just that they are there. They are not all iron and some even contain carbon in addition to oxygen, aluminum, silicon, and calcium.

The key experiment continues to be DSC under inert.

reply to post by pteridine


Come on, don't play dumb. Don't even try to suggest that Jones did
not test these chips and produced spheres after igniting the chips.

Don't even bother going down that road Pterdine because you and I,
and everyone else know the spheres can be reproduced by igniting
the chips.

We also know they are some times attached to partially reacted chips.

The Carbon has been explained in the paper as being added to preclude
charging under the electron beam.

In addition, the Iron content is twice that of Oxygen in the post chip ignition
XEDS which proves there is some elemental iron present.

You want to have a serious discussion about this stuff - don't spew garbage
within the thread.


[edit on 26-8-2009 by turbofan]

[edit on 26-8-2009 by turbofan]

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by pteridine

 

Come on, don't play dumb. Don't even try to suggest that Jones did
not test these chips and produced spheres after igniting the chips.

The Carbon has been explained in the paper as being added to preclude
charging under the electron beam.

In addition, the Iron content is twice that of Oxygen in the post chip ignition
XEDS which proves there is some elemental iron present.

You want to have a serious discussion about this stuff - don't spew garbage
within the thread.

Focus, Turbo, focus.
There is no evidence of thermite until the reaction runs in the absence of air. Do you understand this concept? Is there anything about this concept that confuses you? Do you now understand that your "oxygen excuse" statement is incorrect and that the criticism was valid?

The spheres appear during an ignition which includes, according to the paper, a combustion in air, so no one knows if they are thermitic or not. Flashing the sample with gold to prevent charging would have removed any ambiguity with respect to carbon. As it is, there may or may not be carbon in the spheres; another uncertainty because of yet another analytical miscue. In any case, the spheres contain other elements in addition to iron and oxygen. No one knows their chemical structure or origin but they are of secondary importance until thermitic reaction is proven.

Garbage spewing is Bentham's forte. Talk to the authors.

Originally posted by lazimodoNo NYPD yellow tape. No FBI forensics teams. No ATF analysis, No FAA investigation. No NTSB Investigation.

From a country that gave the world such classics as Marcus Welby MD, CSI , The Hill Street Blues (Hey Pizza Man), Kojack(who loves ya baby?), Hawaii 50(Bookem Dano), and The X-Files, this was to say the least, a disappointment. WTF happened. Its not what they are saying happened.

Psst - they're made up.

And people wonder why the truth movement often seems to be a confused product of America's visual entertainment culture.