PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

Originally posted by THE AQUARIAN 1
reply to post by pteridine

 

It doesn't matter if some of the energy came from combustion. Tests for known nano-thermite are performed IN AIR.

Are they not?

The main point of the paper, which is portrayed quite clearly, is that elemental iron spheres were formed after a high temperature exotherm occurred when the chips were ignited. These are spheres that were not present pre-ignition. This is written into the paper and I have posted the excerpt for you to review.

If you are disputing this statement I will assume that you believe Steven Jones is a liar, in which case, there is no reason for us to communicate any longer.

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

Tests for known nanothermite can be done in air because it is already known to be nanothermite. In the reference in the paper, the people that synthesized the material knew what they had and tested it. These chips were not known to be nanothermite; in fact they looked like and had the components of paint. The diagnostic test is reaction in absence of air.
The elemental iron spheres are never shown. There are "iron containing" spheres which are shown as partially combusted materials on uncombusted material. Why this "energetic" material won't stay lit is another conundrum for the conspiracy buffs.
The energy balance says that no combination of high explosives and thermite can come close to the energy output of the chips which means that combustion of the organic matrix must have taken place. The only way to determine if a thermite reaction had taken place was to run the DSC in an inert atmosphere to eliminate the combustion component.

Until this is done all other so called "evidence" is superfluous.

Steven Jones is not a liar. He is just an incompetent chemist.

reply to post by pteridine

Steven Jones is not a liar. He is just an incompetent chemist.

So incompetent that his work was Peer Reviewed

[color=gold]Publication in a Peer-reviewed Civil Engineering Journal!

Finally! After submitting a half-dozen papers to established peer-reviewed technical journals over a period of nearly a year, we have two papers which have passed peer-review and have been accepted for publication. One of these was published TODAY! In science, we say that we have “published in the literature,” a major step in a nascent line of scientific inquiry.
And many thanks to the editors for their courage and adherence to science in allowing us to follow the evidence and publish in their journal. (Indeed, expressions of thanks along these lines to the editors will be appreciated, as they will probably get a few letters chastising them… )
The paper is here:
www.bentham.org... (our paper is listed on top at the moment, the most recently entered paper); or go here:
www.bentham.org...
(Click on “year 2008” then scroll down to the paper and click on it.)

911blogger.com...

[color=gold]Another Peer Reviewed Paper Published in Scientific Journal Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust

www.911truth.org...

in fact they looked like and had the components of paint.

This is your opinion (it looked like? And had the components of paint?)

Why this "energetic" material won't stay lit is another conundrum for the conspiracy buffs.

Not at all. We are not talking about standard commercial grade Thermite that requires a strong, sealed enclosure in which to burn.

The energy balance says that no combination of high explosives and thermite can come close to the energy output of the chips which means that combustion of the organic matrix must have taken place. The only way to determine if a thermite reaction had taken place was to run the DSC in an inert atmosphere to eliminate the combustion component.

Again, this is your opinion.
Back on topic, here is some good information for those of you interested in looking for some facts

[color=gold]Explosives Found in
World Trade Center Dust
Scientists Discover Both Residues
And Unignited Fragments
Of Nano-Engineered Thermitic Pyrotechnics
In Debris From the Twin Towers


The discovery of active thermitic materials adds to a vast body of evidence that the total destruction of the Towers were controlled demolitions, and to the subset of that evidence indicating the use of aluminothermic materials to implement those demolitions.
That discovery also undermines the oft-heard claim that no explosives residues were found, a claim that was never compelling, given the apparent lack of evidence that any official agency looked for evidence of explosive residues of any kind. Worse, the public record shows that [color=gold]NIST not only failed to look for such evidence, it repeatedly evaded requests by scientists and researchers to examine numerous facts indicating explosives and incendiaries .
I expect that collapse theory defenders will dismiss the discovery of active thermitic material in the same way that they dismissed the thermite residues: by claiming that the samples were contaminated and/or that there are other explanations for the origin of these artifacts than pyrotechnics in the WTC Towers. "Debunkers" have proposed that the iron-rich spheres were fly ash residues embedded in the Towers' concrete, ignoring that the iron constituents in fly ash are oxides rather than elemental iron. How will they explain away the bi-layered chips, whose red layers have iron oxide and elemental aluminum in the ratio of Fe2O3 thermite as nano-sized particles of uniform shape?
As the work of explaining away the direct evidence of explosives becomes more daunting, we will probably see even more reliance on the mainstay of arguments against controlled demolition: those alleging that insurmountable obstacles would face such a project. Three of the most salient such workability arguments are:
• That the surreptitious preparation of the Twin Towers was too prone to exposure.
• That setting up the demolitions to start from the Towers' crash zones was technically unfeasible.
• That thermite is unsuitable as a tool of controlled demolition.
These arguments have taken on the appearance of straw men with their continued repetition -- including by NIST itself -- after being publicly shown to be based on false assumptions. The 9-11Research FAQ on Demolition addressed the first two starting in 2004, and Steven Jones and others addressed the third starting in 2006 by pointing out the existence of explosive variants of thermite.
[color=gold]FAQ: Controlled Demolition With Aluminothermics
With the publication of Active Thermitic Material Discovered it becomes even easier to imagine plausible scenarios that answer workability arguments. The characteristics of super-thermites and the features of the thermitic fragments described in the paper, combined with a survey of methods for the programmable wireless detonation of energetic materials available in 2001, provides straightforward answers to the most frequently-heard questions about the implementation of controlled demolition of the Twin Towers -- answers that thoroughly undermine assertions that controlled demolitions using aluminothermics was not feasible.
Following are the three arguments listed above re-phrased as questions. I start with the last argument, which is addressed in detail in the discussion section of Active Thermitic Material Discovered.
[color=gold]How Could Thermite, an Incendiary, Demolish the Towers, When Buildings Are Normally Demolished Using High-Explosive Cutter Charges?
As is obvious from a review of the literature on energetic materials, thermite-based pyrotechnics can be engineered to have explosive power similar to conventional high-explosives while providing greater energy density and much greater stability. Thus, aluminothermic cutter charges similar to the shaped charges used in commercial demolitions are entirely feasible. However, a variety of forms of thermite might be used to demolish a steel-framed skyscraper in a way that uses no cutter charges at all, as in this Hypothetical Blasting Scenario, which posits three types of aluminothermic pyrotechnics: a thermate incendiary coating sprayed onto steelwork, nano-thermite kicker charges placed near steelwork, and thin-film nano-composite high-explosives distributed throughout the building. The strategically applied incendiary coatings, ignited several minutes before the building's take-down, weaken the structure; but obvious failures start only when the kicker charges break key supports, and the thin-film high-explosives begin pulverizing the building from the initial failure zone outward.
Why Weren't Demolition Charges Triggered by the Plane Crashes or the Subsequent Fires?
Perhaps the plane crashes did trigger some of the charges. If so, their blasts were lost in the jet-crash fireballs, and their damage was insufficient to budge the Towers' tops. Thermite incendiaries in the core ignited by the crash would not be visible over the fires, unless dislodged to the building's exterior, as apparently happened in the South Tower. However, this probably wasn't an issue because, in contrast to conventional explosives, thermite has a very high ignition temperature -- above 900ºC. Thus, thermitic incendiaries used around the crash zones could have been designed to survive the fires. As for thermitic explosives, they could have been designed to detonate only on exposure to the very extreme conditions of temperature and pressure provided by specialized detonators, and to deflagrate (merely burn) in response to the kinds of pressures and temperatures produced by the plane crashes and fires. As a fail-safe, the demolition sequence could have been programmed to be triggered by premature ignitions of pyrotechnics.
[color=gold]How Could the Demolition Equipment Have Been Installed in the Twin Towers Without Tenants Noticing?
The simple answer is by disguising the equipment as normal building components, so that not even the workers installing the components are aware of the concealed pyrotechnics. Three aspects of the Hypothetical Blasting Scenario that facilitate this are: the stability and specificity of ignition conditions achievable with aluminothermic pyrotechnics, minimization of the required access to steelwork, and the use of a completely wireless ignition control system.

911research.wtc7.net...

[edit on 3-6-2010 by impressme]

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by pteridine

 

The energy balance says that no combination of high explosives and thermite can come close to the energy output of the chips which means that combustion of the organic matrix must have taken place. The only way to determine if a thermite reaction had taken place was to run the DSC in an inert atmosphere to eliminate the combustion component.

Again, this is your opinion.

This is thermodynamics, not opinion. If you don't understand it, say so and I'll explain it again. The only opinion we see is yours.

reply to post by impressme


Hmmmm?

THIS POST, on Page #110 and the post that I am NOW replying to are nearly identical, and made on the same day?? (Well...OK, same evening....within five hours of each other....)

Why?

Why so much of the same "external quotes"?

(...nevermind the assertions made are incorrect...or, maybe should mind. Personally, I think when the same false 'information' is repeated, ad infinitum, there is some sort of problem....)



[edit on 3 June 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker

I think when the same false 'information' is repeated, ad infinitum, there is some sort of problem....)

False? Do you have any credible proof to back up your wild allegations?
What does your opinion have to do with the thread topic?

reply to post by pteridine

This is thermodynamics, not opinion.

Not opinions? Where are your sources?

Thermodynamics, Where is your energy balance equation to counter Jones Peer reviewed paper? Interesting, haven’t seen you post any equation? How can you dispute thermodynamics without showing your math skills? I guess opinions beat sciences and mathematics again.

If you don't understand it, say so and I'll explain it again. The only opinion we see is yours.

Do you think I am ignorant? Now, you are claiming you don’t give opinions, I love it!
You are doing a wonderful job of exposing yourself.

reply to post by impressme


Because you are such a true believer, I will explain it to you, again. This thermo is so simple, you only need to add, subtract, and proportion. If you can't do those, you'll just have to ask your buddies for advice.

Lets review:
1. Nano stuff isn't magic. The size of the particles does not affect the total theoretical energy change, it just affects the speed of the reaction. This has to do with mass transfer related to surface area. A lump of sugar dissolves slower than powdered sugar, but the same amounts are of equal sweetness.
2. Jones published data in his paper and that is what we will use. We will refer to the blue bars on the bar graph [Fig 30] on page 27. The energy he measured for the chips is on the right half and the theoretical energy for thermite and some explosives is on the left half.
3. The first thing we see is a wide disparity among the energies of the chips. The energies are measured per unit mass to eliminate differences due to sample size.
4. Two of the energies are low and two are much higher than thermite and the explosives. We will look at the high energy chips, which are the basis of my criticism. I estimate sample 3 to be about 7kJ/g and sample 4 to be 5.9kJ/g.
5. We know thermite is about 3.9 kJ/g so the chips are far more energetic than 100% thermite can possibly be. Remember that particle size doesn't change the total energy, so the nano-argument doesn't work.
6. Jones claimed an energetic composite to allow for the extra energy. Of course, he spoke without thinking. No combination of thermite and explosive could reach the levels that he measured. Try a 50:50 mix of thermite and HMX. Rounding up in Jones favor, half a thermite is about 2 and half an HMX is about 3 for a total of 5. Use any combination you want, and there is no way that the energy adds up.
7. What could have done it? Burning of the organic binder in air. Hydrocarbons have about 10 times the energy of thermite when burned in air. What did Jones do? He ran the DSC in air. Alas, he has shot himself in the foot and his data do not allow any conclusions. Nice pictures, no substance.
8. What must he do to show the thermite reaction? Run it under argon. Thermite doesn't need air. If an exothermic reaction occurs under argon, then he next must find the source of the heat, and so on, as I have posted many times before.
Until he shows a reaction under inert, he hasn't proved a thing other than "paint burns."

reply to post by pteridine


Hey man if you're so sure that what you're saying is accurate information then all you have to do is find a source and cite it.

reply to post by iamcpc

Jones is the source. I showed the math. Anyone can understand it. What more is needed?

reply to post by pteridine


Paint doesn't melt iron.

1. What snip are you talking about?

2. Did Steven Jones find iron microspheres in the post ignition samples that were not present pre-ignition?

Answer to question 2 should look like this:

2. Yes or no.

As everyone on this forum has seen, Jones claims he did. This is written into the paper. So, you either don't believe him or you can't read.





Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 6/6/2010 by Sauron]

Originally posted by THE AQUARIAN 1
reply to post by pteridine

 

Paint doesn't melt iron.

1. What the snip are you talking about?

2. Did Steven Jones find iron microspheres in the post ignition samples that were not present pre-ignition?

Answer to question 2 should look like this:

2. Yes or no.

As everyone on this forum has seen, Jones claims he did. This is written into the paper. So, you either don't believe him or you can't read.

I can see you are getting frustr*ted by your lack of understanding. We were discussing the energy output and why it had to be from combustion. Do you understand this now or shall I explain it again for you. I can't make it much simpler.

I believe that Jones found iron containing spheres in the post ignition samples. Their origin is still in question as is their temperature of formation. They may be a product of combustion or reaction or may have been present in the samples. The DSC in air muddies the water because if there is a reaction, it is masked by burning matrix.

Jones must eliminate all uncertainties by doing the key experiment; running the reaction in the absence of air. If there is no reaction, the red chips are paint and his theory is wrong. If there is a reaction, he must then determine what the reaction is. Assuming any exotherm is "thermite" is not good science. Jones started with a conclusion and tried to work his data to arrive at it. The data didn't cooperate, as you have seen, and scientists now know Jones agenda. If he does "find" thermite, he may not be believed.

You may have figured out by now that I am disinterested in Jones' results. He finds what he finds. I only require that he practices good, honest science, which he has been avoiding, of late.
If and when he publishes his follow-on paper, I will fairly review that one, also.






[Mod Edit - quote]

[edit on 6/6/2010 by Sauron]

reply to post by pteridine


2. Did Steven Jones find elemental iron microspheres in the post-ignition samples that were not present pre-ignition?

Yes or no?

Originally posted by THE AQUARIAN 1
reply to post by pteridine

 

2. Did Steven Jones find elemental iron microspheres in the post-ignition samples that were not present pre-ignition?

Yes or no?

No. Jones found iron containing spheres. He looked at Fe/O ratios, estimated by EDAX, and concluded that there must be elemental iron present. He did not find any that were all iron.

reply to post by pteridine


These spheres were formed after ignition were they not?

Yes or no?

The only way they could have been formed is from enduring temperatures higher than the melting point of iron.

Yes or no?

Originally posted by THE AQUARIAN 1
reply to post by pteridine

 

These spheres were formed after ignition were they not?

Yes or no?

The only way they could have been formed is from enduring temperatures higher than the melting point of iron.

Yes or no?

That depends on what expert you ask. According to steven jones the answer is yes according to other epxerts like Dr. Richard J. Lee the answer is no.

Dr. Richard J. Lee who has spent 30 years developing techniques for
characterizing respirable particles" wrote the article that I cited as a source didn't seem to think they were peculiar.

I'll quote this directly from his publishings.


"The source of the WTC Markers (iron spheres) can be directly linked to the WTC Event by the composition and morphology of the particles; the asbestos, mineral wool and gypsum were used in the WTC Towers’ construction material, and the heat affected particles result from the fires that ensued following the WTC Event."

SOURCE:
www.nyenvirolaw.org... ertReport.051304.1646.mp.pdf

[edit on 8-6-2010 by iamcpc]

Originally posted by THE AQUARIAN 1
reply to post by pteridine

 

These spheres were formed after ignition were they not?

Yes or no?

The only way they could have been formed is from enduring temperatures higher than the melting point of iron.

Yes or no?

1. Which spheres are you referring to, the blobs sticking to unburned red chips or the microspheres? The large translucent spheres formed during combustion. It is uncertain when and where the small spheres were formed. Call Richard Lee and ask him what he thinks.

2. None of them were all iron, so the melting point of iron may not be an issue. Note that the carbonaceous matrix ignited in the DSC and while the temperature ramp in the furnace stopped at 700*C, the actual flame temperature was not known. This uncertainty requires that the key experment be done before any conclusions regarding thermite are made.

reply to post by pteridine

Regardless how you spin, Steven Jones peer reviewed paper and by accusing him of deliberately deceiving the American people, which we know is untrue.
You cant have the OS either way. Why I say this is, because it has been proven that jet fuel and office fires alone could not have brought the WTC down, including WTC7 and no plane hit that building either. You can only speculate and assume Jones sciences are wrong by cherry picking unimportant data that is meaningless. Unfortunately, for you, no one is supporting you, that has any real understanding to these equations. You have proven nothing fraudulent about Steven Jones peer reviewed journal. Why didn’t you resister with A&E and confronted those scientist with your theories’. Perhaps, we can contact them and have them look over your theory and wait to hear from the real experts in their science departments, would you agree with that.


[edit on 9-6-2010 by impressme]

reply to post by pteridine


It's a yes or no answer. Answer yes or no.

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


I have already stated that "iron containing" does not mean iron. I also explained why these spheres are not diagnostic of thermite, regardless of composition, and why the entire thermite claim is questionable due to the discrepancies in energy output that Jones reported. I have stated why his conclusions are not justified by his own data. Further, I have clearly stated what key experiment Jones must do first.

Why don't you address the issue of combustion vs. thermite?

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by pteridine

 

Regardless how you spin, Steven Jones peer reviewed paper and by accusing him of deliberately deceiving the American people, which we know is untrue.
Unfortunately, for you, no one is supporting you, that has any real understanding to these equations. You have proven nothing fraudulent about Steven Jones peer reviewed journal. Why didn’t you resister with A&E and confronted those scientist with your theories’. Perhaps, we can contact them and have them look over your theory and wait to hear from the real experts in their science departments, would you agree with that.

I am not accusing Jones of anything but bad science. He had a conclusion he wanted and worked to get it, ignoring his own data. That is bad science.
Anyone from A&E or anywhere else is welcome to rebut my technical criticisms if they can.
I believe many understand what I am saying because I explained it for the average ATS reader, like you. It is easy to confuse people with scientific jargon and impressive photos but someone has to cut through all that and explain what it all means.