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: 13
69
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by NIcon
 


Ah ok, sorry I wasnt sure to what part exactly you were referring to. my bad.

I think we should clear up something here though because I am seeing two or three different things being mixed together: Jones' chips, spheres, and dust collected.

To the chips, the iron oxide could simply be the paint from the columns themselves.

Jones' spheres were just iron-containing.

The dust samples from the USGS which had the spheres as well, were also iron containing.

Ok now, somehow all three of these are being mixed into one and its like the topic is jumping from one to the other, rather than seperately. can we all specify to what exactly we are arguing or speaking of for future reference?

Pertaining to the DSC, Jones must run it under inert air (no oxygen) to prove thermite. There is no way to explain this away, or minmalize it, or ignore this fact. This is in reference to tghe chips. The chips even when ignited by flame and a direct source of oxygen, they went out the moment the flame was removed. As it is being claimed by Jones and Co., this is suppose to be some sort of highly engineered nano-special thermite that explodes. The chips are suppose to be representing this "highly engineered specialty nano-thermite." Ok, then why doesnt it burn through completely when ignited? Why doesnt it "explode" completely when burned? If you take gunpowder and put it in a pile, and light it, it will burn completely through, and not leave a large pile of itself unburned, now will it? (unless the winds blow it away or something, or it gets scattered, wet, whatever). here you had direct flame and a source of oxygen. It should have burned through and through if it was thermite, and moreso if it was special nano-thermite thats "highly engineered". I doubt it was poorly engineered, crappily made, for this special case.

As to the spheres, well you have the ones Jones found and supposedly analized which were giving to him by people brushing it off their window sills and other places that we do not know of, or when. However, these spheres were not pure iron spheres. Jones ignores all other possible sources of these spheres, including flyash used in concrete, the arc-welding and torch-cutting at the WTC clean up. (or construction). Also could have been created during the fires, we dont know.

The USGS also had two spheres in thier analysis, however they both showed a greater instance of iron oxide, and a host of impurities that are not found in thermites. They also did nto find this as proof of thermites used. This crutch of saying, "but it was specially engineered, high tech, nano-thermite, so it wont behave or do anything like regular thermite," is a load of manure. Its just a handwave away of the facts when there is no intelligent thing to say or counter the facts.




posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Here's some interesting reading:


www.firearmsid.com...

"Gunpowder residue can contain unburned gunpowder particles, partially burned gunpowder particles or the carbonaceous soot from completely burned gunpowder. The image below show a bullet hole surrounded by gunpowder particulate residue."


journals.lww.com...

"When a person is the victim of gunfire, gunshot residue consisting of soot and gunpowder may be deposited on clothing, the skin surface, or both, depending on several factors."



www.trutv.com...
"The shooter then examines the size of the hole and the diameter of gunpowder residue, because when guns are fired, fragments of unburned powder fly out of the barrel."



en.wikipedia.org...
"Gunshot residue (GSR) is principally composed of burnt and unburnt particles from the explosive primer, the propellant, as well as components from the bullet, the cartridge case and the firearm used."


library.med.utah.edu...
"Firing a weapon produces combustion of the primer and powder of the cartridge. The residue of the combustion products, or unburned primer or powder components, can be used to detect a fired cartridge."


books.google.com... (page 168)

"Unburned particles of gunpowder that have been forced down the barrel of a firearm may actually fluoresce under ultraviolet light." (Page 282)



books.google.com... (page 168)
"When a gun is fired, pieces of burnt and unburned gunpowder and soot are expelled along with the projectile."



I'm not exactly sure what this following site is but this is interesting:
www.patrickcrusade.org...

"It is believed that about 15-16% of the gunpowder is not burned in the explosion and is ejected through the mechanism of the gun."


" The gunpowder does not ever burn with 100% efficiency in any kind of gun. It is known prior to 1963. This was all quantified by F.C. Barnes & R.A. Helson in their Empirical Study of Gun Powder Residue Patterns conducted in the late 50s to early 60s, and arose from and refers to even earlier tests conducted by Hatcher in the 1930s.
The specific cites can be found in the July1974 reprint from the Journal of Forensic Sciences, Volume 19, No.3.
The earliest copy of the study is contained in the Cartridges of the World, 4th edition copyrighted in 1965, page 367, paragraphs 1-8 of the summary and conclusion; which cites that "5-15%" of the gunpowder charge of any given load is discharged in the form of "UNBURNED & PARTIALLY BURNED" "PARTICLES or GRANULES" which can disperse in a pattern from 30 inches to over 8 feet."


I looked for the "Empirical Study of Gun Powder Residue Patterns" but all I found was a synopsis, not the whole paper:


www.ncjrs.gov...

Edited an if to an I

[edit on 16-8-2010 by NIcon]



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by GenRadek
 


As the source of the iron oxide in the red chips is the red chips, not the building. Or is it being claimed it mixed into the chips during the collapse?



NO!!!! Jones has done a spectrum test of the paint and it absolutely doesn't match. The paint was way off. End of story.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Doctor Smith
 


The Iron Oxide didn't come from the steel of the building but was in the red/gray chip. I wasn't sure why butcherguy wanted me to look at the steel in building as the source when Iron Oxide is found in the chip.

But I thought I should post this from the video you posted earlier as it's not in their released paper. It's not too clear but I think most people can see the chips and primer don't match.





posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by NIcon
 


Your example doesn't really apply. You are trying to compare nitrocellulose based powder rapidly deflagrating in a firearm cartridge. It is not burning relatively slowly in a stream of air over many minutes. Further, some powder granules are burnt, and some are unburnt as they are rapidly scattered from the muzzle. Granules that strike flesh, for example, are rapidly quenched. Jones DSC has none of these characteristics. The chips ignite and burn for many minutes. When the heat and air are removed, the chips stop burning. This is not the behavior of thermite nano or macro.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by NIcon
 


ok, now that is true too, but i wasnt talking about guns, as I do know that gunpowder and gunpowder residue always is left behind after a bullet is fired. I was just thinking more along the lines of pouring it into a pile and lighting it. kinda like this:



Now as you can see here, its burning all the way around, its not going out by itself, it didnt stop burning when the lighter was removed. It burned until there was nothing left. Do you think there is anything left over in those two remnants of gunpowder that can be reburned again with the same reaction? Thermite (even regular homemade thermite) burns by itself and does not stop, self extinguish, or pauses in burning until the entire reaction is finished. Which means that these chips, if they truely are a form of thermite, should have completely reacted without self extinguishing once the flame was removed. Like here:



jones said that 10 TONS of this alleged "super nano-thermite" was unreacted. Now I think you can at least agree with me on this, if this stuff is SO highly engineered thermite that is nano-sized, why would there be so much left over, why would it not burn completely when exposed to flame AND oxygen, and why did it extinguish itself leaving the rest unburned? Does this sound like any thermite to you? It sure doesnt to me, and this just makes me scratch my head more because if anything, this would mean that they picked the crappiest quality of "magic" thermite ever!
You'd think those geniouses at the NWO would have at least some brains and go for the good stuff!



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Well I wasn't the one that brought the gunpowder comparison into this. But it could sort of apply as the gas produced by the gunpowder moves particles out of the way before they react, which may have happened with these chips. How did the force of the gases produced change the ratio of elements in the chips? We see the chips in multiple pieces after the DSC so what exactly happened in there?

All we know of the make up of the remains is about the spheres. We don't know what's left in the matrix part, do we?



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 

But how many unburnt particles of gunpowder are being emitted as these samples are being burned?



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 09:43 PM
link   


NIST did experiments with the steel beams, because they wanted to use the appearance of the paint as a measure for the temperature the steel beams had been exposed to. And let me be specific. When you heat this steel beam up 250 degrees Centigrade, it starts cracking. This is because the steel expands more than the paint. They get what they call mat cracks. And it keeps on cracking until the temperature is above 650 degrees, where it starts peeling off, forming scales. This continues to about 800 degrees, when this scaling becomes excessive. But it does not burn. So, the paint on the steel beams is stable beyond 800 degrees Centigrade. Now, the stuff we have found ignites at 430 degrees Centigrade. So, it is not the primer paint. So, what I can say is… Is this nano-thermite? Well, it quacks like a duck, it waggles like a duck, it looks like a duck, maybe it’s a duck? This is all we can say.


www.openureyes.org.nz.../1859



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by NIcon
 


If it was nanothermite it would all burn. If it was only partially nanothermite, Jones theory would be even more ridiculous than it is.

All of this will be resolved when Jones runs the DSC under argon. Until then he has proved nothing.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


From my understanding an Iron Oxide particle needs to be in proximity of an aluminum particle. If particles in proximity are knocked apart from the gases that other reacting particles created should we assume that our original proximate particles would still react? Or would there be a reaction at a distance?

Also, another thought I had: I hear it's quite easy for Aluminum to oxidize. So I'm wondering if some of the Aluminum particles may have fully oxidized over the years, thus taking them out of a possible thermite reaction.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by NIcon
 


That shouldnt matter as Jones' sample should have ALL burned. The gunpowder probably may fling out a small particle or two, but if you were to re-ignite it, it will still burn itself to completion. Same with thermite.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 

Can you please explain to me why every Iron Oxide particle must have been in proximity of an available aluminum particle until every Iron Oxide particle was reduced down to Iron and the aluminum was oxidized?



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by NIcon
 


As I said, the possibility of thermite is easily resolved with proper experimental protocol in the DSC analysis. All else is speculation and innuendo.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 

So it's not possible it's thermite now? How did you determine that it's not possible?



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by NIcon
 


Wel its obvious that one needs the other to react. The iron oxide is the oxidizer which allows the reaction to happen with the aluminum. If you make extremely fine, (ie nano-sized) well then that allows for better burning of the sample. If it was made into a solgel type of application, well then that would mean the sample is not a powder but a solid layer that is together, and therefore should burn completely. You cant have powder form in chip layers. This means the particles of Al and FeO must be in contact. Im sure you know that there is no "one" particle that is thermite.

But then here comes part 2. Why is it so thin?? Such a thin application is probably good for............ making the steel a little warmer?

So its "highly engineered". Big deal. That is somehow suppose to make it "special"? I am getting tired of this blanket statement that is meant to make it sound so... exotic and therefore, super special. Its highly engineered. Oh and its nano!
So that makes it extra super special! No I'm sorry but these "chips" are anything but highly engineered, and look and behave like crappy, low budget, garbage that does not work. It put itself out! It didnt even burn completely like how thermite is suppose to! Unless they invented a "new" "safer" thermite that takes on after cigarettes, which self extinguish when they are left unattended.
Can you imagine that? Thermite that self-extinguishes in the middle of a reaction for safety!


I mean geeze, maybe gunpowder being painted onto the beams would have done more than this garbage "nano-special-highly-engineered thermite". I jest with that part about gunpowder, but hey, gunpowder is also a mix of three main components, that are ground and made into a fine powder in order for the reaction to work. You need at least two but still, there is no "one' particle that is "gunpowder".

Pteridine is correct, this is not possible that it is thermite, UNTIL the DSC is run under an inert gas like argon. If it burns without the presence of oxygen in the air, then he has a much stronger case for a thermite.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by NIcon
 


I didn't say it wasn't possible, I said Jones hasn't proved anything with the experiments he did. It was just bad experimental design. Until it is shown to be thermite, it is red paint.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 

Well to me a thermite reaction will extinguish when it runs out of Iron Oxide to reduce being in proximity with Aluminum that can be oxidized. So to me the question "why didn't it burn 100%?" should first be premised on evidence that Iron Oxide was near Aluminum and should have reacted, but didn't.

And why do you believe these chips were this thin in their original state? Not much survived in it's original state from whatever happened to the towers. Yes, Yes, ole Mr. Jones speculated that it may have been a thin layer but I'll post this again from their paper:

"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."

This tells me they have no clue what the original state it was in. But until they post a conclusion....

"Pteridine is correct, this is not possible that it is thermite, UNTIL the DSC is run under an inert gas like argon. If it burns without the presence of oxygen in the air, then he has a much stronger case for a thermite."

The reaction is what it is regardless of what tests are run don't you think? It's only proof of that reaction that we're looking for. Seeing as a thermite reaction will also run under air I believe it's still possible it's thermite. I don't think just because it ran under air means it's not a thermite reaction.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 

Well I disagree there. The way I see this is these are red/gray chips found in dust around Ground Zero hypothesized to be some form of thermite. I would like to read a thorough hypothesis showing that it's red paint.


edited to get rid of a the


[edit on 16-8-2010 by NIcon]



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 05:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon I wasn't sure why butcherguy wanted me to look at the steel in building as the source when Iron Oxide is found in the chip.
Here is why.

Maybe the paint was attached to steel at some point? As in when they applied it to parts of the building?

The steel more than likely had rust on its surface before the WET paint was applied.

If you are going to say the chips do not match building paint, do we have an inventory of every piece of steel that was in those massive buildings before they collapsed? As in office furniture? As in decorations? Flower planters? Etc, etc, etc,.........

Heck no we don't!

At best, there is a sample that actually came from a building that collapsed, and is horribly compromised as far as cross-contamination.


Has anyone given any thought to how difficult it would be to apply this thermite to the exact locations that would be necessary for a controlled demolition? In a REAL CD, you have to remove interior walls to expose the columns and beams that need to be cut for the building to fall.



[edit on 17-8-2010 by butcherguy]




top topics



 
69
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join