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

reply to post by hooper

If you are refering 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 marginaly qualified engineers or architects and thats out of millions worldwide, so yeah thats about right for a quack ratio.

Even 300 is more than NIST had, and NIST was proven a fraud by science.

So, to better qualify the statement, only a small portion of the actual quacks question 9/11.

Your statement is false, millions of professional people question the events of 911, are they all quacks to?



[edit on 4-8-2010 by impressme]

Here's what I think. Cheney shot down Flight 93 and then blew up those buildings. Bush was out of the loop. Cheney was in his bunker calling the shots claiming he was the President because they couldn't find Bush.

No way could they put them out using conventional means.

Okay, okay.... Maybe they could.

1. Walk up 100 flights of stairs with hoses and fight a fire from below.
2. Rig up some kind of transfer system from a building that was already on fire.
3. Fly in helo's to dump water on TWO buildings even though there was a no fly order for the entire country. Fight the fire from above even though the heat would have made steam out of any water before it actually hit the fire.
4. Coordinate all that with no means of communication.

Come on folks! They brought those buildings down on purpose.

reply to post by hooper

Sorry, read it. Not in there. No mention of collecting paint samples from the debris at the World Trade Center.

Just a reference to "paint samples"

No control group = no science.

Wrong, Jones makes reference about his samples in his paper.
If you are looking for the names and address to the people who gave Jones these sample it is not in there, and probably because of privacy issues. Do you want to give us your real name and address and phone number, I don’t think so.

Jones does talk about change of evidence so, what are you, trying to say.

[edit on 4-8-2010 by impressme]

reply to post by Come Clean

What qualifies you to call Jones a quack?

I can read.

Or anyone a quack for that matter?

Same thing that can qualify anyone else, gray matter. Really, if you go to six doctors and they all tell you need the same operation and then the seventh tells to go light a candle on tree stump by a crossroads at midnight while standing on your head then you say, quack. MD or no MD, don't care how long he or she has been practising medicine, that's a quack. How they got that way or why they got that way is irrelevant.

Personally, I think calling Jones, et al quacks is doing a disservice to actual quacks. Most "quacks" are probably simply suffering from some sort of psychological or physiological problem. I think Jones et all are actual con men - my opinion. I don't think they believe for one minute all the stuff they are spewing, I think they found a niche and are or were trying to exploit it but probably overestimated the market, now they are stuck being on record with this stuff and have nowhere else to go.

If you're so resolute in your convictions then provide a published paper which refutes Jones's thermite theory.

Publish a paper to disprove a fairytale?

BTW...Jones is published.

So are a lot of people. I reserve the right to make my own judgement, and now you have it.

reply to post by impressme


Control group, control group.

Not the dust samples from the windowsills that people sent him, but the a control group. Something other than the floor sweepings. He refers to "paint samples" that he also tested.

That's all he says, "paint samples". What kind of paint, where he got it, how he treated it, was it fully cured? Was it at one time painted on something? If so, what? How old were the samples? etc. etc. etc.

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by hooper

 

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.

Your comment is untrue,

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

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

Here is the flame test results in Jones paper you do not know what you are talking about and are making assumptions based on your opinions

I'm not talking about the peer reviewed paper. I'm talking about a recent video. Here you go kiddies.


www.youtube.com...

[edit on 4-8-2010 by Doctor Smith]

reply to post by Come Clean



This is what I can tell you. Six weeks after the downing of the towers. They were still finding metals glowing red at 1,500 degrees and more. Thermite burns out very quickly. Do a search on that.

I remember watch Fox news many weeks after the incident and they were showing the cranes lifting the molten red metals into the air. It is very possible that this was aluminum or other metals either from the plane or other items from inside the towers.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Come Clean

 

What qualifies you to call Jones a quack?

I can read.

Or anyone a quack for that matter?

Same thing that can qualify anyone else, gray matter. Really, if you go to six doctors and they all tell you need the same operation and then the seventh tells to go light a candle on tree stump by a crossroads at midnight while standing on your head then you say, quack. MD or no MD, don't care how long he or she has been practising medicine, that's a quack. How they got that way or why they got that way is irrelevant.

Personally, I think calling Jones, et al quacks is doing a disservice to actual quacks. Most "quacks" are probably simply suffering from some sort of psychological or physiological problem. I think Jones et all are actual con men - my opinion. I don't think they believe for one minute all the stuff they are spewing, I think they found a niche and are or were trying to exploit it but probably overestimated the market, now they are stuck being on record with this stuff and have nowhere else to go.

If you're so resolute in your convictions then provide a published paper which refutes Jones's thermite theory.

Publish a paper to disprove a fairytale?

BTW...Jones is published.

So are a lot of people. I reserve the right to make my own judgement, and now you have it.

Guess this means I win the argument. You couldn't refute or prove anything I asked or requested.

reply to post by Come Clean


Ok, look at this video beginning at 6 seconds. The molten metal hardens and turns silver when it hits the wall of the lower walls. Now you can admit that I won the argument.

reply to post by malachi777


www.youtube.com...

reply to post by malachi777


That could be anything ranging from zinc to iron. BTW. It's far far far more likely zinc. It's doing its job there, resisting outside forces.

EDIT


Hell, it had gypsum wall plaster.

herp derp on me here.

Guess what happens when surfer in the walls mixes with the zinc from the steel while in the heat of jet fuel flames?

BOOM.



FYI. The chemicals to make thermite are all right there.

[edit on 4-8-2010 by Gorman91]

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by pteridine

 

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. "

“Not valid,” Please show with scientific proof not your opinions.

The thermite reaction runs in the absence of air. To prove something other than combustion of the carbonaceous matrix, the DSC must be run under inert gas, such as argon. Jones' incompetently ran it in air and claimed thermite. This was poor protocol and an invalid conclusion.

The DSC energetics were inconsistent with two of the samples producing less energy than thermite and two producing more than thermite and any claimed high energy additive shown. The results are not reproducible and indicative of sloppy technique or something quite different from a "highly engineered" material.

For people with common sense: When the chips ignited in the DSC they burned a bit and then went out. Would you expect a "highly energetic" demolition material to quietly go out? Nanothermite does not go out when it ignites.

For people with common sense: The samples look like red paint chips and red paint was known to have covered the steel framework. The samples, when analyzed, contain materials common to red paint, don't explode when ignited, don't stay lit when ignited, or otherwise behave surprisingly. It looks as though Jones found red paint.

reply to post by hooper

Control group, control group.

Not the dust samples from the windowsills that people sent him, but the a control group. Something other than the floor sweepings. He refers to "paint samples" that he also tested.

That's all he says, "paint samples". What kind of paint, where he got it, how he treated it, was it fully cured? Was it at one time painted on something? If so, what? How old were the samples? etc. etc. etc.

You keep moving the goal post, the paint samples came from the dust samples. The detailed information you are asking for is not in the report. However, your question does not disprove anything.

The chain of evidence is not in the report and that does not debunked the science. This has been one of the many gambit that debunkers have been using for years in trying to discredit Jones peer reviewed paper, these strategies are meaningless to the scientific communities.



[edit on 4-8-2010 by impressme]

reply to post by impressme


Like I mentioned, thermite and its derivatives could have been made naturally. So now we have no basis to assume it was purposely placed.

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.

Good point, but you miss the point! This isnt about good science, it's about an agenda of stupidity set forth by the anti-government tendencies of today's youth who are so desperate to find ANYTHING to pin on our government that they're willing to throw all principals and morals out the window in order to do so.

To them, no science is good science, because only anti-science can prove their theories.

"Illusionary" that is the name of the world that they all, every single one of them, live in.

It was about a year after 9/11 I began to listen to folk who presented serious reasons why there were obvious problems with the Gov't-propagated account of events.

Since that time I have labored under the delusion and misconception that simply because I was motivated to understand the obvious truths of a situation that I could, by sheer force of reason, productively convert or convince others who remained adherants to the reality as portrayed by our so-called 'mainstream media'.

Within the 'truther vs. debunker' adversarial dynamic, it really seems to boil down to which story people have the WILL TO BE CONVINCED OF of is the "truth" that will prevail in their mind.

Therefore I have come to the conclusion that I am simply observing an emotional phenomenon relating to VESTED INTERESTS and that there really is nothing new in this aspect of human nature.

In my experience with life, recognizing or embracing certain truths can be costly. And realizing that you've been betrayed by those in whom you have placed trust or believed is always painful.

It really seems to boil down to fear of the unknown or fear of loss, I guess. On the other hand, there are also those who KNOW they are telling lies about this whole thing. They do this because it profits them to do so... at least for now it does. Such "profit" is based in the willing and knowing exploitation of their fellow man. This apparantly has been the case ever since Cain slew his brother Abel.

If a man will LIE to you, trespass against you or trample your rights... how far away from murder is that really?

I have heard that a Liar is a Cheat is a Thief. I will add that a man who will knowingly lie to you to cheat or steal from you would also take your life (or suffer it to be taken by others) under the right circumstances. A man who will accept and repeat an an institutionalized lie 'cause there's a steady paycheck in it' is not far behind, morally speaking, a common mugger.

For such a special place in Hell is reserved...

Soon this sermon will be "preached" by One more powerful than me.

In YHWH we trust



[edit on 4-8-2010 by AntiShyster]

[edit on 4-8-2010 by AntiShyster]

[edit on 4-8-2010 by AntiShyster]

reply to post by hooper



If you need to know who were the donors of the dust samples, there in Jones report that is why I know you haven’t red the report.

The earliest-collected sample came from Mr. Frank Delessio
who, according to his videotaped testimony [17], was
on the Manhattan side of the Brooklyn Bridge about the time
the second tower, the North Tower, fell to the ground. He
saw the tower fall and was enveloped by the resulting thick
dust which settled throughout the area. He swept a handful
of the dust from a rail on the pedestrian walkway near the
end of the bridge, about ten minutes after the fall of the
North Tower. He then went to visit his friend, Mr. Tom
Breidenbach, carrying the dust in his hand, and the two of
them discussed the dust and decided to save it in a plastic
bag. On 11/15/2007, Breidenbach sent a portion of this dust
to Dr. Jones for analysis. Breidenbach has also recorded his
testimony about the collection of this dust sample on videotape
[17]. Thus, the Delessio/Breidenbach sample was collected
about ten minutes after the second tower collapsed. It
was, therefore, definitely not contaminated by the steelcutting
or clean-up operations at Ground Zero, which began
later. Furthermore, it is not mixed with dust from WTC 7,
which fell hours later.
On the morning of 9/12/2001, Mr. Stephen White of New
York City entered a room in his apartment on the 8th floor of
1 Hudson Street, about five blocks from the WTC. He found
a layer of dust about an inch thick on a stack of folded laundry
near a window which was open about 4 inches (10 cm).
Evidently the open window had allowed a significant amount
of dust from the WTC destruction the day before to enter the
room and cover the laundry. He saved some of the dust and,
on 2/02/2008, sent a sample directly to Dr. Jones for analysis

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

reply to post by pteridine

The thermite reaction runs in the absence of air. To prove something other than combustion of the carbonaceous matrix, the DSC must be run under inert gas, such as argon. Jones' incompetently ran it in air and claimed thermite. This was poor protocol and an invalid conclusion.

Again you are giving us your opinions, please prove your allegation by showing us your science to this DSC demonstration? Anyone can make claims.

The DSC energetics were inconsistent with two of the samples producing less energy than thermite and two producing more than thermite and any claimed high energy additive shown. The results are not reproducible and indicative of sloppy technique or something quite different from a "highly engineered" material.

We have already gone through all this in my OP. Now you have just rephrased the same questions from the first page. Again, your answers are on the front page to your opinions, the allegations you continue to make were proven false by Jones scientific report.
I have not seen you produce one single piece of science that refutes Jones work.

For people with common sense: The samples look like red paint chips and red paint was known to have covered the steel framework. The samples, when analyzed, contain materials common to red paint, don't explode when ignited, don't stay lit when ignited, or otherwise behave surprisingly. It looks as though Jones found red paint.

Obviously, you do not comprehend Jones material. Manipulating Jones report to fit your opinions is not debunking science. Try again.


[edit on 4-8-2010 by impressme]

Originally posted by Stewie
I have said it before and I will say it again.
If we continue to entertain the absurd "debunkers", we are wasting time.

Time better spent doing what? Fiddling about on the internet agreeing with each other? Or actually doing something?

Somehow I doubt it's the latter.

(it pays minimum wage),

It pays considerably better. And you get a Hyundai.

they just, and I quote their mission statement here...
"personally engage the 'would-be' detective and challenge EVERY assertion made as if it were the most ridiculous statement ever made. This will bog them down in personal attacks, drive out the uncommitted parties, and derail the 'investigation'."

Where did you get that? Seriously, this constitutes a level two breach. Do you realise how much trouble you could get in?

Funny thing about the OS...
it isn like the government hasn't lied before..or since
and it isn't like they haven't already been caught lying this time either,
so they are already a discredited source...
who normally defends a discredited source?
eeeee...lawyers
yuckie

16 per cent...that means not even most fundies are buying it

[edit on 4-8-2010 by Danbones]