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.

 

Thermite Proven! Jones Science Proves Red Thematic Material not just Red Paint Chips

page: 1
69
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+25 more 
posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 02:58 AM
link   
Thermite Proven! Jones Science Proves Red Thematic Material not just Red Paint Chips

This thread was created because a discussion about Professor Steven Jones paper in another thread was brought up I felt it needed it own thread to continue on this debate without railroading the other thread topic.

To continue to answering my question to pteridine.


Now for the problem with the "red-chips-are-paint-on-thermite" theory. In figure 20, the red chips are still there with the spheres attached. The red chips ignited and made the spheres but didn't burn completely. This behavior is not the behavior of any thermite, nano- or macro-. It may also explain why ten tons of unburned red chips are estimated, by Jones, to be in the dust.


Now I know why you will not give us your bio. Any scientist or assistant would know not to paraphrase the results of an experiment without including the entire quote from which came the anecdotal comment. You are no peer reviewed or published scientist. You simply distort information and present it any way you want. Below is exactly what Jones said:


Pg(26)The fact that most of the chips have a distinctive gray layer
suggests that the unreacted material was in close contact
with something else, either its target, a container, or an adhesive.


Get it now? It was a heat sink effect. Wasn’t that easy!


On page 26 he discusses paint-on thermite hence my reference to paint. In fact, his analyses say plain red "paint" more than anything else.


Again you twist the facts. Why is it so difficult for you to tell the truth? Here is what Jones said:


Several paint samples were also tested and in each case, the paint sample was immediately
reduced to fragile ashes by the hot flame. This was not the
case, however, with any of the red/gray chips from the World
Trade Center dust


Stop giving your opinions. Read what Jones actually said below.


The first WTC red/gray chip so tested was approximately
1mm 􀀁 1mm. After a few seconds of heating, the high-speed
ejection of a hot particle was observed under the hand of the
person holding the torch (Fig. 22). The intense light and
bright orange color of the particle attest to its high temperature.
In this case, the attempt to recover the diminutive endproduct
of the reaction was unsuccessful. A short video clip
of the test (including slow-motion) is available here:
journalof911studies.com...
ow.mov



In a later flame-ignition test, the end product was recovered
and is shown in the photomicrograph and SEM image in
Fig. (23). Once again, the formation of iron-rich semispherical
shapes shows that the residue had been melted,
enabling surface tension of the liquid to pull it into spherical
shapes.[color=gold] However, the evidence obtained in the DSC analyses
is more compelling that a thermitic reaction actually occurs
as in that case ignition is observed when the red material is
heated to no more than 430 °C contain


The evidences obtained in the DSC analyses is more compelling that a “thermitic” reaction actually did occurred. So why are you saying:


This behavior is not the behavior of any thermite, nano- or macro-.


You are wrong Jones test clearly demonstrated it was.


[color=gold] However, the evidence obtained in the DSC analyses
is more compelling that a thermitic reaction actually occurs
as in that case ignition is observed when the red material is heated to no more than 430 °C contain



We would like to make detailed comparisons of the red
chips with known super-thermite composites, along with
comparisons of the products following ignition, but [color=gold]there are
many forms of this high-tech thermite, and this comparison
must wait for a future study


www.bentham-open.org.../2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

Jones makes it very clear in his report there are many forms of this high-tech thermite and this comparison “must” wait for future study.


Where in section # 20 in Jones paper he calls this red material red paint chips in this particular study? He does not, they do not know what it is until further studies are done.



Jones says he knows that the chips are thermite. That is the point of his paper. The title is "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe." Jones analyzed the material and claims he knows what it contains. On page 29, he writes "Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material."



(see Fig. (29)).
Ordinary thermite ignites at a much higher temperature
(about 900 °C or above) and gives a significantly broader
trace than super-thermite [21]. All these data suggest that the
thermitic material found in the WTC dust is a form of nanothermite,
not ordinary (macro-) thermite. We make no attempt
to specify the particular form of nano-thermite present
until more is learned about the red material and especially
about the nature of the organic material it contains
.


Unfortunately for his followers, he does not prove his point. He claims a "highly energetic" material. It is so energetic that it extinguishes itself after he ignites it.
Jones did compare data from the red chips and a nanothermite. Figure 29 shows a comparison of the DSC's of the red chips with a xerogel Fe2O3/UFG Al nanocomposite [an actual nanothermite]. They are not similar.

On page 26 he discusses paint-on thermite hence my reference to paint. In fact, his analyses say plain red "paint" more than anything else.


What Jones stated is quoted below. The use of the word paint refers to a method of application of the material.


Pg (26) “Thus, the energetic nano-composite can be sprayed or
even “painted” onto surfaces, effectively forming an energetic
or even explosive paint. The red chips we found in the
WTC dust conform to their description of “thin films” of
“hybrid inorganic/organic energetic nanocomposite”. Indeed,
the descriptive terms “energetic coating” and “nice adherent
film” fit very well with our observations of the red-chips
which survived the WTC destruction. We cannot determine
at this time, however, whether the thinness of the chips resulted
from the application method or the manner of reaction.
While the application of a thin film might have suited
specific desired outcomes, it is also possible that the quenching
effect of the steel the material was in contact with may
have prevented a thin film of a larger mass from reacting.
The fact that most of the chips have a distinctive gray layer
suggests that the unreacted material was in close contact
with something else, either its target, a container, or an adhesive”



5. Flame/Ignition Tests
The DSC used in our studies does not allow for visual inspection
of the energetic reaction. Therefore tests were also
performed with a small oxyacetylene flame applied to red/gray
chips. Samples were either heated on a graphite block (Fig. 22) or held with tweezers in the flame. Several paint samples were also tested and in each case, the paint sample was immediately
reduced to fragile ashes by the hot flame. This was not the
case, however, with any of the red/gray chips from the World
Trade Center dust


www.bentham-open.org.../2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM


Jones has not published anything in over a year and, based on the Bentham paper, has yet to show any thermitic activity.


I do not think no one cares if Jones has not published anything in over a year, it does not prove his science is wrong. As far as thermitic activity, he does prove it as I have just posted in this thread.


If he desired, he could easily replicate the DSC under inert atmosphere and vindicate himself.


Perhaps it is not Jones desire, seeing that Jones has made it very clear that other testing needs to be done.


That he has not published the results of such a test is telling. I am not hopeful that he will, given Henryco's results.


Jones has publish his results and Jones doesn’t not make any claims to science that he has not done, only to the scientific results and their comparisons also to other known Thermite by other scientific findings.

Henryco work has not been peer reviewed, and are only his opinions.


The only conclusion is that Jones found red paint chips until he proves otherwise.


This is false; perhaps that is your conclusion. You need to “stop paraphrasing” Jones quotes. If you want to quote Jones then quote him properly.
continue.....

[edit on 4-8-2010 by impressme]




posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 03:02 AM
link   
There are many debunkers on ATS who claim the red material in Jones peer review paper is *only red paint*. This is absolutely nonsense! Professor Steven Jones makes it perfectly clear the red material he discovered under electronic microscope is a thematic material.


(33)Thus, the middle-layer gray material contains carbon and
oxygen and presumably also contains hydrogen, too light to
be seen using this method. Since the gray inner layer appears
between two other layers, it may be a type of adhesive, binding
a red porous thermitic material to another, iron-rich material.
One might speculate that the red thermitic material has
been attached to rusty iron by an adhesive. The cooling effect
of the iron in such close proximity, acting as a heat sink,
might quench the reaction and explain the fact that unreacted
red thermitic material, always found by us in thin layers,
remains in the dust. These hypotheses invite further experiments.
Fig. (32). Close-up SEM image of the chip pictured on the right, the same chip but not precisely the same spot. This chip had been treated in
MEK solvent so that the red layer has expanded and porosity is evident.

_____ ___ ___ __ __ ___
______ ___ ____ __ _____

7. [color=gold]Could the Red Chip Material be Ordinary Paint?
We measured the resistivity of the red material (with very
little gray adhering to one side) using a Fluke 8842A multimeter
in order to compare with ordinary paints, using the
formula:
Specific resistivity = RA / L
where R = resistance (ohms); A = cross-sectional area (m2); L
= thickness (m).
Given the small size of the red chip, about 0.5 mm x 0.5
mm, we used two probes and obtained a rough value of approximately
10 ohm-m. This is several orders of magnitude
less than paint coatings we found tabulated which are typically
over 1010 ohm-m [31].
Another test, described above, involved subjection of red
chips to methyl ethyl ketone solvent for tens of hours, with
agitation. The red material did swell but did not dissolve, and
a hard silicon-rich matrix remained after this procedure. On
the other hand, paint samples in the same exposure to MEK
solvent became limp and showed significant dissolution, as
expected since MEK is a paint solvent.
Further, we have shown that the red material contains
both elemental aluminum and iron oxide, the ingredients of
thermite, in interesting configuration and intimate mixing in
the surviving chips (see Results, section 1). The species are
small (e.g., the iron oxide grains are roughly 100 nm across)
in a matrix including silicon and carbon, suggesting a superthermite
composite. Red chips when ignited produce very
high temperatures even now, several years after the 9/11
tragedy, as shown by the bright flash observed and the pro-
0duction of molten iron-rich spheres (see photomicrographs in
Fig. (20) above). Correspondingly, the DSC tests demonstrate
the release of high enthalpy, actually exceeding that of
pure thermite. Furthermore, the energy is released over a
short period of time, shown by the narrowness of the peak in
Fig. (29). The post-DSC-test residue contains microspheres
in which the iron exceeds the oxygen content, implying that
at least some of the iron oxide has been reduced in the reaction.
If a paint were devised that incorporated these very
energetic materials, it would be highly dangerous when dry
and most unlikely to receive regulatory approval for building
use. To merit consideration, any assertion that a prosaic substance
such as paint could match the characteristics we have
described would have to be accompanied by empirical demonstration
using a sample of the proposed material, including
SEM/XEDS and DSC analyses.


www.bentham-open.org.../2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM


As you can see there is a different in the red material and the red paint, some people like to twist these two comparisons around to fit their opinions against Professor Steven Jones.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Why doesn't the good professor go collect some paint chips from some metal structures from in and around Manhattan and put them to the same "rigorous" lab tests?

No control group - no science.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 07:54 AM
link   
I was a union iron worker back in the mid 70's for a time.

Does anyone know that the color of primer on bridge members and building columns is gray in color where metal to metal connections are made. This primer is zinc based with a highly flammable solvent used. Absolutely no smoking nor hot work done in the area while this primer was being applied.

I have a problem when a "scientist" uses the term "... presumably also contains hydrogen, ..."

No, guessing and presumptions are not scientific, but lead to a biased point of trying to prove an opinion. One fact wrong in a real scientific study, makes the whole work questionable about intent and motive. Science is dispassionate in opinion but fact based.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 08:15 AM
link   
the 'debunkers' are the most pathetic lot, coming up with such lame excuses like criticizing the journal the paper was published in rather than the paper itself. If you can't see that that's not only unintelligent but status quo humping then you ought to just drive down to the NSA, TSA, and ask for a job. Or better yet, sign up for all those unused swine flu vaccines they want the public to take.

Let me redefine what a debunker is. A debunker/skeptic/critic/ is someone who takes a theory and analyzes it for logical fallacies. Someone who debunks the debunkers is not a skeptic, but the status quo.

If you debunk the conspiracy theorists, but are for the government's official story, you can't call yourself a debunker.

Unless of course you point out that the only conspiracy theory is 19 hijackers with box cutters.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by hinky
 


Doesn't matter what you say about the primer , or anything else .

There are those on here who have dedicated their lives to proving everything about 9/11 was a lie .

They won't listen to reason , and ignore the facts that have been presented to them thousands of times already .

9/11 has become a religion to them . I used to think debating with christians was the most perplexing task in the world . Then , along came truthers .

The author of this thread has even told another poster , in the past , that it is okay to post false and misleading information on the subject of 9/11 . ( That only applies if you are a truther though ., all others must meet 'proof' requirements ) .

This very subject has been cussed and discussed numerous times already , I don't see anything new being presented here .



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Here are a few of the many failings of the paper: DSC done in air and not valid to prove thermitic reaction. Energy output inconsistent and shows simple combustion. "Highly energetic" material will not sustain combustion when ignited. There are others, of course.

The conclusion is that thermite was not proven to be present. Jones must do the experiment correctly, if he can, to show what the red chips really are.

If you'd like to debate the points of the paper, rather than make repeated demands about "evidences", let me know. It would be best to stick to one point at a time, if you can. You will probably need support from someone who has some understanding of chemistry.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
the 'debunkers' are the most pathetic lot, coming up with such lame excuses like criticizing the journal the paper was published in rather than the paper itself.


I have criticized the paper itself. You should join impressme in the technical discussion of the paper. Your statement indicates that you would entertain such discussion with some of the most 'pathetic lot.'
Will you help her?



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 10:04 AM
link   

On April 3rd, 2009 a team of nine scientists from three countries, including Dr. Steven Jones, Dr. Niels Harrit and Kevin Ryan announced the long-awaited publication of their 25-page article “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe.” The document was published in the The Open Chemical Physics Journal, part of the Bentham Open family of peer-reviewed journals lauded by several Nobel Laureates.

world911truth.org...

As an oberver who's speciality ( among other things) is inventory control which includes dealing with problemsolving the criminal aspects of corporate situations, I would tend to go with references like the ones who support Steven Jones' work rather than the theories put forward by debunkers like the ones on this thread...

It isn't enough to plaster tenous might bes or might nots on a poster quoting a scientist, especially when the whole body of evidence taken to gether and the whole ground swell of honest public opinion which included qualified observers srongly dismisses the OS as completely dishonest.

The People aren't stupid:


An October 2006 New York Times/CBS poll found that a paltry 16% of Americans thought the government was telling the truth about 9/11 and the intelligence prior to the attacks, meaning 84% doubted the accuracy of the official story.
A May 2006 Zogby poll found that over 70 million Americans supported a new investigation into 9/11 and less than half of the American public trusted the official 9/11 story or believed the attacks were adequately investigated. The figure supporting a new investigation rose to 51% of Americans in a September 2007 poll.
In addition, the same poll found that 67% also faulted the 9/11 Commission for not investigating anomalous collapse of World Trade Center 7.


As far back as August 2004, another Zogby poll established the fact that half of New Yorkers believe there was government complicity in 9/11..


www.infowars.com...



The “theory” has suggested the following scenario of the collapse: creep buckling of bearing columns of the critical floor, free fall and dynamic impact of the upper structure, and progressive, floor-by-floor, buckling failure of bearing columns of the underlying structure. This “theory” has been unable to explain these well-known facts of the matter:
(i) Free fall regime of all collapses;
(ii) Sound of explosion produced by each collapse;
(Sound is generated by cracking. If the cracking had continued for ten seconds, as the “theory” asserts, a boom would have been heard, not an explosion.)



(iii) Pulverization of the buildings collapsed .
(By the “theory” the debris after the collapse would have consisted of steel segments of columns about two meters long, and nothing more.)
According to the “theory” the neighboring 47-story building should NOT have collapsed. But, it did.
According to the “theory” the Empire State Building should have collapsed in 1945 under similar conditions of aircraft crash and conflagration. But, it did NOT.



Meanwhile, for every person familiar with industrial implosions, when a building is intentionally demolished by uniformly distributed explosives to produce small debris for their easier transport, the WTC collapse has strikingly resembled that of a designed implosion caused by previously distributed explosives. Indeed, each tower collapse took about ten seconds, that is all parts of each building were falling free, without any resistance. It is exactly what happens after a building is disintegrated by explosives


www.genadycherepanov.com...

You "debunkers" are doing such a fine job that at this time basically the only people who except the OS are those that are paid to do so.
The peole who count, the real people are pretty much convinced that they have been had and that the supporters of the OS are of the real group that hates us "for or freedom"

now you just go and have a nice day


[edit on 4-8-2010 by Danbones]

[edit on 4-8-2010 by Danbones]



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by impressme
 


Why doesn't the good professor go collect some paint chips from some metal structures from in and around Manhattan and put them to the same "rigorous" lab tests?

No control group - no science.


That's right. There is simply NO EVIDENCE! We all saw the real deal on our telescreens that day, and besides all the scientific journals explaining how kerosene melts huge steel beams, there are countless eyewitnesses, true patriots, supporting the official story. THESE ARE THE REAL AMERICANS!!!

[edit on 4-8-2010 by davidmann]



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 



You "debunkers" are doing such a fine job that at this time basically the only people who except the OS are those that are paid to do so.
The peole who count, the real people are pretty much convinced that they have been had and that the supporters of the OS are of the real group that hates us "for or freedom"

now you just go and have a nice day


Now you just go and believe that.

Everyone thinks the WTC was brought down with explosives placed by super-secret government ninjas, Shanksville was staged by FBI gnomes and the Pentagon was attacked by a crusie missile painted like a commercial jet liner. We all know that there is this huuuuuuge clamour out there in the general public for a new investigation to determine how the CIA painted nanothermite on the steel structures. I hear about it on the news every day. All over the papers. Billboards, magazine ads, you name it. I expect it will start before next week.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


So if "the people" haven't been fooled, who are these "sheeple" I keep hearing about?

And thinking you haven't been told the truth about 9/11 is a long way from being a "Truther".



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by davidmann

That's right. There is simply NO EVIDENCE! We all saw the real deal on our telescreens that day, and besides all the scientific journals explaining how kerosene melts huge steel beams, there are countless eyewitnesses, true patriots, supporting the official story. THESE ARE THE REAL AMERICANS!!!

You are unintentionally correct. There is no evidence for thermite. However, no scientific journal explained how kerosene fires melt steel beams. Perhaps you are thinking about steel significantly weakening at the temperatures found in office fires. That is well known and not a point of contention except for those with doublethink problems. How do you define "official story" and what constitutes support? Remember that one may disagree with aspects of the many government reports without accepting every theory generated by the technically challenged folks populating the many "somegroup-for-truth" sites.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 02:42 PM
link   
we all know these EXPERTS debunkers are from Projects Vigilantes and something like that

why they would waste their lives trying to create misinformation ... well



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   
I haven't read Jone's research but I would imagine there is a control specimen involved. Any reputable scientist wouldn't do research without having a control to test the validity of his theory.

Point being this, I'm sure there is a control and Jones wouldn't say something without having the control's tested.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


I guess America pays over 150 million people then because that's how many still support the government.

Like one of the earlier posters, no control, no science.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 



The author of this thread has even told another poster , in the past , that it is okay to post false and misleading information on the subject of 9/11 . ( That only applies if you are a truther though ., all others must meet 'proof' requirements ) .


Please post the source to this information. Show the thread to were I made such a statement?

If I had ever made such an appalling statement as to what you claimed, you would have eagerly posted the source to back your statement.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Here is my problem with Jones.

He tests the paint chips(oops, did I show my hand there?) with a Fluke meter.
Why not use analytical chromatography? It would give you an accurate answer against a control group.

Oh, might be hard to find a control group to test with that nanothermite stuff, I don't know that it has been proven to exist.

Paint, though, now that exists.

Another thing that causes me 'wonderment'....

It was nanothermite, apparently painted on in microscopic layers, that made the collapse possible, but immense quantities of jet fuel couldn't cause it?

Edit to add: If anyone
wants to see how steel melts when subjected to burning oil , check here:

[edit on 4-8-2010 by butcherguy]



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Danbones
 



You "debunkers" are doing such a fine job that at this time basically the only people who except the OS are those that are paid to do so.
The peole who count, the real people are pretty much convinced that they have been had and that the supporters of the OS are of the real group that hates us "for or freedom"

now you just go and have a nice day


Now you just go and believe that.

Everyone thinks the WTC was brought down with explosives placed by super-secret government ninjas, Shanksville was staged by FBI gnomes and the Pentagon was attacked by a crusie missile painted like a commercial jet liner. We all know that there is this huuuuuuge clamour out there in the general public for a new investigation to determine how the CIA painted nanothermite on the steel structures. I hear about it on the news every day. All over the papers. Billboards, magazine ads, you name it. I expect it will start before next week.


Could have been in the planes. A plane full of thermitic agents would do the same thing. It won't be until the ignition source was fired off.

But I got back to a question I had a week ago. Were we just lucky the buildings fell? And fell in the way they did? Because I'm not seeing how they were ever going to put those fires out. We can talk about this and that or cross hose theatrics all we want to. Bottom line, no way could they put that fire out using conventional means.

So again, did we just get lucky they fell all on their own?




top topics



 
69
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join