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: 20
69
<< 17  18  19    21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
I have taken up Turbo's challenge, just not the way he expected it.


Right, by not taking it up at all.

We have debate forums at ATS for formal debates. You know that, right?

Then you'd have a panel of judges to priss around for.

Come on, be a good sport after all this talk about how much you like "debating." Go have a real one.


Your taste in military music is abysmal. I didn't listen to Dixie and never liked it, even though it was written by an Ohioan. No wonder the South lost with a song like that.


No, it was "written" (hardly the word) by a Southern black minstrel, popularized by the Ohioan you are thinking of. Emmett even stated himself, as did many of his contemporaries, that he picked it up from black musicians. It was unfortunately attributed to Emmett because, more than any other reason, he was white and could copyright it. Be careful giving me history lessons on these kinds of subjects before you forget that I actually live here. The South lost after Grant had to siege our army for months because every time he faced it in a direct confrontation it ripped him a new one. Look up the Battle of Cold Harbor. And notice who suffered the most casualties through that war, despite winning it, and despite almost always outnumbering and outgunning their enemy. It was the Feds. I could go on for days, and would be happy to, so like I said, be careful getting me on these subjects.




posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 02:04 AM
link   
Well, I thought this thread was all leading to the interesting point of the paper:

"A conventional quantitative analysis routine was used to estimate the elemental contents. In the case of this iron-rich spheroid, the iron content exceeds the oxygen content by approximately a factor of two, so substantial elemental iron must be present. This result was repeated in other iron-rich spheroids in the post-DSC sample as well as in spots in the residue which did not form into spheres. Spheroids were observed with Fe:O ratios up to approximately 4:1. Other iron-rich spheres were found in the post-DSC residue which contained iron along with aluminum and oxygen."


Or as Dr. Jones put it in the video Doctor Smith posted awhile back:

www.youtube.com...

beginning at the 6:26 mark

"and furthermore we find iron oxide beforehand - I'll show you data on that in a moment - and we find elemental iron, that is, not enough oxygen to produce iron oxide after ignition. That means that the iron is reduced, in chemical terms. which means there was a thermite reaction."

Could the "conventional quantitative analysis routine" have been consistently wrong an multiple spheres? Could it have been off so much to return ratios like they found?

From what I've been finding there's been a pretty reliable way to do this analysis for decades.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


The challenge is to debate in the formal forum 1on1.

There will be not set timeline, or limit on points to be made.

We will debate each point until there is a definite scientific conclusion.

This debate will not be hindered by your limitations of replies, and
time per topic/point.

The others are pefectly correct; you are here frequently enough to make
this a very fluid debate.

Shall I set up the thread in the debate forum?



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
Oh, I see. So you're a cheerleader, and have nothing to add yourself.


I am still waiting for my question to be answered.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I will ask again. Perhaps you will answer this time. Why is there chips of thermite in the dust?

When thermite ignites, all of it is consumed by the reaction. "Partially reacted thermitic material" is inherently nonsensical. You can put thermite underwater and even that won't stop it from reacting.


Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
you just direct me to other people. Yeah, you definitely know what you're talking about.


I really don't need to repeat the other posts. You have completely ignored them anyway.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
I will ask again. Perhaps you will answer this time. Why is there chips of thermite in the dust?


You're asking the wrong person. I have questions, too. Like what kind of paint is this supposed to be, if it doesn't match the composition paint at all? And it combusts energetically at a much lower temperature than the paint on the WTC columns according to NIST, which they used for testing the heating of the columns up to 800 C? This stuff combusts before getting anywhere near 800 C, with more energy per amount than conventional thermite. And the reaction creates tiny iron spheres, and has plenty of iron oxide for stripping down and creating heat just like conventional thermite. What kind of paint does that, Steve? I don't care about your conventional definitions of thermite. This stuff is what it is, and it isn't paint.

If you want to come hot and heavy demanding answers to questions, start with the people who were supposed to do the investigation, like the fed. Which is a joke and you know it, because they didn't really investigate anything which is why you are asking these questions at all today. If not for the utter failure of the official investigation, you wouldn't even know that this stuff exists and is distinctly different from paint in the first place.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain

And then when it comes to, "Why hasn't anyone else published another peer-reviewed paper to "debunk" Jones academically?"

It's because, "Oh, well you see, nobody REALLY cares about him..." Even though hundreds of you spend hours every day arguing over his work?
[edit on 21-8-2010 by VirginiaRisesYetAgain]


So the paper is important because Pteridine is willing to talk about it? That's quite flattering to him, certainly, but i don't think it's true.

Face it, outside a dwindling few on the internet nobody has heard of Jones' work and people care about it as much as they care about the Dukes of Hazzard. Or whatever it is your other obsession is.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain

And then when it comes to, "Why hasn't anyone else published another peer-reviewed paper to "debunk" Jones academically?"


So the paper is important because Pteridine is willing to talk about it?


Explain how you get this out of my post. Did pteridine publish something that was peer reviewed? Hell no. The last thing he deserves is flattery.

Reading comprehension seems to be getting scarcer and scarcer among you "debunkers" by the day. Maybe here in a few months you won't even be able to formulate "replies" at all anymore.


Face it, outside a dwindling few on the internet nobody has heard of Jones' work


You mean you've never heard of it outside of the internet. Because you probably don't get out much anyway. Keep telling me your opinions. It's funny that you seem to think I give a damn what you think.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
I don't care about your conventional definitions of thermite. This stuff is what it is, and it isn't paint.


I'm not assuming it is the paint applied to the columns. It may or may not be paint. Remember there was a huge amount of materials in the World Trade, including the structure, the contents, the personal affects and so on. The debris was a molecular alphabet soup. There are so many things the chips could be but thermite is certainly not one of them.

First of all. There is no "conventional definition" of thermite, something is either thermite or it isn't. Partial reactions leave no doubt. There is no thermite, conventional or not, that just self-extinguishes. If the reaction is partial, reversible or ends itself before it is complete, it cannot be thermite, based on thermite, or any form of super advanced secret thermitic material.

You may attempt to claim it is a secret, unconventional thermite that partially reacts, but that would be a nonsensical and desperate defense. You can't have it both ways. It is a logical fallacy, on the same level as claiming fire without an oxidizer.

For sake of argument, it COULD be material for use in demolition. But if it is, the following two statements are also true, a) it is not thermitic b) it is an incredibly poor material for the job.

I don't know what it is and neither does Jones. My gut instinct tells me it is a red herring. It is another blow to the notoriously gullible truth movement.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
I'm not assuming it is the paint applied to the columns. It may or may not be paint.


It doesn't match paint in any physical way at all, except if you say it looks like a paint chip. The similarity ends there. Not the same chemical composition, nowhere near the same ignition temperature, and not the same energy release.



First of all. There is no "conventional definition" of thermite, something is either thermite or it isn't.


So first, to prop up the rest of your argument, you're trying to spin thermite as something that has no variety to it. Something either "is" or "isn't" thermite as you say.

Well let me stop you here to reintroduce all the colors of the thermite rainbow. Thermite was first used in 1800s iirc for welding, and consisted of relatively coarsely-grained aluminum and iron oxide particles.

This is the substance I mean by "conventional thermite."

Now here is where the variety comes in.

You can change the main reactants, aluminum or iron oxide, and replace them with other substances. Aluminum can be replaced with magnesium, calcium, titanium, etc. The iron oxide can be replaced with boron oxide, silicon oxide, copper oxide, etc. These are still considered thermite reactions, and produce extreme temperatures, but are not "conventional" thermite in the sense that the vast majority of thermite used historically has been coarse-grained aluminum and iron oxide. I can provide sources for this if you really need them, but the Wikipedia entry for "thermite" can tell you all of this by itself.

Besides being able to change all that, you can also reduce the particle size to very small sizes, and simultaneously decrease the ignition temperature and increase the total amount of energy released. I have pdfs from the DoD I can link you to if you're interested in reading the chemistry behind this. Notice I said "DoD." That stands for "Department of Defense," aka the US military. They have had an interest in nano-energetics for years, because of the physics inherent to them: smaller particle sizes allow much more efficient chemical reactions, because smaller particle size amounts to increased surface area touching between the reactants.

There are also other additives you can add to the mixture besides the main reactants that can also change the characteristics of the reaction. Using different kinds of fuels and oxidizers in the same batch of thermite is also possible.

And there is nothing that says you can't have both ingredients besides the conventional aluminum and iron oxide, as well as decreased particle sizes, and additives too. You can imagine what kind of range of effects this could create. Simply reducing aluminum alone to a fine dust makes it "explosive" like gunpowder, and that's just from tweaking 1 chemical variable.


I would love to debate any point of the above with you in detail.

Thermite is not black or white. It isn't just "is" or "isn't," just like anything else that has variety or shades of gray, if you will. It can have different ignition temperatures, energy signatures, even very different chemical compositions.

Nice try to spread disinformation to prop up the rest of your post though. Too bad you're not Bill O'Reilly and I wouldn't buy it even if you were.


There is no thermite, conventional or not, that just self-extinguishes.


This is an assumption you have made while lacking knowledge of every conceivable form of thermite. You are basically arrogantly peddling to me the idea that you are more of an expert than top military explosives research experts, without possibly being able to know their field. In other words you have no way of actually knowing this and are just making it up.


If the reaction is partial, reversible or ends itself before it is complete, it cannot be thermite, based on thermite, or any form of super advanced secret thermitic material.


How the hell would you know? When was the last time you reviewed all "super advanced secret thermitic material"? Being a smart ass doesn't make classified military technology dry up and vanish into thin air. You don't know whether it exists or not. Again you are just making stuff up, flinging poop at walls and seeing what will stick.


My gut instinct tells me it is a red herring. It is another blow to the notoriously gullible truth movement.


My brain tells me that anyone's gut who didn't pick up on all the BS coming from our own government about 9/11, doesn't have an intuition worth speaking of to begin with.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 05:16 AM
link   
reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
 


That's an enormous amount of hot air for someone who is basically saying

"they could have altered the thermite to make it less effective".

Well, yes, they could have done. But when making pronouncements about this stuff you're notoriously keen to emphasise your analytical prowess. A smiple application of it here might be useful.

[edit on 23-8-2010 by TrickoftheShade]



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


OK, Turbo. As long as there are no time/post limits.

Will we go through the paper sequentially, one point at a time? I also need to know if you have reconciled the difference between iron and iron containing.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
reply to post by butcherguy
 


So how many feet does it take for it to freeze, falling through cool air on a sunny, ~70-degree F day?

Let's see how long it takes you to figure this out.
Try sweeping the floor in a room where an arc welder or oxyacetylene torch has been used.

You will find plenty of nearly perfect spheres of iron rich material. It takes a fraction of a second for a sphere of molten steel that is under one millimeter in diameter to freeze in a room with an air temperature that is under 100 degrees F.

I know how long it will take you to figure out that this is a FACT.

Forever. Like to know how I can be certain of this?

Because you are a truther, and facts are not something that they are familiar with.

PS: Hate to ruin your day, but Santa Claus does not exist.


[edit on 23-8-2010 by butcherguy]



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
 


You wrote, with considerable hyperbole, that "hundreds" of debunkers discuss Jones here on a daily basis. That was your rationale for it being important.

Given that it's actually only Pteridine who discusses it in any depth regularly (and with some aplomb, it must be said) you are really suggesting that his attention validates its importance.

So, no. My comprehension of what you wrote is fine, thanks.

As for Jones' work - and the Truth Movement generally - disappearing as soon as you switch off the computer, have a look at the turnout at TM meetings. Or the vote when it actually got on the ballot in NH. Or the pathetic amounts raised in funding. It's just not that important, nor is it viewed as such by anything but a tiny minority.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain


It doesn't match paint in any physical way at all, except if you say it looks like a paint chip. The similarity ends there. Not the same chemical composition, nowhere near the same ignition temperature, and not the same energy release.
You can change the main reactants, aluminum or iron oxide, and replace them with other substances. Aluminum can be replaced with magnesium, calcium, titanium, etc. The iron oxide can be replaced with boron oxide, silicon oxide, copper oxide, etc.
Besides being able to change all that, you can also reduce the particle size to very small sizes, and simultaneously decrease the ignition temperature and increase the total amount of energy released.

There are also other additives you can add to the mixture besides the main reactants that can also change the characteristics of the reaction. Using different kinds of fuels and oxidizers in the same batch of thermite is also possible.

And there is nothing that says you can't have both ingredients besides the conventional aluminum and iron oxide, as well as decreased particle sizes, and additives too.

I would love to debate any point of the above with you in detail.

My brain tells me that anyone's gut who didn't pick up on all the BS coming from our own government about 9/11, doesn't have an intuition worth speaking of to begin with.


Actually, it does have characteristics of paint. Jones' doesn't like that part so he works around it.
As to the rest of the material from wikipedia and the web; yes it is all true. The only problem with your thermite expose is that not many of the other elements were found in the chips and none consistently. For a consistent story with iron oxide pigmented paint, Jones can't claim any of the other redox reactions. It is iron oxide thermite or nothing.
The energy of the reaction has a theoretical maximum limited by thermodynamics. As particle size decreases, the theoretical maximum is approached but in practical terms, it is an inconsequential difference.

I can see your intuition at work.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Another link about the assumption of complete burning of thermite:

www.osti.gov...

From page 9:

"Overall the propagating reaction is more sluggish because the less exothermic Al + SiO2 reaction is forced to occur simultaneous with the Al + Fe2O3 reaction, thus reducing the overall velocity. As more SiO2 is added to the oxidizer matrix, a consistent reduction in velocity is observed. This finding suggests that there may be a larger amount of unreacted material in Thermite B; although Thermite A propagates slower, more reactants are consumed and the combustion process is more complete."

I wonder why these people would suggest "unreacted material"?

From page 10:

"This behavior suggests that the sol-gel processing of a composite allows for increased homogeneity between reactants and products which promotes more complete combustion."

I still haven't been able to find anything that says they've reached 100% combustion.

I guess I'll keep posting these as long as the old wives' tail of an automatic 100% complete combustion of thermite remains.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 12:28 PM
link   
I was listening to Coast to Coast a few nights ago, and listened to a truther saying that there were 3 to 10 TONS of unexploded explosives left in the debris at the WTC.

How much thermite do you guys think was 'installed' in those towers?

Seems like the heart of this thread is built upon such a fantastic premise.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
That's an enormous amount of hot air for someone who is basically saying

"they could have altered the thermite to make it less effective".


I'm having trouble understanding how increasing the total energy release per gram, for example by making the particle sizes smaller, is making anything about thermite "less effective."

Then again most of the things you say here make no sense, so I guess it's really little wonder.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
Try sweeping the floor in a room where an arc welder or oxyacetylene torch has been used.

You will find plenty of nearly perfect spheres of iron rich material. It takes a fraction of a second for a sphere of molten steel that is under one millimeter in diameter to freeze in a room with an air temperature that is under 100 degrees F.

I know how long it will take you to figure out that this is a FACT.


I already don't doubt what you're saying is true.

But if you can sweep this stuff up and see it with the naked eye, then it's not what Harrit, et al were looking at. They had to use microscopes. Not to mention your torches don't produce dual-layered chips. Now THAT is something YOU will never comprehend, because you won't want to.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
I was listening to Coast to Coast a few nights ago, and listened to a truther saying that there were 3 to 10 TONS of unexploded explosives left in the debris at the WTC. ...

Seems like the heart of this thread is built upon such a fantastic premise.


If you like, but it's still a hell of a lot more believable than the official story.

The problem with people like you, is you don't know who's responsibility it was to do a real investigation. Either that or you STILL fail to realize the "investigation" already done has more holes than swiss cheese, but most "debunkers" even admit that much now.

Hell, even the "debunkers" on the radio program you're referring to, disagreed with NIST's report.

Like I said, you don't ask your questions to the right people. You have your priorities upside down as a peon citizen.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
 
I don't contend that arc welders and oxyacetylene torches create PAINT CHIPS.

If you sweep the floor, then remove all the debris that you can see with the naked eye, what is left will be the microscopic particles that are still spherical, mostly hollow and iron rich.

After being told that what we see in the videos are holograms of the planes, the whole truther movement lost its gloss for me.



new topics

top topics



 
69
<< 17  18  19    21  22 >>

log in

join