It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
On the 9/11 Forum, Dr Greening contacted Dr Jones with his concerns. Details on this page and he provides Jones's response.
the911forum.freeforums.org...
"I believe it's more useful to consider how such materials could have been used to destroy the Twin Towers. And here's where I have problems, .... BIG problems.
I've already done a calculation, (see my post from a few days ago), of how much heat energy a layer of nano-thermite (such as the one allegedly found by Jones et al) could generate.
[...] my conclusion was that Jones' chips would do no more than slightly warm a WTC column!
So when I bounced my calculations and conclusions off Jones et al, all he could come up with was the suggestion that there were probably other explosives used in the WTC and the nanothermite chips were maybe just fuses!
Thus, after all the fuss about high-tech nano-thermites, we are back to good-old "bombs in the buildings" as the answer to how the buildings were destroyed."
Thermite requires Sulpher and Aluminium to be present.
Guess what ?
United Airlines flight 175 had 4.5 tonnes of sulphur in it's fuel and 160 tonnes of aluminum.
Fancy that. All the ingredients needed for a thermite fire. Ah well there goes another conspiracy theory.
What a pity for all those people who wasted years of their life trying to prove a conspiracy.
Originally posted by shanerz
reply to post by pteridine
Weren't samples taken from more than one sampe of dust?
Weren't samples taken by other researchers from different dust samples from the ones studied here?
Didn't they come up with similar results?
Where does the idea that there is not a lot of this thermite come from?
Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by turbofan
Consider that it may not be thermite, at all. It may not have any real energetic properties and if it does, they may be incidental to its true purpose. The first thing is to determine if it has such properties by DSC in the absence of air. The kaolinite-like aluminosilicate content and the thin layer argue for paint. If it is present in ton quantities, it likely isn't unreacted thermite but is probably a paint.
There is a long way to go, yet, and each step must be done properly.
Originally posted by shanerz
reply to post by pteridine
Weren't samples taken from more than one sampe of dust?
Weren't samples taken by other researchers from different dust samples from the ones studied here?
Didn't they come up with similar results?
Where does the idea that there is not a lot of this thermite come from?
Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by 11andrew34
posted by pteridine
reply to post by turbofan
Actually, Dr. Greening said: "So when I bounced my calculations and conclusions off Jones et al, all he could come up with was the suggestion that there were probably other explosives used in the WTC and the nanothermite chips were maybe just fuses!"
posted by mmiichael
I got the impression Greening know what he was taking about
Sulfur and the World Trade Center Disaster
by F. R. Greening
(ii) Molten Aluminum Reactions
The presence of molten aluminum in the Twin Towers during 9-11 was first documented by FEMA. Reports of spontaneous, and sometimes highly energetic, reactions between molten aluminum and gypsum, known to be present in large quantities of wallboard used at the WTC, are noted in /13/. While it is well known that molten aluminum is very reactive to oxides, it is also reactive to sulfates. Hence consideration should be given to the possible role of molten aluminum in producing SO2 through the reaction:
3CaSO4 + 2Al 3CaO + Al2O3 + 3SO2
This reaction only occurs between molten aluminum and finely divided CaSO4 and therefore requires crushed wallboard material exposed to sustained temperatures of at least 550 C. The presence of molten
aluminum in the Twin Towers has been discussed in /13/, where it was shown that the airframes of the Boeing 767 aircraft that crashed into WTC 1 & 2 on 9-11 represent a source of about 10,000 kg of molten aluminum. Reports of spontaneous, and sometimes highly energetic, reactions between molten aluminum and materials present on the Twin Towers such as pulverized concrete and gypsum are noted in /13/. If we assume that the molten aluminum reacted with equal efficacy with these materials, we estimate that up to 1000 kg of aluminum may have reacted with CaSO4. The stoichiometry of this reaction then implies that as much as 3500 kg of SO2 could have been released in WTC 1 & 2 by reactions between CaSO4 and molten aluminum.
www.911myths.com...
Before concluding this discussion it is worth considering claims for the presence of molten metal in the WTC rubble pile. The evidence for molten metal is entirely anecdotal; however, S. Jones in Ref /12/ suggests that the “pools of molten metal” observed within the rubble pile are in fact molten iron or steel produced by the thermite/thermate incendiary devices supposedly used in a controlled demolition of WTC 1, 2 & 7. In support of Jones’ hypothesis it is readily calculated that the 1.6 1010 J of heat energy released by the ignition of 4000 kg of thermite/thermate would be capable of melting about 6,000 kg of structural steel which would then be at a temperature of 1539 C. And we can readily agree that complete
combustion of all carbon-based materials in the WTC buildings, including jet fuel, diesel oil, wood, plastics and fabrics would be incapable of generating such temperatures.
www.911myths.com...
...By the way, Frank R Greening is the halfwit who runs 911Myths.
www.911myths.com...
nomoregames.net...
Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Disintegrate?
A peer-review of Steven E. Jones' 9/11 Research
by Morgan Reynolds
Ph.D. in economics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1971
M.S. Economics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1969
B.S. Economics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1965
& Judy Wood
Ph.D. in Materials Engineering Science, from the Department of
Engineering Science and Mechanics, Virginia Tech, 1992
M.S. Engineering Mechanics, Virginia Tech, 1983
B.S. Civil Engineering (Structural Engineering), Virginia Tech, 1981
Abstract-Foreword
Disturbed about the content and quality of physicist Steven E. Jones' 9/11 work, Drs. Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood conducted a peer-review. This review covers ten major issues which include demolition of WTC 7, demolitions of WTC 1&2, evidence for high-energy explosives, thermite, glowing aluminum, No Big Boeing Theory (NBB) and other issues. In the "truth movement," it is vital that we police our own. If we don't, the defenders of the OGCT certainlly will. You can be sure that it will get mighty ugly when defenders of the OGCT find major errors. This is the purpose for having research peer reviewed.
[...]
I. Introduction
Four years after the event, a Brigham Young University physics professor, Steven E. Jones, suggested that the destruction of the World Trade Center skyscrapers was not caused by impact damage and associated fires but by pre-positioned explosives. Jones’ paper caused a stir because of his credentials and apparent expertise in physics, mechanics and chemistry. Jones is the only full professor in physics at a major university who has publicly expressed skepticism about the official 9/11 story. Jones’ background includes research in the controversial area of "cold fusion," perhaps the biggest scientific scandal of the last half-century. Cold fusion violates standard physics theory because there is no explanation of where the energy might come from to merge nuclei at room temperature.
Within weeks of Jones’ arrival on the 9/11 scene Dr. Jim Fetzer, a philosophy professor at the University of Minnesota-Duluth, founded a new organization?Scholars for 9/11 Truth?and invited Jones to become co-chair, effectively second in "command." The society grew rapidly to 300 members and Fetzer and Jones made notable strides in publicizing shortcomings in the official 9/11 story. Steven Jones’ star continues to rise: "Now he [Steven E. Jones] is the best hope of a movement that seeks to convince the rest of America that elements of the government are guilty of mass murder on their own soil," writes John Gravois in the Chronicle of Higher Education, June 23, 2006. Canadian chemist Frank R. Greening says members of the 9/11 conspiracy community "practically worship the ground (Jones) walks on because he’s seen as a scientist who is preaching to their side."
Among other activities, Jones initially was responsible for the scholars’ discussion forum and he and Judy Wood instituted a "peer-reviewed" Journal of 9/11 Studies. Jones appointed the advisory editorial board, later Kevin Ryan as co-editor and chose the "peers" to review manuscripts. Peer-review normally boosts the prestige of academic articles because professors within the same discipline review manuscripts but in this case there is little or no such review, even when offered. That fact convinced Wood to resign.
The steep ascendant of one scientist puts many of the 9/11truth movement’s eggs in one basket. The question is, are we being set up for a fall? The time for applauding Jones’ stepping forward has passed. Events force us to take a hard look at Jones’ growing influence on 9/11 research.
[...]
XI. Conclusion
Steven E. Jones, BYU physicist, rocketed to the top of the 9/11 research ladder based on position and credentials. But nearly a year later, his contributions range from irrelevant to redundant to misleading to wrong. He has not turned up a single item of value. The majority of what Jones says is political and his physics is egregiously wrong (SJ: aluminum "cannot" glow yellow in daylight), deceptive (SJ: WTC demolitions can be treated alike), nonexistent (SJ: jet liners crashed into WTC, a jet liner might have crashed into the Pentagon) and shallow (SJ: thermite is key to WTC demolitions).
The proof that 9/11 was an inside job was well developed by internet researchers, not academics. The question now is whether participation by academic researchers will hamper or help in expanding our understanding of 9/11 and bringing the perpetrators to justice. Early returns from the most highly sought-after research on 9/11?that of physicist Steven E. Jones?predict little or no good will come from the academic establishment on either 9/11 truth or justice. Proof that government/media lied and 9/11 was an inside job is being confounded and rolled back.