It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 17
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 06:22 AM

Originally posted by turbofan
]Is that right? Maybe while suspended in air, falling to the ground. Once
the molten iron hits a surface, it will splatter. It will form a blob, NOT A SPHERE.

Nice try.

Have you ever looked at a floor in a room where an oxyacetylene torch was used? You will find A LOT of near perfect spheres, mostly hollow.

The molten spheres falling through the air do not all strike the floor as molten spheres. The smallest ones cool and solidify.

Even when the larger ones strike the floor in a molten state, molten material leaves the main mass, and forms smaller spheres which may or may not solidify before they fall back to the floor.

You should put the non-stick cookware away before you poison yourself or someone else in your household. Heating them to high temperatures give off highly toxic gases.

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 07:19 AM

Originally posted by turbofan
Do you know that burning steel wool produces a thermitic reaction?
How do you figure the temperature is reached to produce the tiny
sphere balls. Steel wool even burns when it's wet providing a chemical
reaction, NOT combustion.

Your logic is terrible. Your example is terrible.
so stated to HEAT, not BURN the IRON.

I think my logic worked just fine for me.

I have you admitting that wet steel will not just melt, but burn with nothing more than a match for an ignition and atmospheric oxygen as an oxidizer.

Doesn't make supernanothermite sound so special now, especially when you point out that it fails to burn completely.

ETA: Combustion most certainly IS a chemical reaction!!!
You might want to check with an elementary school science text before you state that something burning is NOT combustion.

[edit on 19-8-2010 by butcherguy]

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 07:42 AM
Open question for all.

How many on this thread have a definition for the word 'thermetic'?

I googled it. There is nothing as far as a definition.

You might find thermic, which can indicate either endo- or exo- thermic reactions.

The word is used in the OP, is it a real word???

[edit on 19-8-2010 by butcherguy]

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 08:23 AM
This is exactly why I took a break from debating Government loyalists...

On the previous page I proved that oxy-acet. torches reach temperatures
of over 3500 degrees.

You continue to circle the logic about spheres forming, yet you used an
example that PROVES Jones' experiment.

Do you realize that your flame temperature to ignite the steel wool is
NOT hot enough to produce the spheres? Where do you suppose that
extra heat comes from?

Here's a clue!

Please find an example that supports your theory and the other points
I asked for multiple times now. You have proved nothing to support yuor case.

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 08:37 AM
reply to post by turbofan

" Maybe while suspended in air, falling to the ground. Once
the molten iron hits a surface, it will splatter. It will form a blob, NOT A SPHERE. "

See butcherguy's post above , as he is 100% correct .

If you had ever used a torch you would know this and would not be arguing this point and instead move on to something that you have knowledge of .

Match ? Steel wool ?

My post was about torches , steel , and spheres .

I know what the results are with those three .

Stop moving the goalposts and trying to suck me into another part of this debate .

You asked for proof of spheres from once-molten metal and I gave it to you . You want to discuss paint chips , stick with the guys who are doing a fine job trying to explain it to you .

You can lead a horse to water ...

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 08:51 AM
reply to post by turbofan

Okay , I read your link , and it proves what ?

Let's see ... steel , aluminum , and an ignition .

Twin Towers were constructed of what ? Oh , that's right , they were constructed of steel and aluminum .

And then airplanes crashed into them and created an ignition source .
Hmmm ...

But hey , thanks for proving to us that we don't need thermite to melt the steel and create spheres .

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 09:01 AM

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by pteridine

I'm ready to call your bluff Pteridine! Your excuses don't even make
sense! "The spheres are not iron", "the spheres contain iron because of the red chips contain iron"...

If that's true, why is the red chip still intact in this photo? I thought it
would have reduced itself into a sphere?

So, let's do the experiment. You are telling us that heating up paint
that is applied to iron will form spheres at 430 degrees?

We can do this a few ways. Using an oven; using a gas burner, or using a
fire pit.

I have a pan, video camera, some paint, thermo-couples and even a high
power scope which I can use in my lab at work.

I can obtain iron chips, and/or iron oxide. I can even paint the grill in my
fire pit.

I'll monitor temperature of the sample, ambient and heat source all at once in real time.

I'll video tape the entire process.

I'll repeat the experiment in the firepit, on an open burner using a pan,
and in the oven using a pan.

I will photograph and magnify images of the sample before and after
heating in each scenario.

We'll see if ANY sort of sphere forms.

Are you up for the challenge and face the errors in your understanding of
this topic?

Do you have anything to add before this experiment begins?
Methods? Criteria? Suggested observations? Suggested materials?

Bluff calling can be embarrassing, at times. The red chip is intact because it didn't all react after being ignited. Remember, Jones claimed a 420C ignition temperature? Not much of it stayed ignited for such a deadly demolition material.

You can't do the experiment in the few ways you suggested. Your oven won't reach 430C, unless it is on a self clean cycle and then it may just barely get there. Definitely do not use the teflon lined pan as has already been posted. Teflon will decompose at a little over 300C in air and you will not like what the decomposition products will do to you and your family. A range hood will not save you. Don't hurt yourself or your family for this silliness. If you snuff yourself, who will the truther scientst in residence be? There will be no one to explain chemistry to me.
If you use red primer paint, it will have all the nano-sized iron oxide that you need. If you'd like to make it more accurate, paint it on steel with a gray oxide surface and let it cure for 30 years.
During the test, be sure to blow air over the sample proportional to the DSC flow rate for the mass used. Use filtered air and preheat it by running it through an SS tube immersed in the heat source, otherwise it will cool the paint chips. The air flow can greatly increase temperatures, like a blacksmith's bellows, so do be careful if you use a significant amount of paint. For more accuracy yet, put the small chips in alumina powder or a fine sand and contain them to prevent disruption by the air stream.

Suggested materials: Cured red paint chips from WTC dust

Method: DSC in a stream of air for spheres; DSC under argon to look for thermitic reaction. You may have to soak the chips in MEK for the burn; Jones wasn't specific with the experimental section of his paper.

Criteria: Whatever you like. The spheres are not important unless the reaction occurs under argon. This is what I have been telling you all along. The spheres are used by Jones to snooker the untrained reader and deflect attention from the burn in the DSC.

To do this correctly, it is done sequentially.
First, show the reaction of red chips in the absence of air. If this doesn't happen, none of the other stuff matters and the thermite theory is dead.
If it does happen, then analyze the red chip components and products. Much better analyses are readily done by competent chemists. If the inorganic materials are needed, free of the organic matrix, there are solvents that can disrupt the paint matrix. MEK was a poor choice.
Then use the analytical information to repeat the experiments under varying conditions and determine what products are formed under what conditions. This is a little bit of an Edisonian experimental series but there are not that many combinations.
As you can see if you critically read the paper, Jones jumped the gun and concluded what he wanted to conclude without doing the correct experiment and by interpreting the results to provide his desired outcome. That is not science.

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 09:48 AM

Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by GenRadek

Well if I were to speculate on how they were used I'm not so sure they would have been used for cutting anything. I would think it would have been for some other purpose as they may have suggested it was an igniter of some kind. I know Jones said he estimated 10 tons of this stuff. I believe I read he also estimated 10 tons when he was talking about the spheres in the dust (I'm going by memory here but I'll look for the link), before he found the red chips, so that's odd... he said the same amount before finding the chips. He's probably just blah, blah, blahing about that. I'll wait until he releases how he comes up with that to see about that.

What really got me interested in this was this paper:

In it it talks about Iron - Aluminum - Silicon reactions and it states:

"The goal of this work is to examine the influence of SiO2 on the energy release properties of the Fe2O3–Al thermite reaction."

"The presence of Si02 are more insulative than the highly conductive properties of Fe203. For example, the thermal conductivity for Fe2O3 is 20.0 W/m K and for SiO2 is 1.38 W/m K [12]. The presence of SiO2 hinders flame propagation by behaving as a thermal heat sink and resisting the transport of heat through the mixture, thereby reducing the velocity. Although SiO2 contributes to the chemical energy generated, adding SiO2 reduces the overall speed of the reaction by inhibiting thermal transport and reducing the combustion temperature."

We talk about just the Iron Oxide/Aluminum thermite but there was also silcon in the chips so it's harder to figure exactly what this is. BUt it's easier to just use the Iron Oxide/Aluminum example, as I can't find anything about Iron Oxide/Aluminum/Silicon reactions.

So the point I'm trying to make is if these were used it may have been for a more controlled purpose than just cutting through steel.

Edited because I'm sure I should be I'm

[edit on 18-8-2010 by NIcon]

Ok thats fair, I was just trying to get a baseline so I dont end up saying or putting words into your mouth and I dont want to be accused of saying something that you did not say.

Well Jones is starting to string this idea out a little far dont you think? All of these Rube-Goldberg style ideas of demolition are starting to get a little old wouldnt you think? I mean isnt it logical that the more absurdly complicated it gets, the more likely its a load of bunk? I mean ok, some people have a hard time believeing in something as simple as (for example) aircraft impact damage and fires for being the cause of collapse, but they jump as totally plausible on ideas that are even tougher and "crazier" than the original idea, such as demolition charges, thermite, thermite + demo charges, nano-thermite, thermate, explosive super-thermite. It just does not fit logic that one would shun a simpler explanation, and embrace the most far out there idea that is so improbably its funny! Please note I am not making fun of you or your position, please understand!

Say if the chips were really a fuse of sorts, how exactly would that work? We use fuses connected to demo charges, det-cords, and things like that, I have a hard time trying to understand how a painted on super-thermite of sorts would be used as a fuse for something else more destructive. I thought it was suppose to be the destructor of the WTC towers, not as a fuse. But as you see, Jones is moving the goalposts. But lets look a little deeper into the "thermite fuse" idea for a second.

Say it was painted onto the beams in whatever thicknesses deemed fit. Ok, so to what should it be used to? High power explosives? Special cutter charges? But there is a slight problem with that. Recall the temperature Jones said the chips ignited at. Was it about 430C? So if this was truely painted on the steel beams to act as a fuse, and the most certainly had to have been also on the impacted floors and burning floors, what stopped it from igniting and going off early at the moment of the aircraft impact and or the resulting large fires and fireballs? Wouldnt that have caused a premature detonation or ignition of the this "painted on thermite fuse"? Recall that the collapses began at about the locations of the impact areas and areas of heaviest fires. That means that the thermite fuse layers would have been in direct contact with flames and temps of at least 1800F for lets say for sake of argument, 15-30 minutes due to fire progression, consumption of fuel, wind, etc. And where exactly would the paint on stuff be located? Exterior columns? Core columns? Trusses? Why didnt they ignite and go off during the fires?

I hope you understand where I am coming from with this!

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 09:58 AM
reply to post by pteridine

Wait, did Jones actually use the same chips soaked in MEK for the burn? Forgive me for asking but, wouldnt the MEK affect the burn itself?

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 10:13 AM
reply to post by GenRadek

It is not clear from his paper if he used the MEK chips in the DSC. He shouldn't have done so.

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 10:20 AM
reply to post by pteridine

I guess another mistake found in Jones' "peer-reviewed" paper. You'd think that with such "peer review" they would have caught such problems, or asked for a clearer explanation, or more detail as to the experiment at hand.

Geeze I remember from college chemistry how we had to write down EVERY detail of the experiment we did, and report it EVEYRTHING we did, did not do, mistakes done, and results. I'll bet my college professor would have had a field day in reviewing Jones' and Co. work. Probably would have given him an F too.
At least I know if I wrote a paper that bad, I'd have gotten it back with a LOT of red ink all over it.

So this means we dont even know the exact procedure he used, how he did it, what he did. Did he use the same chips soaked in MEK for the DSC? Could they be the cause of the ignition? Or did it negate the experiment due to contamination and no control? Wow, this paper just gets worse and worse.

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 12:43 PM
reply to post by okbmd

Moving goal posts? You're not even on the playing field!

What does your example of a TORCH which reaches 3500 degrees and
has a HIGH PRESSURE flame have in relation with HEATING a piece of
iron to its MELTING POINT?

What is the melting point of iron? What is the temperature of an oxygen-acetylene torch? You have doubled the heat requirements asked for in
the quesition

What happesn to iron when it reaches 3500 degrees? Have a read here:

The flame is not intended to melt the metal, but to bring it to its ignition temperature.

See that? Understand? You are not melting the iron at this point, you
are IGNITING it!

What happens to iron when it ignites? It mixes with oxygen to produce
a thermite type reaction!

Understand? You have not melted anything. You have not heated the
iron to the melting point. YOU HAVE STARTED A REACTION SIMILAR

Is it any wonder the spheres appear?

DSC temps were 430 degrees (without a flame!); I asked for temperature
of iron's melting point of approximately 1500 degrees.

You gave me twice the heat, started the ignition process of iron (with a
high pressure flame) and then waved the win flag because of tiny spheres
which are the result of ignition, not the melting.

For the record, you are both STILL wrong. Dripping molten iron will NOT
form spheres when hitting the ground.

Please go ahead and follow the criteria, and develop a sensible scenario.

It's no wonder you guys did not want to confront Jones about his experiment. By the way, that option is still open! I can set it up!

[edit on 19-8-2010 by turbofan]

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 01:00 PM
reply to post by GenRadek

The question of how these were used, if in fact they were used, are very good ones. I've said it before I think this paper is still a long way from proving demolition. If they were in the building, were they a factor in bringing down the towers? To me, that would be a whole other proof needed to be worked on. I really am trying to stay as skeptical with Jones as I am with NIST, FEMA or any other investigative body.

But to my point I was making yesterday, an interesting paper about thermite as comparison to the chips "extinguishing":

What I find interesting in it is their take on sol-gel mixtures on the first page:

"Sol-gel chemistry produces nanometer-size particles immersed in a solid network. Such structures are macroscopically uniform due to the small particle size and the small interparticle separations. However, the particle distribution is random which can inhibit self-sustaining processes by locally separating the fuel and oxidizer."

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 01:07 PM
reply to post by GenRadek

This was clarified long ago. From:

"There is no indication in the article that this test has been applied to more than one of the red/gray chips."

"It was applied to two chips."

Since they demonstrated four traces, logically we can conclude: not all of them, if any of them.

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 01:23 PM
reply to post by pteridine

This isn't an experiment to replicate a DSC test! This is to help illustrate
to you, and others that paint will not form iron spheres when heated to
430 degrees in AIR.

My method will show results via convection, conduction and direct application
of a flame. True, the stove top will not reach 430'C, however the partial
temperature testing will be interesting nonetheless.

Oh, and don't worry...the pan isn't Teflon coated; I wouldn't destroy an
expensive pan to prove something Jones already proved.

Do you accept this challenge, or not?

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 01:37 PM
reply to post by turbofan

" #3. Grab your video camera and heat a chip of iron to its melting point
temperature. Show me the solidified (once molten) iron in the form of a SPHERE.
I'll be waiting. "

That is what you asked for .

Once again , I can take the torch and direct the flame onto the steel , and heat it to the point that it will drip , WITHOUT cutting it .

If it is dripping , would you not concur that it has reached it's melting point ?

Drip=flow=molten=melting ?

And yes , it does produce spheres . I have used cutting torches all my life ., you will never convince me otherwise .

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 01:56 PM

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by turbofan

" #3. Grab your video camera and heat a chip of iron to its melting point
temperature. Show me the solidified (once molten) iron in the form of a SPHERE.
I'll be waiting. "

That is what you asked for .

BUt, that is what you did not give me. Even after the basic and highly
descriptive previous reply, you do not get it...

Once again , I can take the torch and direct the flame onto the steel , and heat it to the point that it will drip , WITHOUT cutting it .

Get it on video. Show me the dripping iron, then show me the result on
the floor.

Prove it to me, and everyone else: The same drip of iron that you say
will form a ball when hitting the ground at melting point temperature.

Let's start backing up your words with proof.

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 02:02 PM

Originally posted by turbofan
Prove it to me, and everyone else: The same drip of iron that you say
will form a ball when hitting the ground at melting point temperature.

Can't prove that. What we are saying is that molten steel will tend to cool BELOW it's melting point temperature while it is falling down through the cooler air that surrounds it.

Speaking of heating steel white hot, to it's melting temperature....

Did you know that it can be done with friction? No flame involved, just friction.

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 02:02 PM
reply to post by NIcon

Ok now I do see where you are going with that about the sol-gel application idea. I think you can see that even this creates problems for the "sol-gel super-thermite" idea. if it is known that such a matrix can cause serious problems in ignition or sustaining the reaction, why even bother with such "exotic" devices if there are so many inherent flaws, including application and execution of such devices. There are other "better" versions of thermite, why bother with the "basic" one when even here we have so many problems?

I am pretty satisfied with the "technical" explanations of why the WTCs collapsed as I do not see too faults with the "how" and "whys". Believe it or not, I once too believed in Loose Change and those videos Sept. Clues, and the many arguements by the TM. I even believed and began to wonder. But once I started to look into the actual "nuts and bolts" as I looked past the flash and pizazz of the clever editing and twisting, i was appalled at how they suckered me into believe crap. Pretty soon on my own I managed to see through LC, SC, and all those videos and websites, and even found out howthey managed to edit, skew, twist, and lie in the accounts of eyewitnesses, or how they left out important information, took things well out of context, and so on. After that I began to doubt the entire premise of the TM. I was lied to by them. I thought Jones' paper would be interesting, but once I started to read it, I was finding more faults with it, and as pteridine, i started to point out the obvious flaws. The "debunking" sites only re-enforced what I discovered years ago. That is how I came about to the "debunkers" side. Now I do have questions as to the intel failures and coverups prior to and after 9/11, but that IMHO is just a case of CYA. But thats for another thread, sorry to diverge from the main point.

Also thanks for clarifying the MEK part!

[edit on 8/19/2010 by GenRadek]

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 02:28 PM

Originally posted by butcherguy
Can't prove that. What we are saying is that molten steel will tend to cool BELOW it's melting point temperature while it is falling down through the cooler air that surrounds it.

Let me reword that for clarity. It was said that iron could be heated with
a torch to melting point, and drip.

That drip needs to hit the ground and form a sphere.

Video tape it. I want to see once dripping iron form spheres on the ground.

new topics

<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in