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

Originally posted by NIcon
A question I have is, is this guy claiming that the organic binder combusted yet the chip did not react like Jones' chip? That the organic binder combusted yet did not form the iron rich microspheres in Jones' chips? That the carbon combusted under air and still did not form these microspheres?

Doesn't this prove that a reaction other than combustion did in fact take place in Jones'chips? Doesn't this go against what's been argued in this thread about what may have happened, i.e. simple combustion?

As for the gray layer being "Micaceous Iron Oxide" it's not much of an arguement to say it's 10 microns thick and it looks like it, but I took his suggestion and googled it. I found this page: www.enviroprotectcoatings.com...

I don't see any layered plates like I find on this page. I don't see them in Jones' paper or Henry-Couannier's paper. So I'm going to need more than "it's 10 microns and it looks like this one photo."

Also not included in the quote from randi.org is this "It contains Kaolin and red iron oxide pigment - paint!" So he's still maintaining what we're looking at is Kaolin, but I still don't see how this can be if there's very little silicon in figure 17 and absolutely no aluminum in figure 16.

Henryco says just that. He is a true believer in CD so he suspects that his chips have been sabotaged or that they are a false trail to lead researchers away from the cold fusion device that brought the towers down. Jones would then be a disinformation agent. The links were provided mainly to show the controversy over the evidence, or rather lack of evidence. Backscatter analyses seem to show elemental aluminum but SEM stages are aluminum and that aluminum is sometimes seen in samples with open structures. This entire question could be easily resolved with a DSC under inert; reaction or no reaction, and energies would be less than theoretical maxima without burning paint.
Personally, I think it is just plain paint because a thermitic paint would be pointless, as it would not have much effect on a building and certainly couldn't demolish it.

Originally posted by pteridine
The red chips exceed the theoretical energy release for the reaction. It doesn’t matter how small they are, they can’t exceed the theoretical maximum. Smallness only makes the reaction faster, it can’t change the thermodynamics.

OK people, it's time to teach Pteridine how to read and understand
English.

Twice I have told him the paper compares the THEORETICAL MAXIMUM of
CONVENTIONAL THERMITE to the energy release of the chips.

Pteridine is unable to understand this point and feels that because
CONVENTIONAL THERMITE can theorteically produce "X" amount of
energy...that the elements within the chips should be limited to that
potential.



Let's stop there and see if Pteridine is capable of understanding this fact,
and if he is able to source a paragraph in the paper which states otherwise.


After we get past this easy quesiton, we will expose the rest of the
misunderstandings of his reply at the bottom of page 62...as his entire
post hinges on the "Theoretical Maximum of Thermite"

[edit on 30-8-2009 by turbofan]

Originally posted by turbofan

Originally posted by pteridine
The red chips exceed the theoretical energy release for the reaction. It doesn’t matter how small they are, they can’t exceed the theoretical maximum. Smallness only makes the reaction faster, it can’t change the thermodynamics.

OK people, it's time to teach Pteridine how to read and understand
English.

Twice I have told him the paper compares the THEORETICAL MAXIMUM of
CONVENTIONAL THERMITE to the energy release of the chips.

Pteridine is unable to understand this point and feels that because
CONVENTIONAL THERMITE can theorteically produce "X" amount of
energy...that the elements within the chips should be limited to that
potential.

Let's stop there and see if Pteridine is capable of understanding this fact,
and if he is able to source a paragraph in the paper which states otherwise.


After we get past this easy quesiton, we will expose the rest of the
misunderstandings of his reply at the bottom of page 62...as his entire
post hinges on the "Theoretical Maximum of Thermite"

[edit on 30-8-2009 by turbofan]

Turbo, you are blissfully ignorant of what you are speaking about. My posts hinge on the poorly done paper that you never bothered to read. I will respond to your stalling while you frantically try to get the Jones team to write the response for you. You are completely out of your depth, have no original thoughts, and are a fine example of the truther movement.
The elements within the chips are limited to the theoretical energy output via the thermite reaction. They can get additional energy by burning the carbonaceous matrix which is probably what was happening with the DSC, in air. Two of the chips showed much less energy than the theoretical maximum and two showed much more. If this was as "highly engineered" as Jones claimed, why would there be so much difference? Kind of erratic, for a "highly engineered super thermite" don't you think? More like a lowly engineered paint.


Since you either haven't read the paper or don't understand it, I'll provide the quote where Jones confesses his error. From the paper on page 27:

"It is striking that some of the red/gray chips release more energy in kJ/g than does ordinary thermite, as shown in the blue bar graphs above. The theoretical maximum for thermite is 3.9 kJ/g [27]. We suggest that the organic material in evidence in the red/gray chips is also highly energetic, most likely producing gas to provide explosive pressure. Again, conventional thermite is regarded as an incendiary whereas
super-thermite, which may include organic ingredients for
rapid gas generation, is considered a pyrotechnic or explosive
[6, 24]. As this test was done in air it is possible that some of the enhancement of energy output may have come from air oxidation of the organic component."

Jones hasn't bothered to identify the paint binder and makes no attempt to analyze such. The elemental composition has nothing in it to suggest that it is highly energetic. Further, the military super thermites use ordinary polymers to generate gas from the energy release of the thermitic reaction. Inconsistent again.
Jones' words are speculative except that he notes that air oxidation could be the cause of the excess energy. He is obviously in a corner and has to come up with something that explains the excess energy so says that maybe burning has something to do with it. This is a confession of the screwup of running the DSC in air.
All that needs be done is a DSC under inert because until that shows thermitic reaction, it is only paint.

[edit on 8/30/2009 by pteridine]

I don't understand, nor have I read the paper? Haha, that's funny Pt!

I've already schooled you and answered your questions before receiving
any reply from scholars, or Jones. They simply supplimented my replies
and have gone further in depth with their expertise. Just read through the
63+ pages of you'll see the proof.

Everyone else here (including myself) has exposed you long ago.

Now, back to English class for you. Let's break down this paragraph that
you quoted for a SECOND TIME.

"It is striking that some of the red/gray chips release more energy in kJ/g than does ordinary thermite, as shown in the blue bar graphs above.

Yes, it is striking that the red/gray chips release MORE energy in KJ/g than
does ordinary thermite.

Nothing here that equates the red/gray chips to ordinary thermite.

Just a comparison of energy levels.

The theoretical maximum for thermite is 3.9 kJ/g [27].

Once again, this is a statement backed up by a reference.

This says the theoretical maximum for thermite is 3.9 KJ/g.

Simple? Understand thus far? If yes, then proceed.

We suggest that the organic material in evidence in the red/gray chips is also highly energetic, most likely producing gas to provide explosive pressure.

The scientist say that the ORGANIC material observed is ALSO highly
energetic.

They ALSO say the material is likely producing a gas to create great
amounts of pressure. As my last response pages ago...and before
contacting Scholar mentioned: pressure/volume work.

Again, conventional thermite is regarded as an incendiary whereas
super-thermite, which may include organic ingredients for
rapid gas generation, is considered a pyrotechnic or explosive
[6, 24].

Wow, a comparison between conventional thermite and super thermite!
They tell you right there some differences and how they each function!
They even include a reference!

As this test was done in air it is possible that some of the enhancement of energy output may have come from air oxidation of the organic component.

Air may have contributed to SOME of the energy enhancement; but we
all now know that the aluminothermic reaction and the narrow DSC trace
is not indicative of air oxidation.

We also know the scientists used the same rate of air flow as the control
sample test; yet the energy output is much higher.

Why is that Mr. Pt.?

Is it possible we're not dealing with the same nano-thermite composition,
but something MUCH more potent?! Gee! Why, yes!

How do we know this? Because the same controlled environement was
used for both tests.

Reaction temperatures were hot enough to create iron spheres; some
still attached to partially reacted chips.

Aluminothermic reactions occured.

We see no mention that the chips exceeded THEIR OWN theoretical
maximum energy output!

In fact nothing in the paper even suggests such a claim.



[edit on 30-8-2009 by turbofan]

reply to post by turbofan


Your comment “We see no mention that the chips exceeded THEIR OWN theoretical maximum energy output!” is really a dumb statement. Certainly they can’t exceed their own theoretical energy. I said that two of the chips exceeded the total energy for thermite and, interestingly, two didn’t. Jones agrees and says combustion occurred. How much combustion? Jones doesn’t know. How do you think we find out? Do you want to hazard a guess of what the key experiment might be?

Further, if they were the same highly engineered material, we would expect them to be somewhat consistent. Have your writers explain that energy output inconsistency by a factor of four to you so you can tell the world in your next post.

You again continue to school me in your complete ignorance. The paper states:
"We suggest that the organic material in evidence in the red/gray chips is also highly energetic, most likely producing gas to provide explosive pressure."
You said: "The scientist say that the ORGANIC material observed is ALSO highly energetic."
So what? They say many things that are not necessarily true. Read it, Turbo. The scientists SUGGESTED that the organic material is highly energetic. That means that they don't have any proof, nor are they likely to get any if this paper is an example of their work. What they say without proof doesn't mean anything except to those who have no standards for evidence, such as true believers like you.
Then you struck paydirt. You said “We also know the scientists used the same rate of air flow as the control sample test; yet the energy output is much higher.”
Doesn’t that bother you at all? Doesn’t a much higher energy output per unit weight than a new super thermite seem suspicious, to you? Are you so lacking in critical thinking ability that you accept everything they say without question? But then again, you think someone made tons of it and surreptitiously painted the largest buildings in the world with it. Then you believe that there was ten tons of the stuff, unburned, in the dust. It was so well engineered, it didn’t react.

They haven't proved thermite. They haven’t shown thermitic reaction. They haven’t shown energetic binder. Nothing they have published has made any part of their case. There are serious inconsistencies in the samples of the "highly engineered" material that makes it look more and more like normally engineered paint.

Are you ready to concede that the first experiment that must be done to show evidence of thermite is DSC under inert? Or are you still too stubborn to admit your error?

Originally posted by pteridineYour comment “We see no mention that the chips exceeded THEIR OWN theoretical maximum energy output!” is really a dumb statement.

Not a dumb statement as it's what you have implied all along...just trying
to highlight your ignorance is all.

I said that two of the chips exceeded the total energy for thermite and, interestingly, two didn’t.

What's your point? Do you think everything in nature is equal and behaves
similarly just because it has the same molecular structure?

Big deal...two chips didn't perform as efficiently as the other two. Several
factors come into play. Maybe one of the engineered chips didn't have
the optimum ratio of elements?

It happens all the time Pt. Do you own a car? Ever do an emssions test?
Why do some hydrocarbons escape into the atmosphere and some don't?
Why do some power stroke yield more BMEP than others? It's called Nature.

Jones agrees and says combustion occurred. How much combustion? Jones doesn’t know. How do you think we find out? Do you want to hazard a guess of what the key experiment might be?

Might it be an INERT DSC TEST?!!!?

Does it really matter if we already know the following:

- air oxidation cannot produce a fast exotherm as shown in the DSC
- ignition temperatures are FAR OVER what open air combustion can achieve to form iron spheres
- aluminothermic reactions were proven

Do you even understand what these points mean? The chips outperformed
a KNOWN CONTROL SAMPLE OF NANO THERMITE USING THE SAME RATE
OF AIR FLOW!!!!!

Do you GET IT Pt?

If a known control sample of nano-thermite could not produce a narrower
exotherm and higher energy output in AIR...then...guess what...wait for it...
THE CHIPS MUST HAVE A MORE EXPLOSIVE AND HIGHER ENERGY POTENTIAL!!!!

Everyone else here understand this, and YOU DO NOT! You claim to be
some sort of chem. expert?

Further, if they were the same highly engineered material, we would expect them to be somewhat consistent.

BS

You will always have failures in mass produced, human engineered materials within a reasonable percentage.

Thinking otherwise is totally amateur. Go ahead and find me one example
of a human made product, substance, etc. that exhibits 100% efficiency
and consistency.

We're all waiting...again , rolling eyes for you >


Have your writers explain that energy output inconsistency by a factor of four to you so you can tell the world in your next post.

They say many things that are not necessarily true. Read it, Turbo. The scientists SUGGESTED that the organic material is highly energetic. That means that they don't have any proof

They don't have any proof?!

Did you see the DSC GRAPH?!

I gotta write Scholars again to get them on here. Maybe they'll laugh
as hard as I am right now.

[edit on 30-8-2009 by turbofan]

BS

You will always have failures in mass produced, human engineered materials within a reasonable percentage.

Thinking otherwise is totally amateur. Go ahead and find me one example
of a human made product, substance, etc. that exhibits 100% efficiency
and consistency.

The question is the wrong question anyway. The production was uniform, thats whats important.

They haven't proved thermite

They proved incendiary however, which is all it takes to prove foul play.



[edit on 30-8-2009 by jprophet420]

reply to post by turbofan


“Not a dumb statement as it's what you have implied all along...just trying to highlight your ignorance is all.”
......You are highlighting your own lack of reading comprehension. It may be what you inferred, but I did not say it. I said that two of the chips exceeded the total theoretical energy for thermite and, interestingly, two didn’t.

“What's your point? Do you think everything in nature is equal and behaves similarly just because it has the same molecular structure? Big deal...two chips didn't perform as efficiently as the other two. Several factors come into play. Maybe one of the engineered chips didn't have the optimum ratio of elements? “
.......“Several factors come into play?” That sounds like you have no idea why there is such a discrepancy. Maybe they aren’t as engineered as you claim they are. A factor of four is a broad range for something that is “highly engineered” with the "same molecular structure." Based on this, they don't have the same molecular structure, at all.

“Might it be an INERT DSC TEST?!!!?”
.......It is. Maybe you can learn, after all.

“Does it really matter if we already know the following:

- air oxidation cannot produce a fast exotherm as shown in the DSC
- ignition temperatures are FAR OVER what open air combustion can achieve to form iron spheres
- aluminothermic reactions were proven

Do you even understand what these points mean? The chips outperformed
a KNOWN CONTROL SAMPLE OF NANO THERMITE USING THE SAME RATE
OF AIR FLOW!!!!!”

.......You don't know "the following" so it does matter. How do you know air oxidation can’t produce an exotherm over a 40*C range? That could be dependent on the amount of carbon available to burn. How do you know what the temperatures were? Were they measured?
No aluminothermic reactions were proven.
There was more energy released per unit weight than the super thermite by factors of 1.5 to 2. What sort of material would release more energy per unit weight than super thermite? Do you believe that a super advanced, super-duper thermite was painted on the WTC in multi-ton quantities? What sorts of materials do you think would release even more energy per unit mass than super-duper thermite? There are many, actually -- any hydrocarbon; salad oil; peanut butter; sawdust; maybe even paint.

“If a known control sample of nano-thermite could not produce a narrower exotherm and higher energy output in AIR...then...guess what...wait for it...
THE CHIPS MUST HAVE A MORE EXPLOSIVE AND HIGHER ENERGY POTENTIAL!!!!

Everyone else here understand this, and YOU DO NOT! You claim to be some sort of chem. expert?”
.......You'll be waiting for it for a while, turbo. More explosive? No explosiveness was shown. Do you have any data about the explosive power or is this just another one of your fantasies?

I don't claim anything. I post to keep people like Jones honest and to help non-technical people like you understand the science.

“They don't have any proof?! Did you see the DSC GRAPH?!”

.......Yes, I saw it. Unfortunetely, it was erroneously done in air. It could be combustion of the highly engineered chips, couldn’t it? How can we eliminate that possibility? Are you ready to admit that your "oxygen excuse" excuse was wrong.

“I gotta write Scholars again to get them on here. Maybe they'll laugh as hard as I am right now.”
........Or maybe they won’t laugh at all.




[edit on 8/30/2009 by pteridine]

Originally posted by jprophet420

BS

You will always have failures in mass produced, human engineered materials within a reasonable percentage.

Thinking otherwise is totally amateur. Go ahead and find me one example
of a human made product, substance, etc. that exhibits 100% efficiency
and consistency.

The question is the wrong question anyway. The production was uniform, thats whats important.

They haven't proved thermite

They proved incendiary however, which is all it takes to prove foul play.

[edit on 30-8-2009 by jprophet420]

What do you mean by "production was uniform?" What was produced and how uniform was it?

They proved incendiary in that it burns in air. So does paper.

Originally posted by pteridineI don't claim anything. I post to keep people like Jones honest and to help non-technical people like you understand the science.

A no name internet kid thinks he' s better than a Ph.D.! Honest?
You think Jones is pulling a fast one on ya? You've got some nerve
"Pteridine".


Peanuts, paint, paper...all you do is pick one aspect of the study and
focus on your fantasty.

You show me a peanut, paint, or paper that has a similar DSC trace, chemical
composition, backscatter, etc. and we'll talk.

Just keep on yapping without providing an alteranitve that fits all the
criteria and tests shown in the paper.



[edit on 31-8-2009 by turbofan]

Originally posted by turbofan

Originally posted by pteridineI don't claim anything. I post to keep people like Jones honest and to help non-technical people like you understand the science.

A no name internet kid thinks he' s better than a Ph.D.! Honest?
You think Jones is pulling a fast one on ya? You've got some nerve
"Pteridine".

Peanuts, paint, paper...all you do is pick one aspect of the study and
focus on your fantasty.

You show me a peanut, paint, or paper that has a similar DSC trace, chemical
composition, backscatter, etc. and we'll talk.

Just keep on yapping without providing an alteranitve that fits all the
criteria and tests shown in the paper.

You must be getting desperate as you are now trying to deflect the debate and personally challenge me. Has the Scholars team abandoned you?
It seems that when you talk yourself into a corner all you do is pick one aspect of the discussion and focus on your fantasty.
I choose to remain as "pteridine." You do not need to know my background or educational level. So far I have shown the errors in Jones' paper, pointed out to you that Basile confirmed only the SEM analysis, and brought forward the conflicting analysis by Henryco while you postured, waffled, and misrepresented the results of a paper that you clearly do not understand, even with the help of scriptwriters. Pulling a fast one? Maybe pulling a "slow one" would better describe the events. I obviously have the nerve to call out anyone, including Jones and you, Turbo. Why should I stand in awe of a retired physics professor and a wannabe engineer from PFT?
As to simlar DSC traces, why don't you explain to everyone how the nano-thermite trace is similar to the trace of the chip. Note how the shapes, onset temperatures, and durations are all completely different. Do you claim that the traces are completely different but similar?
The energy releases are erratic; two are in great excess of the theoretical maximum of thermite and cannot be explained by anything other than combustion of the "highly engineered" chips. The energy per unit mass of the materials I referred to greatly exceed thermite, super-thermite, nano-thermite, and super-duper top-secret nano-thermite. This is because they burn in air but the air is not weighed so it does not enter into the calculation.

What experiment do you think the Jones' team needs to do to prove thermitic reaction, Turbo?

While we're waiting, explain again how the DSC traces are "similar."

Originally posted by turbofan
A no name internet kid thinks he' s better than a Ph.D.! Honest?
You think Jones is pulling a fast one on ya? You've got some nerve
"Pteridine".

Just keep on yapping without providing an alteranitve that fits all the
criteria and tests shown in the paper.

The world is filled wih PhDs turbo. A lot of things they claim turn out to be dead wrong.

The alernative to Jones's results, as seen by the rest of the scientific world is that he has tried to force a conclusion with some tested paint chips samples that isn't really there. He decided on a result and ignored any data and explanations that conflicted with his expectations. That's not science.


Mike


[edit on 31-8-2009 by mmiichael]

reply to post by turbofan


Turbo,
The scientific debate rages on and you seem to be avoiding it.
Your readers want to know why there is an energy output discrepancy by a factor of 4 for the “highly engineered” thermitic paint.
They want you to explain how the DSC trace of the chips is “similar” to the DSC trace of the known super thermite.
They want to hear why the DSC under inert isn’t necessary to prove the reaction.
They want to see the evidence of the energetic binder and the explosive nature of the chips after you posted “THE CHIPS MUST HAVE A MORE EXPLOSIVE AND HIGHER ENERGY POTENTIAL.”
This shouldn’t strain your mental capacities or those of your team. You should easily be able to rebut a “no name internet kid [who] thinks he’s better than a Ph.D.” with the help of all of those PhD scientists. SEM, EDAX, DSC, organic solvents, conductivity -- wow, that stuff is overwhelming for a no-name internet kid. I don’t stand a chance against those denizens of the scientific world. I hope you have the fortitude to respond and don’t have to reuse that weak “Several factors come into play” excuse for why you can’t.
Of course, if you can’t rebut the technical criticisms and your support team won’t help you, just say so. Confession is good for the soul.
As to your last deflection, “Just keep on yapping without providing an alternative that fits all the criteria and tests shown in the paper, “ here is an alternative that fits the data in the paper; it’s just PAINT.

Nope, it’s not thermite….so much for the ‘oxygen excuse’ excuse.

Originally posted by turbofan...Do you even understand what these points mean? The chips outperformed a KNOWN CONTROL SAMPLE OF NANO THERMITE USING THE SAME RATE OF AIR FLOW!!!!!...

Pterdine, in reference to the above quote, would you suggest that the samples Jones has, which you firmly believe are paint chips, produce more explosive power than a known control sample of nano-thermite?

To answer a question you posted recently, yes, it WOULD bother me to know that this stuff is apparently very highly engineered, yet there is a large amount of unreacted material...but doesnt the fact that the stuff you say is paint is more powerful than nano thermite?

(Edits for my apparent lack of English skills)

[edit on 1/9/2009 by P1DrummerBoy]

[edit on 1/9/2009 by P1DrummerBoy]

reply to post by P1DrummerBoy


After 63 pages and a few explanations by scientists and everyone here,
please tell me Pt has gotten over the 'paint' excuse?

Do I ( we) have to take him off ignore and explain this to him again?

If anyone is confused slight as to why it might be paint, let's go over this
together just to make sure we understand. You may also reference the
NIST report which shows the chemical composition of the primer used,
along with the stability during the thermal testing.

Anyone still on that paint train should be able to produce some sort of
scientific backing (IE: XEDS, Backscatter, DSC, etc.) to support their
claims...otherwise as Jones stated:

"Just ignore them. Any response without review does not hold water in
the scientific community."

It's nice to know that besides the peer review, we now have two additional
scientists confirming the paper.

Originally posted by turbofan
It's nice to know that besides the peer review, we now have two additional
scientists confirming the paper.

You calling Truther confederates like Belisle scientists?

Can't Jones even muster up some out of work independent scientist to parrot him?

This whole thing is so amateur.


M

Originally posted by P1DrummerBoy

Originally posted by turbofan...Do you even understand what these points mean? The chips outperformed a KNOWN CONTROL SAMPLE OF NANO THERMITE USING THE SAME RATE OF AIR FLOW!!!!!...

Pterdine, in reference to the above quote, would you suggest that the samples Jones has, which you firmly believe are paint chips, produce more explosive power than a known control sample of nano-thermite?

To answer a question you posted recently, yes, it WOULD bother me to know that this stuff is apparently very highly engineered, yet there is a large amount of unreacted material...but doesnt the fact that the stuff you say is paint is more powerful than nano thermite?

The samples produce NO explosive power, based on the evidence. In two cases, the chips are producing more energy per unit mass than any thermitic material, nano- or otherwise, and can only produce this amount of energy if combustion in air is occurring. Jones won't admit it and Turbofan either doesn't understand it or won't admit his error, either.

Paint, polymers, paper, and any other carbonaceous material have more energy than thermite. That doesn't mean that they necessarily burn faster or hotter than thermite, only that they have more energy per unit weight. Certainly, masses of molten iron are more of a problem than smoldering ash, but the total energy released from combustion of paper is higher, per unit weight, than thermite. This is because the oxygen that they are using is coming from the air in the DSC and it is not measured as part of the mass of material. Note, in Jones' paper, reference values for explosives are not far above thermite because they also include the weight of oxygen.

Hey Drummer,

I found these images to further prove it's not paint:





As you can see, the spheres are attached to partially reacted chips.
Harrit/Jones did before/after tests of the chips and discovered that once
ignited, these spheres would be produced.

In order for the once iron to become spherical it must undergo extreme
temperatures, and thermal transistion at a rapid rate.

This is indicative of explosive, highly energetic material.

These spheres would not form if the temperatures were low; the iron
would simply melt and you would end up with a "flat", random blob shape
- not a sphere. Perhaps something like this:



Hope that clears things up. If anyone debates you on this point, ask them
to find a paint that can produce iron spheres at an ignition temperature of
430'C. NIST couldn't do it upwards of 600-800'C.




[edit on 1-9-2009 by turbofan]

reply to post by turbofan


Turbo,
I can see that you have abandoned your lost position and resigned. The diagnostic for your surrender is using the standard truther technique of avoiding defeat and reality by pressing the ignore button. On your other hot thread, the taxicab challenge you are losing your arguments to Trebor and you say,
“Alright everyone, please ignore and block "Trebor".

This is his way of saying, "I can't answer the simple question, yet I still believe... so block me and spare me the trouble of trying to explain the impossible."

You appeal to your fellow travelers, who also supposedly seek the truth, to shut their eyes and plug their ears so they don’t hear any of it or even any dissent and then you call the government suppressive.
That means you can't hack it. I actually thought that you’d put up a fight but, technically, you are out of your league and so is Jones, so I guess I am not surprised that you folded.
You cannot address the many faults of Jones' paper or admit his many errors and must revert to the technique of putting those who best you on "ignore." Jones doesn’t want anything like the truth either, he only wants what will get him attention like his science never did, so he tells you:
"Just ignore them. Any response without review does not hold water in the scientific community."
When it comes to holding water in the scientific community, Jones is a sieve. He also forgets to mention the lack of a serious review of his paper and forgets to note that responses to papers can be critical reviews.

You cannot explain the great energy differences between "highly engineered" chips, you cannot explain how two completely different DSC traces are somehow "similar," you will not admit that the analytical protocol in the paper is faulty, you focus on sphere formation but have no idea what they are and claim thermitic reaction in spite of that. You retreat in the face of strong argument because you don't want to accept the possibility that your hero is wrong.

Now I understand the PffffT abbreviation. I'll put you on the list for a spine transplant.

Anybody catch the National Geographic Special on the air last night?

They addressed a lot of the common conspiracy notions - including controlled demolition. They showed what goes into a real planned demolition and what the results look like.

They even did a test with a load of thermite on a steel beam only a few inches wide. Not very impressive results.


Mike