He did get paint samples from the trade center debris. The paints signature was way off from known nano thermite. Jone's chips are an exact match.

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.

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. 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.
DISCUSSION
All of the dust samples that were inspected were found to
Contain

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by pteridine

---

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.

Your conclusion, your opinions, nothing more, you have not presented any science to validate your opinions.

If you'd like to debate the points of the paper, rather than make repeated demands about "evidences", let me know.

Debating the paper is the evidence, and you have shown nothing to prove Jones paper wrong.

I have back up every single allegation you made to me about Jones paper. I showed proof that you were making up garbage against Jones Thermite paper in my OP.

You and I are debating Jones paper, either put up or stop making fraudulent comments about something and someone you know nothing about. Show your science, or bail out.

How about answering my questions on this thread. you talk the talk but...

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by M0n0lyth

---

The win towers were a bunch of stacked boxes. Maybe you should take an architectural or engineering course. Every building is just stacked boxes, or other shapes. What you saw were those individual parts acting as a single solid and being simulated.

The twin towers were not a single item. They were thousands of pieces of bolts and iron and shapes intertwined into shapes and forms of tectonic order to create a structure.

Ask an architect about tectonic order. It's in every building mostly. Especially the twin towers.

If you cannot understand the relevance of the simulated videos, then how can you understand the physics involved in the wtc?

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Come Clean

---

Well the funny thing about 9/11 is that it was not conventional. What with the planes crashing, the scale, and the lack of manpower.

Also NYC is renound for corporate bullplop. Never have they been efficient. They are good, but only when it's easy.

Want my credentials? I'm studying architecture. Want my stats? Simulate it for yourself. This is not 2001. This is 2010. Every computer made past 2009 can simulate a wtc-like event with a decent gpu.

So you are calling the 1200 plus Architects and Engineering professionals who claim those buildings were purposely brought down quacks?

Please show me where these "paint samples" were collected from the debris of the World Trade Center?

For all I know it was watercolors on parchment. "Paint sample" just isn't telling me much.

No control group = no science.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Come Clean

---

So you are calling the 1200 plus Architects and Engineering professionals who claim those buildings were purposely brought down quacks?

I don't know about Gorman91, but yeah, I would call them quacks. If you are referring to the folks over at AEtruth or whatever it is called, I think if you look closely you'll find only about 300 of them are actually marginally qualified engineers or architects and thats out of millions worldwide, so yeah thats about right for a quack ratio. You could probably extrapolate that to just about any profession. Quacks are often even better represented. So, to better qualify the statement, only a small portion of the actual quacks question 9/11.