It was Paint for sure!

Originally posted by ImAPepper
The Nano-Thermite debate is moot.

Steven Jones has already admitted that there is no way that nano thermite could have been used to weaken the steel. He is no stating the nano-thermite was used as a fuse for conventional explosives.

Boy - using super, top secret, nano thermite as a fuse to initiate TNT. Isn't that kind of like using a laser to open a bag of chips?

reply to post by hooper


One point that was made was the tons of material that Jones estimated, unburnt, in the dust. There is tons of unburnt purported fuse material which begs the question of how many thousands of bombs didn't go off and where they are now. None of this makes any sense and Jones has been so quiet of late that I think he finally figured out that he discovered paint chips.

Six pages of nothing, no proof that the particles are proven to be red paint yet another attempt to derail the truth as usual. Red paint blew up the WTC please, give it a rest people. I have seen some smear campaign but some of you are so desperate to destroying Professor Jones reputation that you will make up anything, shame on you.

Originally posted by impressme
Six pages of nothing, no proof that the particles are proven to be red paint yet another attempt to derail the truth as usual. Red paint blew up the WTC please, give it a rest people. I have seen some smear campaign but some of you are so desperate to destroying Professor Jones reputation that you will make up anything, shame on you.

As you may have noticed, Jones has proved nothing as yet. I have shown how his science was inadequate using his own data. His complete theory makes no sense and and he now realizes it, hence the quick idea of "fuse material" which also makes no sense.

reply to post by ImAPepper


is he? i only heard him say it was possibly a fuse. i heard him say nothing about "conventional explosives".
i'm still waiting for a debunker to get primer chips to explode and have a bright orange molten trail result and iron microspheres as a byproduct.
once again, the onus should not be on researchers to prove what it IS (for), but on debunkers to prove what it isn't, if they so hardily believe it was just "paint chips".

just like the old debunker argument of, "well there was aluminum, and there was rust, so thermite reactions are just expected."

reply to post by billybob


The onus is on the researcher who makes the claims to show that they are correct. Jones has not yet done that.

reply to post by pteridine


he has shown that there were nano particles of aluminum mixed with ferrous oxide in tiny chips which were ubiquitous in the WTC dust.
i have yet to see a debunker do anything more than SAY that that is regular primer paint.
where's the beef, debbies?

reply to post by pteridine

As you may have noticed, Jones has proved nothing as yet. I have shown how his science was inadequate using his own data. His complete theory makes no sense and and he now realizes it, hence the quick idea of "fuse material" which also makes no sense.

And here you are on a conspiracy site wasting your time when you could be doing your own thesis to debunk Professor Jones scientific Journal. If you really feel you have proven Jones ‘s findings wrong then, you need to write your own scientific Journal if you want people to take you seriously and publish your work in a real Journal of science. Why haven’t you refuted Jones’s work with scientific evidences during the peer review?

Yeah, keep dreaming.

It's OK, he cannot explain where the extra heat came from to produce the spheres.

We know that combustion is too slow, and cannot produce enough heat to
form iron spheres (mostly iron at that).

Sooo...the circular argument continues. Still no theory about the extra heat PT?

Do you think it was from the aluminothermic reaction?

Something had to produce enough heat, and quick enough to make the spheres. Hmmm....

reply to post by billybob


He has not shown elemental aluminum. He has not shown reaction in the absence of air. He has not accounted for the excess energy which can only come from combustion.
This is still a work in progress and none of Jones claims have been proven.

reply to post by turbofan


Combustion, Turbo, it was combustion. Jones admits it in his paper and the question is how much was combustion and how much was reaction. He wants the reaction and combustion to occur at the same initiation temperature. He can claim that the heat of the reaction plus the flow of air caused the combustion. This is fine by me but he has to prove it and not just wish it.

What experiment should he do now that he should have done first, Turbo? Seems like the "oxygen excuse" is looking more and more like a valid criticism, doesn't it?

reply to post by impressme


Here I am on a conspiracy website pointing out bad science when I see it. I do this because I don't like bad science and the public should know when someone is trying to influence them, unduly, for personal fame or fortune. I know that you have complete faith in Steven Jones and his team but people make mistakes and his team made some big mistakes. This may be partially due to the of limited analytical instrumentation that they had available. From what I have seen, this seems likely. That said, there is no excuse for publishing with unwarranted conclusions.

reply to post by pteridine


He admits there may be additional heat in the exotherm graph due to combustion NOT that combustion produced the spheres.

BIG DIFFERENCE.

I hope you can understand that basic fact.

I hope you understand that the combustion heat may have happened
early in the trace, and the spike may be 100% aluminothermic.

[edit on 15-10-2009 by turbofan]

reply to post by pteridine


but, for it to be combustion, the max temperature would be 430°C. not nearly hot enough to create iron spheres.
the temperature must flare to 1300°C.
funny you should try and obfuscate that simple fact.

reply to post by pteridine

Here I am on a conspiracy website pointing out bad science when I see it. I do this because I don't like bad science and the public should know when someone is trying to influence them, unduly, for personal fame or fortune.

Fame or fortune!

How much money has Professor Jones made from his report I am sure you have the figures that you will be happy to present us?

Who told you professor Jones is famous? LOL most people don’t know who professor Jones is don’t you agree? The reason I say this is because most people don’t have time to research the truth as you and I do on their computers. They are too busy trying to make a living to support their families. They are too distracted to be concern about 911 to begin with don’t you agree.

Sorry pteridine, but you do not, come across very creditable neither dose your sciences. Professor Steven Jones is a professional in sciences you are not. You are not qualify to call yourself an expert in nano Thermite or Thermate especially, when it has been determined this is military sciences. You could not possible know all the origins in Jones compounds because he doesn’t quit know himself, that is why Jones stated we are dealing with something not really known to mainstream sciences that’s why he said “military sciences” because there is no known patent for this nano Thermite.

reply to post by turbofan


"May have" is a key phrase. First you said the exotherm was way too narrow to be combustion and now we see that some, if not all, of the heat was due to combustion. Maybe it isn't too narrow.
Turbo, what experiment must Jones do to show how much is combustion and how much is other? You know, don't you?

reply to post by billybob


The ignition temperature is 430*F or so. The flame temperature is much higher but the instrument doesn't measure the actual temperature of the flame, just the heat flow.
Obfuscation is self induced, in this case.

reply to post by impressme


Jones actually is something of a celebrity in truther circles and has always sought the limelight. He inserted himself into the cold fusion experiments of the late 80's, even though he had nothing to do with them, intellectually, and he enjoyed his fame at the time. He likes being recognized and being the center of attention and that is the driving force for him to continue.
You do not know my credentials so you don't know what my degrees are in or how many I have. You do not know my experience or military background. I have shown all the errors in Jones' experiments. I did not need to read other posts or search the internet to do so.
There is no known patent for such material becase it has no use as a thin layer. It can't do what was originally claimed, demolition, and Jones admitted it when he said, on the spur of the moment, that it was likely fuse material. He forgot that he estimated that there were ten tons of unburnt fuse material in the dust.
It wasn't demolition material because it wouldn't demolish. It wasn't fuse material because ten tons of unburnt fuse must have left many thousands of unexploded charges behind. What was it?

reply to post by pteridine

I have shown all the errors in Jones' experiments.

You sound like a broken record!

Here’s your chance. Why don’t you take this opportunity to enlighten us as to your credentials. Tell us all about your schooling, higher education, military background and let us know your accomplishments in the field of science. This is a great opportunity to show us what you are made of.

reply to post by impressme


No personal information. Believe what you wish.

Have you thought of a application for the chips yet?

[edit on 10/15/2009 by pteridine]