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

page: 68
172
<< 65  66  67    69  70  71 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


The way to determine if such a reaction is occurring is to first show the reaction occurs in the absence of air. This will allow discrimination between reaction and combustion and show how much of the unexplained exotherm was due to combustion. Spheres, temperature estimates and all the other guesswork do not show the reaction. They may hint at it but they are not definitive.
Once reaction is shown in the absence of air, one must have a chemist analyze the red chips. The analysis of the matrix could be done with IR and the filler materials could be analyzed with XRD as a first cut. Separation of these components for further analysis, if required, is possible with an appropriate solvent. Solvents and solvent systems known to disrupt coatings include CH2Cl2, DMF, DMSO, and similar compounds.
All of this basic organic and analytical chemistry seems to have eluded Team Thermite. Maybe they'll get it right the next time.




posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 08:17 AM
link   
Answer the question and stop dancing around the obvious. You know full
well that if the sphere is mostly iron, you don't need an inert gas to prove
a thermetic reaction.

You know this. You are avoding the answer because it will prove you
have been wrong for 68 pages.

Question:

What is your acceptable Fe ratio / percentage of the sphere's total mass
to show a thermetic reaction occured?



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 05:11 PM
link   
When at least half the energy of one sample chip must be from combustion, as I have already proved to you, you certainly need to do the experiment in the absence of air. If there is no reaction, there is no thermite. This is what I have been saying for 68 pages and you have been avoiding responding except to talk about spheres stuck to melted chips, attack of the no-show "scholars," and anything else to avoid the issue. You have done everything in your power to avoid admitting that you were completely wrong with the thread title and all of your arguments are in vain. I have instructed you time and again on this and you continually change the subject. The spheres don't matter until the reaction is shown. You have no idea of their molecular structures or formation temperatures. You don't even know if they were hidden in the coating and only appeared when the matrix ignited. They are what is referred to as "red herrings."
Pay attention, Turbo.
1. Jones' data show that combustion is occurring.
2. An experiment must be done that eliminates the combustion to determine energy output.
3. This same experiment will show reaction in the absence of air if thermite is present and allow measurement of energy output from the reaction.
4. This same experiment will show the presence of elemental aluminum with an endotherm at 660*C.
5. This experiment is the DSC under inert.

To show that no combustion is occuring, use Jones' data and prove it. To show thermitic reactions occurred, ask Jones to run the DSC under inert.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
When at least half the energy of one sample chip must be from combustion, as I have already proved to you


You haven't proved ANYTHING. You can't even tell me how you're coming
up with this conclusion.

From what you've said before, you're equating the nano-chips to conventional
thermite!


That's not very smart pt.!


you certainly need to do the experiment in the absence of air.


No you do not because Iron melts at temperatures well above anything
than burns in an open environment - considering the elements seen in
the XEDS.

Also as I have explained several times, over and over...the spheres are
formed due to a very quick thermal and/or pressure transitoin.

the spheres do NOT form from regular combustion; normal combustion
would be too slow in temperature and pressure delta to form a sphere.
You need explosive enegy for this to happen.

Now, once again:

What percentage of Iron in the spheres is acceptable to you in order to
prove a thermetic reaction?

Please give me an answer. This is very simple. one question.


[edit on 16-9-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 

I'll answer your challenge and issue one of my own. 100% metallic iron, proved to come from a reaction in the absence of air. How's that?

I have proved that combustion occurred in the DSC and you did not understand it or won't admit it. See my previous posts using Jones own data. Jones even alludes to it in his paper but is also wont to admit it. Page 27 "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." Possible? Certain. They can't do arithmetic, either.

Here is your challenge: Show some of your engineering and mathematical prowess and calculate the composition of a super thermite that produces more thermal energy by weight than the more energetic chips, in the absence of air. No combustion in air allowed. The reaction is iron oxide and aluminum. You may use any binder you want, including high explosives; anything that is self sustaining without air. If you'd like to use more binder than thermite, go ahead.
Put up or shut up, Turbo. No weaseling. You claim to have the knowledge of the super thermites. Show it or admit defeat.

[edit on 9/16/2009 by pteridine]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 02:20 AM
link   
Ptredine, Why is it, do you think, that not a single person has come forward to refute Jones red chip theory?

Specifically, NATGEO, why do you think they showed the chips and explained his assertion that the chips are some sort of nano engineered accelerant.

But instead of refuting his findings they simply took the easy way out and said his tested samples did not come from a secure source, implying to me that the chips might really be some sort of nano thermite and that they knew this.

So instead of refuting his findings they attempted to refute the whole idea that any thermite could have brought down the towers.

I personally have no clue, I'm still on the fence b/c I try to deny ignorance as they say here.

But after what NATGEO did in regards to Jones Theory and the fact that not a single source can be referenced in opposition to his findings it's starting to make me wonder if the chips really are some sort of accelerant that was designed to evade detection yet turn the towers into infernos.

I also have to take into account your actions on this now 68 page thread. B/c Turbo has nothing to prove, as much as you both willingly debate each other, all he is doing is reaffirming what Jones Theory already states. You on the other hand have spent countless pages and time debating him on something that is only your opinion. Even though you seem to be very well informed on the subject at hand, and even though it would seem to be very important to you that people do not believe Jones Theory.

Yet instead of debating here for days, heck weeks and months, it would seem to me someone who really cared as much as you and was as knowledgeable as you would have countered the study and put to rest Jones theory. Especially, if what you assert is true, that is, that it could be easily refuted. But you haven't. Why is that?

As I read this thread from time to time and as more time goes by I seriously ask my self this question.

I can think of a couple really good reasons(which I will not expand on) why you haven't or can't. But if it is possible can you explain why you have decided to debate on ATS as opposed to really going out there and refuting Jones theory, especially since no one has done this yet.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 03:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine100% metallic iron, proved to come from a reaction in the absence of air. How's that?


That's pretty piss poor. The sphere does not have to be 100% iron
to show a thermetic reaction.

The reaction does not have to occur in the absense of air either.

Do you really understand that an open environment cannot produce
the temperatures required to melt iron? It seems you don't understand
because it's right in your face and you still bring up the "inert gas" excuse.


I have proved that combustion occurred in the DSC and you did not understand it or won't admit it. See my previous posts using Jones own data. Jones even alludes to it in his paper but is also wont to admit it. Page 27 "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." Possible? Certain. They can't do arithmetic, either.


I have admitted this, and I have also quoted the same paragraph. it is
clear that some combustion took place. BUT SO WHAT PT?!

What does it matter? The combustion that took place in an ambient
environment cannot melt iron, let alone form it into a sphere!

If anything, the iron would have melted into a blob...some sort of random
shape, but certainly not a sphere!

The fact that Jones states that combustion took place also shows he's
smart enough to understand that the presence of air doesn't matter.

The sharp exotherm you see in the DSC is too rapid to stem from
combustion alone. Jones knows this too...however you have trouble
grasping this concept.

There is no need for me to calculate anything; first off because I don't know
how (like yourself), but more importantly you have to deal with the following items:

1. Spheres were produced

2. Spheres are attached to the chips

Just like "Stillresearching911" states, you are overlooking the obvious
because you know the complications of explaining points 1 & 2.

Nobody has successfully debated Jones, that says enough on its own.

[edit on 16-9-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


I take it you don't like the answer that I provided. No, the reaction does not have to occur in the absence of air. It occurs in air just fine. Proving the reaction is the problem. For that, air is not appropriate. Jones now knows it and his education, under the tutelage of concerned chemists, will continue so that he may produce better papers in the future.
Since we don't know what the spheres are, we don't know how they form or if they are already in the matrix. Had an appropriate solvent been used, this would have also been answered.
My complaint with the paper is not that Jones is biased and has failed to use the scientific method or that he really believes that the paint is a thermite, my complaint is that he totally screwed up the analysis and still published it, claiming thermite. His science is wrong and his logic is wrong, yet the uneducated think he is without reproach. Maybe they just want to believe and ignore reason. Based on the paper, he is either a poor scientist or a con artist. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say that "chemical analysis is not one of his skills."
The sharp DSC peak must include combustion because of the energy output. Jones integrated that peak to determine the energy output which includes combustion. The peak shapes of thermite and explosives are all over the map. Thermite peaks are often lumpy and sometimes show as small rounded bumps; explosives often end with a spike and electronic noise as diluent is blown out of the pan. Interestingly, the chips seem to react at much lower temperatures than other thermites, even the super thermite referenced in his paper. This aspect alone should rouse suspicion. Tons and tons of something looking like red paint has more energy and ignites at lower temperatures than a laboratory scale super-thermite but has a paint-like structure rather than a xerogel structure. Seems odd, doesn't it.
The new thermites volatilize the binder which, as a rapidly expanding gas, provides explosive pressure. This actually takes energy from the thermite and reduces total energy per unit weight, but that is what thermite is for -- energy transfer for desired effects. The advantage of the nanothermites is that their effects can be controlled by particle size and binder. The speed of the energy release, the reaction kinetics, can be changed to suit the application and the nano thermites allow for some very rapid energy release and explosive effects when the binder is volatilized.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Stillresearchn911
 


Refuting Jones theory requires samples. Henryco on JREF is a true believer and his red chips did nothing. He assumed that they were sabotaged. See previous posts and references.
Logically, it is not worth my time to analyze chip samples. If I somehow acquire chips and refute Jones work, I will be called a liar or told that I don't have the official chips. I actually am disinterested in the outcome but must deny the ignorance of erroneous analyses. My purpose is to keep people like Jones and sycophants from using their titles and positions to buffalo the technically uneducated with unsound work.
Based on the evidence so far, nothing can be concluded because of the faulty analyses. My personal belief is that Jones has found paint and that it is burning in the DSC but that also remains to be seen.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Jones now knows it and his education, under the tutelage of concerned chemists, will continue so that he may produce better papers in the future.


Right...who are these concerned chemists? You mean the onces that
verified his experiments and agree?

You mean the other guy...ummm...Dr. Greening (who is more on your
side of the debate) who doesn't agree with your conclusions?

"Henryco" can take his anonymous name (as yourself) and just pretend
to be better than Ph.D.'s

The fact that you don't even know why the experiment was performed
in air in the first place is quite comical...and the fact that you don't
know why air isn't an issue in the presence of iron spheres attached
to chips is well...quite sad.

Your lack of expertise was pretty much summed up when you thought
the spheres needed to be 100% iron to prove a thermetic reaction.

I wrote back to scholars and asked the percentage. I will await that
answer. If the content is something like 80% or higher...you're going to
be pretty upset huh?



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


The 100% number was to stop your blathering about the spheres. There is no way to get 100% of iron from any source. You can get 5 or 6 nines with a little work.
Will I be upset? No. I am disinterested in the result. I just don't like bad science and that is what Jones and his collaborators and supporters offer.
In one case a sphere was about 88% Fe with the remainder being O, less than that for the others. Their compositions don't matter until the thermitic reaction is shown. Because no one knows the how and when or if they were already in the matrix, they are not proof. The experiment was performed in air because the super thermite DSC was performed in air. In that case, no one had to prove a thermitic reaction because they knew what they made. We went over this already.
Henryco is his screen name. He provides his real name in the thread. He was really annoyed that he couldn't reproduce the results.
What is sad is that sorry excuse of a paper and your unconditional support of it.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
The 100% number was to stop your blathering about the spheres. There is no way to get 100% of iron from any source. You can get 5 or 6 nines with a little work.


stop my blathering? I just wanted to hear it from you! Now we're starting
to get some truth from Pt!



Will I be upset? No. I am disinterested in the result.


You are disinterested because? Because you will have no other theory
to fall back on? Is this your last excuse now that you're backed into
the "mass percentage" claim?



In one case a sphere was about 88% Fe with the remainder being O, less than that for the others. Their compositions don't matter until the thermitic reaction is shown. Because no one knows the how and when or if they were already in the matrix, they are not proof.


WRONG! You are basing your opinions and hopes that the samples were
'tampered with', or perhaps you forget about the before/after tests of
certain chips which show IRON SPHERES ATTACHED TO THEM.

THERE IS YOUR PROOF OF AN ALUMINOTHERMIC REACTION


Henryco is his screen name. He provides his real name in the thread. He was really annoyed that he couldn't reproduce the results.


He must not be as good as Basile then?


I'll have to read up on your friend "Henryco"; according to you, he has
tested dust samples?



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 07:09 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


All caps claiming proof does not make it so. The spheres don't prove anything. We know what experiment has to be done to begin to show a thermitic reaction, don't we? Jones knows it, too.
The entire Bentham experiment was botched in nearly every possible way which is why it could only be published in a vanity journal.
What did Basile do? The last I saw he confirmed that the chips in his SEM looked like the chips in Jones' SEM. Did he run a DSC? Anything else?

No proof yet. It's still just paint, turbo.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 07:24 AM
link   
The facts that keep bugging me about the twin towers attack

1. The asbestos abatement estimate on the twin towers was tremendous.
2. The timing of the insurance policies.
3. Marvin Bush's security firm controlled access.
4. Were the bombs set by Mossad or explosive experts employed
by Blackwater privately paid mercenaries?
5. Trillions in financial motivation. PNAC document Rebuilding America's Defenses.
6. Complete and obvious abandonment of customary forensic protocol
after the attacks.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridineNo proof yet. It's still just paint, turbo.


After 68 pages, and scientific reasoning Pt still thinks it's paint, but can't
support his claim.

I rest my case.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


After all of this, I still think it's paint as there is no definitive evidence that it is thermite. The poor quality of the paper, lack of corroboration of the results, faulty analytical protocols, illogical conclusions, self-contradictory evidence, and biased researchers have not shown any different. We have ten tons of material that didn't react because "nothing is 100% reliable." How reliable is the highly engineered super nano $1000/pound coating? If it is only 90% reliable we had 90 TONS of the stuff go off and didn't find any evidence. If it had gone off, what would it have done? Warmed the structure to 30*C.

They have claimed to be working on another paper and we have seen none of it. Is it because more controlled experiments have shown paint? Had there been evidence we would have known by now. I must conclude that this is no longer an issue and that no evidence for CD has been shown.

Rest your case in peace and throw dirt on it.

[edit on 9/17/2009 by pteridine]



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree

The facts that keep bugging me about the twin towers attack



Greetings Fallen,

In regards to the asbestos abatement, there was only asbestos in one of the two towers. In fact only a few floors (20) had asbestos in them. I am not sure what you are questioning about the timing of the insurance policy. Mr. Silverstein was recently (in 2001) the lease holder for the towers. Taking out insurance policies on a building that was already a target for terrorists is nothing but smart business. Don't you think?

Marvin Bush's was a share holder for the security company at the time. He was not in anyway controlling access to the WTC towers. Having bombs planted by mercinaries would be quite difficult.

I am not sure what protocals that were not followed through with. Perhaps you can assist me?

Thank you.

Dr. P



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   


stj911.org...


And they keep on cracking until a temperature of about 650 degrees, where it starts peeling off and forming scales. This continues to about 800 degrees, when the scaling becomes excessive, but it does not burn. So the paint on the steel beams is stable beyond 800 degrees Centigrade.




Optical microscope picture of red/gray chip after reaction in a DSC instrument1




posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 05:00 PM
link   
The NIST test was with the primer paint on a beam. This may not be the primer paint and was in a dsc. We went over this before.

There is no evidence of anything but combustion, so far. Have they told you what to say about the excess energy, yet?



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 06:31 PM
link   
WHAT excess energy?

Please show us how you conclude the "excess energy" BS.

I'd like to see a breakdown of how you arrive at this to prove you have
some experience dealing with this topic.

[edit on 17-9-2009 by turbofan]





new topics

top topics



 
172
<< 65  66  67    69  70  71 >>

log in

join