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

reply to post by impressme

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.

My question proves, beyond a doubt, that you can have all the charts and micro photograhs and supposed chemical analysis, but it serves science no more than the set of Star Trek serves space exploration without certain basic elements of the scientific process being satisfied.

reply to post by Snarf


Well, Ok. But what I think is more likely happening is some amateur con-men are trying to exploit a niche market and forgetting that they can't control the con. They forgot that there may be persons other then their "target" demographic looking at their grift and going WTF???

reply to post by impressme

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

impressme.
We know that thermite can burn in air, and also in NO air. So burning it in air will confirm that it burns in air, but that does not mean it is thermite. It may just be combustion. So to go the next step to rule out combustion is to burn it WITHOUT AIR. Ergo, if it burns without air, it may very well be a thermite. But he has not done so. He just burned it in air and thats it. So he failed. All he has to do is try burning it in zero oxygen. It burns, might be thermite. It doesnt, it aint thermite. What is so hard to understand this basic knowledge? Why must you demand some complex paper, credentials, long winded explanations, charts, graphs, calculations, "9 out of 10 chemistry PhDs agree" science papers to understand or accept this BASIC fact about thermite? Its not an opinion. Its not some made up nonsense. Its facts. Thermite burns in ABSENCE of OXYGEN. Had Jones done this and it burned without oxygen, he would have more evidence of thermite. But he failed to do so. Ergo, he results are incomplete at best, and down right incompetant at worst, and yet here you are championing his flawed methods and trying to desperately prop up this joke of a "paper".

Do you understand yet? You dont need a magic science paper on the DSC to understand that THERMITE BURNS WITHOUT OXYGEN. Jones' failure to do so means his conclusion is WRONG and his paper is worth more in a bathroom stall than as a "scientific journal". When Jones' does the proper test (whenever THAT may be ) he will have either gained more ground in his claims, or it will confirm what has already been known, that there was no thermite there, and his "chips" were just paint chips. Until then, he has NOT proven thermite and has failed quite spectacularly. Also gave us a good lesson in how NOT to run an experiment.

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by Doctor Smith

 

The paint hypothesis has been ruled out by Jones himself. The elemental signatures are way off!

www.youtube.com...

Your statement is false.
Yes,Jones talks about the primer paint chips that had thematic residue on the chips. There is also a red material that is unknown to these scientist because they are unable to match this particular findings to any known na-nothermite and Jones makes it very clear that more testing needs to be done in the future in his report. Your video does not debunk Jones science.



[edit on 4-8-2010 by impressme]

I'm not trying to debunk Jones. The paint primer samples from the few saved steel girders, don't match his explosive red chips when analyzed.

So this BS claim about how Jones needs to test it in a vacuum chamber Blah blah blah is irrelevant.

[edit on 5-8-2010 by Doctor Smith]

reply to post by Doctor Smith


But if it burns without air, then it will be air tight (pardon the pun) that it may very will be therm*te. But so far all he has proven is combustion in air. In the course of trying to find therm*te, its a huge FAIL. Therm*te burns without being in air. THAT is what he needs to show, and THAT is what he needs to DO. But he didnt, and he isnt, so he failed. No thermite according to this "paper". if he had only done it properly. and if only some people werent so blinded by faith in the CT, theyd see the Jones paper for what it is: a farce.

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Doctor Smith

 

But if it burns without air, then it will be air tight (pardon the pun) that it may very will be therm*te. But so far all he has proven is combustion in air. In the course of trying to find therm*te, its a huge FAIL. Therm*te burns without being in air. THAT is what he needs to show, and THAT is what he needs to DO. But he didnt, and he isnt, so he failed. No thermite according to this "paper". if he had only done it properly.

and if only some people werent so blinded by faith in the CT, theyd see the Jones paper for what it is: a farce.

No it's not. His red chips are an exact match to known nano thermite.

reply to post by Doctor Smith


His red chips are not even vaguely related to known nanothermite. Read reference 28 in the paper: Tillotson TM, Gash AE, Simpson RL, Hrubesh LW, Satcher JH, Jr, Poco JF. Nanostructured energetic materials using sol-gel methodologies. J Non-
Cryst Sol 2001; 285: 338-345. [Accessed February 7, 2009]. Available from:
sciencedirect.com

Modedit to fix thread-stretching link

[edit on 6/8/10 by argentus]

reply to post by Doctor Smith


But

A) They did not burn completely
B) They were not tested with the critical test of running the DSC in inert air. ie no oxygen. Jones has failed.

Also it has been shown that the two are not similar at all. Ah if only Jones had bothered to do it right. Sometimes two things may look very similar, but if there is a single test that will prove nearly 100% what it could be or could not be, it should be used to give the most probably answer. But Jones half-assed it and thats it. He failed. Get over it.

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Doctor Smith

 

But if it burns without air, then it will be air tight (pardon the pun) that it may very will be therm*te. But so far all he has proven is combustion in air. In the course of trying to find therm*te, its a huge FAIL. Therm*te burns without being in air. THAT is what he needs to show, and THAT is what he needs to DO. But he didnt, and he isnt, so he failed. No thermite according to this "paper". if he had only done it properly.

and if only some people werent so blinded by faith in the CT, theyd see the Jones paper for what it is: a farce.

If he has proven combustion in the air, what then are these explosive red chips if they are not a type of thermite? what else could they be, something mundane other than paint flakes? how would this evidence stand alone in a court of law as a product of expert witness, I mean could you burn up your granny with Thermite in the air and leave no trace other than ash so that some fire expert could say, in court that it was murder caused by an unknown accelerant, that is all they have to do in some cases.

To the ATS readers, I set out to demonstrate that the debunkers could not debunk Jones sciences. You all have read all of their excuses and opinions, yet not a single debunker could put up any science to defend their arguments, to disprove Jones peer reviewed paper could be a fraud. There are many debunkers in here using every available method to discredit Jones paper. There are debunkers who say: but Jones did not do his test correctly, Jones should have done his Thermite test in a close airless confinement in orders to prove Thermite ect... These are only excuses; the test results are shown and demonstrated very clearly. Jones paper shows the make up of the chemical composition and what was discovered. Jones shows the different compounds that were found in the red paint chips and the red and grey materials. Jones shows the different tests that were done using different heat sources.
Jones gives all the break downs of every particles found in these chips before the heating testing and after the testing, and was able to match most of the particles and materials from the dust samples that was recovered at ground zero from the WTC, to other known elements and other particle compositions.

On pg 19 of Jones report he showed in his experiments and testing of how they concluded it was indeed a Thermite material found on these chips.

pg (19)The existence of elemental aluminum and iron oxide leads
to the obvious hypothesis that the material may contain thermite.
However, before concluding that the red material found in
the WTC dust is thermitic, further testing would be required.
For example, how does the material behave when heated in a
sensitive calorimeter? If the material does not react vigorously it
may be argued that although ingredients of thermite are present,
the material may not really be thermitic.

they set out to prove this buy running different test on the particle samples as you can see.

pg(19)3. Thermal Analysis using Differential Scanning
Calorimetry

4.pg (19) Observation of Iron-Rich Sphere Formation Upon
Ignition of Chips in a Differential Scanning Calorimeter

Fig. (20). Photomicrographs of residues from red/gray chips ignited in the DSC. Notice the shiny-metallic spheres and also the translucent
spheres. Each blue scale-marker represents 50 microns.

Pg(21)Active Thermitic Material Found in WTC Dust
That thermitic reactions from the red/gray chips have
indeed occurred in the DSC (rising temperature method of
ignition) is confirmed by the combined observation of 1)
highly energetic reactions occurring at approximately
430 °C, 2) iron-rich sphere formation so that the product
must have been sufficiently hot to be molten (over 1400 °C
for iron and iron oxide), 3) spheres, spheroids and nonspheroidal
residues in which the iron content exceeds the
oxygen content. Significant elemental iron is now present as
expected from the thermitic reduction-oxidation reaction of
aluminum and iron oxide

pg(21The evidence for active, highly energetic thermitic material
in the WTC dust is compelling.

Please read how the flame testing was done on the red and grey chips
5. Flame/Ignition Tests

Debunker telling people, Oh there was 10 tons of un-burnt Thermite doesn’t know what he or she is talking about. The fact is, Jones makes it very clear that further samples are being analyzed to refine these estimate.

pg (23)Further samples are being analyzed to refine this
estimate. The fall of the WTC Towers produced enormous
clouds of dust whose total mass is difficult to ascertain; but
clearly the total mass of red/gray chips in the WTC dust
must be substantial given the fraction observed in these samplings.

pg(23)2. [color=gold]Is the Red Material Thermitic in Nature?

Test proved it was.

Read these observations of the test results.

These observations
reminded us of nano-thermite fabricated at the Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory and elsewhere; available
papers describe this material as an intimate mixture of UFG
aluminum and iron oxide in nano-thermite composites to
form pyrotechnics or explosives [19-21]. The thermite reaction
involves aluminum and a metal oxide, as in this typical
reaction with iron oxide:
2Al + Fe2O3 􀀃Al2O3 + 2Fe (molten iron), 􀀂H = 􀀁853.5kJ/mole.
Commercially available thermite behaves as an incendiary
when ignited [6], but when the ingredients are ultra-fine
grain (UFG) and are intimately mixed, this “nano-thermite”
reacts very rapidly, even explosively, and is sometimes referred
to as “super-thermite” [20, 22].

pg (23)We would like to make detailed comparisons of the red
chips with known super-thermite composites, along with
comparisons of the products following ignition, but there are
many forms of this high-tech thermite, and this comparison
[color=gold]must wait for a future study.

Pg(23)We observe that the spheroidal residues from ignition of
red chips (Figs. 25, 26)[color=gold] possess a strikingly similar chemical
signature to a typical XEDS spectrum from a spheroid generated
by commercial thermite (Fig. 24). This similarity supports
our hypothesis that the red chips are indeed a form of
thermite.

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

Anyone that tells you that Jones experiments and their test results only proved red paint and nothing else is just lying to you. I urge everyone to take the time and read these scientific finding and don’t take anyone’s’ word, or opinions unless they can disprove Jones test results by doing their own scientific study and can prove by using sciences after being peer reviewed, and can demonstrate in their journal by using science that Steven Jones test results are wrong. Other than that, everything else is someone‘s opinions.
It appears that many people show a genuine dislike against Professor Jones because of his science, his findings, and his peer reviewed journal, which shows something else, happened to the demise of the three WTC other than the government story. We should ask ourselves, are these people bitter at Jones, or are they angry because science is real, and the OS is just that, a story and it proves we were lied to by our government.

Remember, the NIST reports were proven a fraud by science, and it was proven many members employed by NIST were experts in Thermite, yet they did everything to avoid in doing any testing or any investigation into demolition. NIST was caught lying to the public making the claims that there were not any explosions at the WTC.

Who should you believe the lies of NIST, or proven science?

[edit on 6-8-2010 by impressme]

reply to post by smurfy


If there is no reaction in the absence of air, it is not thermite. Paint burns in air but not in the absence of air.

reply to post by pteridine


When did you test Super nano Thermite in a vacuum?

Where is it stated that the Thermitic material tested by Jones would not ignite in the absence of “air” in the first place?

Please tell us what paint produces iron-rich spheres and
Spheroids after being ignited?

If there is no reaction in the absence of air, it is not thermite. Paint burns in air but not in the absence of air.

Says whom? It looks like Jones tests have proven you wrong.

Pg (29)

6. From the presence of elemental aluminum and iron
oxide in the red material, we conclude that it contains
the ingredients of thermite.

7. As measured using DSC, the material ignites and reacts
vigorously at a temperature of approximately
430 °C, with a rather narrow exotherm, matching
fairly closely an independent observation on a known
super-thermite sample. The low temperature of ignition
and the presence of iron oxide grains less than
120 nm show that the material is not conventional
thermite (which ignites at temperatures above 900 °C)
but very likely a form of super-thermite.

8. After igniting several red/gray chips in a DSC run to
700 °C, we found numerous iron-rich spheres and
spheroids in the residue, indicating that a very hightemperature
reaction had occurred, since the iron-rich
product clearly must have been molten to form these
shapes. In several spheres, elemental iron was verified
since the iron content significantly exceeded the
oxygen content. We conclude that a high-temperature
reduction-oxidation reaction has occurred in the
heated chips, namely, the thermite reaction.

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

[edit on 6-8-2010 by impressme]

Debunker telling people, Oh there was 10 tons of un-burnt Thermite doesn’t know what he or she is talking about. The fact is, Jones makes it very clear that further samples are being analyzed to refine these estimate.

pg (23)Further samples are being analyzed to refine this
estimate.

Jones says a lot of things. He said he was going to bring out a new paper this year to clear up a few inconsistencies.

When is it coming out? Or is your idol not immune to a few little half-truths himself?

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


They also use thermite for welding steel TOGETHER, maybe was used in some construction nearby to wtc or in wtc itself....

reply to post by gambon


Well, actually I can almost gaurantee that thermite was used in welding together the rails in the subway tunnels, it is also used occasionally to weld together elevator cables. But generally it is not used in building construction.

reply to post by impressme

....Steven Jones test results are wrong

It is not necessarliy whether the test results were right or wrong, it is the conclusions drawn from the results and based on basic scientific method of investigation whether or not they are relevant.

Spoiler alert: They are not.

No control group = no science.

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by pteridine

 

When did you test Super nano Thermite in a vacuum?

Where is it stated that the Thermitic material tested by Jones would not ignite in the absence of “air” in the first place?

7. As measured using DSC, the material ignites and reacts
vigorously at a temperature of approximately
430 °C, with a rather narrow exotherm, matching
fairly closely an independent observation on a known
super-thermite sample. The low temperature of ignition
and the presence of iron oxide grains less than
120 nm show that the material is not conventional
thermite (which ignites at temperatures above 900 °C)
but very likely a form of super-thermite.

The reaction in the absence of air is obvious from the stoichiometry. All of these metal oxide reductions with aluminum run this way.

2Al + Fe2O3 --> Al2O3 + 2 Fe

As you can see, the metal oxide, in this case iron, is providing the oxygen for formation of aluminum oxide. The size of the particles doesn't matter to the way the reaction runs or theoretical energy output; nanoparticulate thermite just reacts faster. This reaction doesn't need air and if anyone wanted to show even the possibility of thermite, they must first run the reaction in the absence of air.
The material ignites in the DSC because it is in a stream of air. Jones cannot tell the difference between burning and a thermite reaction because he has used the wrong conditions. Had he used an Argon stream and had an exotherm, he would have evidence of reaction. If there is a reaction, it could be thermite. If there is no reaction, it can't be thermite.
If you compare the DSC of the red chips and known nanothermite, the only thing that they have in common is an exotherm. Note that the shape of the curve and the onset points are very different. Saying that these are similar is disingenuous.

DSC under inert atmosphere is the first experiment he should have done to make his case. He either didn't know how to properly do the analysis or he intended to mislead the public.

Which do you think it was?

Originally posted by gambon
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

They also use thermite for welding steel TOGETHER, maybe was used in some construction nearby to wtc or in wtc itself....

Very doubtful as the Red Grey material was found in all the samples throughout the city.

reply to post by Doctor Smith


)Of course it was , did you see thedust cloud?

every subway rail in the area was probably welded and repaired that way....

[edit on 6-8-2010 by gambon]

reply to post by impressme

Where is it stated that the Thermitic material tested by Jones would not ignite in the absence of “air” in the first place?

I love your backward logic, impressme. Trying so hard to dodge and weave the facts. The fact is, it is KNOWN and PROVEN that THERM*TE will BURN in ABSENCE of OXYGEN. Ergo to prove the strong possibility of therm*te, the test REQUIRES a burn in INERT AIR.

Please tell us what paint produces iron-rich spheres and
Spheroids after being ignited?

There is a difference between "iron spheres" and "iron containing spheres". I'd look up what "fly ash" is. In fact, burning garbage creates iron containing spheres as well. Must be thermite in there too right? But there is another way it could be formed. From the simple combustion of the material. Not a thermitic reaction, but combustion. And like how pteridine has been trying to hammer into your head, Jones has done the DSC all wrong and therefore his conclusions are all wrong.

All he has proven without a shadow of a doubt is combustion. Either combustion of the filler material as exposed to air or combustion of the "chip" when exposed to air and fire. So he has proven nothing other than, "Something burns when exposed to fire and air". Well wow, I knew that from grammar school science class. I still cannot believe you are taking this guy seriously.