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: 7
69
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Has anybody published another peer reviewed paper critiquing the Harrit thermite one?

Sorry but there is too much information in these fields for me to trust a bunch of people arguing online and probably none of them are right. People that are really intelligent don't get into pissy arguments like this like their pride is hurt.




posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 
Great. Now you are going to have to prove to them that there were fires in the towers.

They may end up telling you that what you think were fires were simply holographic projections to make you think there were fires in there.





posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Its a never ending wheel of ignorance I tell you. I'm getting pretty tired of this ride. I thought ATS was for Denying Ignorance. Its like next we have to prove ANYTHING happened on 9/11 and it all wasnt some giant hoax.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 



....Steven Jones test results are wrong


I like how you took part of my quote and used it out of contexts.


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.


Wrong, you obviously have no clue to what you are talking about. It does matter if the tests results are correct. So tell me, what part of Jones science you found wrong, and where is your scientific analysis? I assume you will be posting that now.


They are not.

No control group = no science.


You do not need a control group for every experiment. Again, you have just proved that you have no idea to what you are talking about.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Ahh you getting some of your own medicine, feels good doesnt it, this is how you treat all the people who can see holes in literally every explanation given as to the events of that day, and you say the truthers have no proof, as if there wasn't any.

Getting tiring LMAO, it must be hard to constantly defend a story so full of inconsistency with incredible effort, a very religious effort to totally ignore obvious fault and side with whats printed by "leaders".

You OS'ers will stop at nothing to bend reality to fit that story, well continue to have fun and realize its not going away, get ready for more testing of your hilarious beliefs.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


well in this particular case, you DO need a control. Geeze, I mean we learned this stuff back in high school science and chem classes. A control is necessary especially if you are trying to see what "something" really is. And sometimes you need to have a series of controls to test the "unknown" agianst them. THAT is how you do a proper experiment. You dont just do one half-assed, miss critical tests that would prove what it is or isnt (especially if testing for a property that is known of the object at hand, ie in this case, burning without external oxygen source), ignore countless other possibilities, and then try and shoehorn the outcome into your pre-desired conclusion.

Jones' "experiment" procedures in this case would make a high school chem teacher cringe. Just goes to show, that even if you have a PhD in something, doesnt mean you are all-knowledgable in other subjects. A PhD in physics doesnt mean he knows chemistry. Like I said before, would you want a rocket engineer with a PhD doing your brain surgery?



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by GrinchNoMore
 


Ok so why dont you explain why the "chips" failed to burn completely after ignition? You come off as if you know the facts and redicule us, so, please use your knowledge and explain how a magical super-engineered nanu nanu thermite failed to burn completely after exposure to fire. REAL thermite once ignited burns itself completely out. It doesnt just stop half way and thats it. So please, explain.

Also, explain why Jones shouldnt test the sample in inert air. After all it is known, nay, a fact that thermite burns with or without an external source of oxygen, so why not test this critical fact? Why only test in air with oxygen, when its known that thermite will also burn without the presence of oxygen? Come now, be specific.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



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




[Size=12]Busted!!


What are you talking about???

We are not talking about regular thermite, we are talking about super nanothermite.

Going to a debunking website called "debunking911.com" and copying and pasting equations that has very little relevance to Jones paper and proving the findings of super nano thermite. you apparently were hoping that most people on here will buy your nonsense, you have no real understanding of this science all you have done is made a complete fool out of yourself by copying and pasting other people formulas. Perhaps, continuing to twist Jones articles and equations are all you can do into trying to fool everyone who really lacks any real understanding of this journal.

That equation is for the "standered thermite". nice try!


Note how much thermite is used. The pot is about a liter, but how much thermite is that?
Stoichiometric thermite requires 2 moles of Al per 1 mole of Fe2O3

2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe


2 moles of Al weigh 54 g
1 mole of Fe2O3 weighs 160 g

density of Al=2.64 g/cc
density of Fe2O3=5.24 g/cc


54 grams of Al is equivalent to 20.5 cc of Al.
160g of Fe2O3 is equivalent to 30.5 cc of Fe2O3

Therefore, 51 cc of fully dense powder of 20.5 cc Al and 30.5 cc Fe2O3 weighs (54+160) g = 214 g.

A volume of 1000 cc would weigh (1000/51)*214 = 4.2 kg

For a powder packing density of 50%, the powder would weigh:

0.5*4.2 kg = 2.1 kg = 4.8 lb
That much just to burn a small hole in a small car engine. I bet it's even an aluminum block but lets say it isn't. How much do you think it would take to burn a massive core column? Then add enough to burn for 6 weeks! You see where we're going. You'd need tons.
Here's a Debunking911 Fun Fact!

www.debunking911.com...

I would bail out while you can.

[edit on 6-8-2010 by impressme]



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   

New paper published in the peer-reviewed Open Chemical Physics Journal by Dr. Steven Jones and 8 others discusses the "red chips" found in World Trade Center dust following the destruction on 9/11. Their conclusion: Thermite. Debunkers: submit your work for peer-review and publication.

www.nowpublic.com...

Where is the Jones debunker peer reviewed paper on no nano thermite...?

It isn't like the government couldn't do it.
They have the samples.
I wonder why they haven't published a peer reviewed paper of their own?

Oh wait, I know.
Thats why the official people I mentioned earlier all felt the official investigation was an official sham.

Oh darn, silly me

Well if the government publishes a peer reviewed study then call me..
I'll be on the financial thread investigating all the CIA types that short sold the specific airline stocks in the days prior to 911...which of course took prior knowledge...or looking for the files intp Rumsfeld's missing trillions that were in building seven or looking for no WMDs....

or something that is OS AND actualy true...

[edit on 6-8-2010 by Danbones]



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


You are correct, I did post that snippet too much out of context, I realized that after I posted it. However, I didn't mean to imply that you thought his results were wrong, my point was and still is that the results of any test in this scenario are irrelevant because the whole premise is unscientific.

The original samples are of dubious origin and provenance and relevancy. Someone scooped up some dust on the way back from ground zero on 9/11. No idea about how much of the "sample" was from the collapse of the building and how much was there to begin with (native content). The fact that they approached the whole exercise from the standpoint that they already believed something was afoot, this is the first step in an exercise of forgone conclusions. And finally no control group, they didn't test anything samples from any other places, the comparative sample called the "paint sample" was, well, just undocumented. The whole thing stinks which is why no real science journal would ever touch something like this and they had to pay to have it published and even then it was considered so outlandish and so far removed from anything even resembling science that the editor of the pay to publish site resigned.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Thermite is thermite. No matter how "special" you claim it is. Wait, unless you think that this super duper nanu nanu thermite, so specially engineered, was so crappily made that it barely works properly. Is that what youre saying? Cause geeze after all this trouble of having it stay light, finding 10 tons of it unburned, having it self extinguish the moment a flame is removed, it sounds like this is some crappy grade thermite. They should have just stuck with the original.
Or was this special thermite laced with magic pixy dust? cause if so, then I'd say the makers of this special magical thermite should demand a refund for the poor functioning of the pixy dust used in this crappy grade thermite.

If only Jones had bothered to test the chip under an inert atmosphere. But I guess we will never know. Wait, we do. Its paint!


[edit on 8/6/2010 by GenRadek]



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


You are correct, I did post that snippet too much out of context, I realized that after I posted it. However, I didn't mean to imply that you thought his results were wrong, my point was and still is that the results of any test in this scenario are irrelevant because the whole premise is unscientific.


I will ask you again, what is wrong with the modus operandi of Jones scientific findings?
Perhaps, you can explain in a mathematical way to why you feel Jones experiments are wrong?
When Jones shows the break down process in the paint chips and the chemical compounds, there were many particles found of nano Thermite under rigor testing, and Jones shows the photos of this discovery, from under electronic microscope? Would this be the normal findings of regular paint and the same chemical composition of regular paint when put under the same rigger of the flame testing, perhaps you can answer this question for us.

[edit on 6-8-2010 by impressme]



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


oh impressme, my my my.

It looks as if hooper knows more about Jones' paper than you. And copying and pasting the same old nonsense from jones' paper means nothing if you cannot explain the obvious, glaring errors in his paper. why wont you address those?



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 06:53 PM
link   
FACT: JONES DID PROVE ADVANCED THERMITIC MATERIAL.

For over a century, thermite has been used around the world. One common use is welding railroad track. Much information including photos and videos of this use of thermite is on the internet if you want to know more.

The material tested by Jones is in some ways similar to “standard” thermite but Jones clearly points out key differences between thermite and the super or nano – thermite like material he tested.


The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, Volume 2
Pg. 23



2. Is the Red Material Thermitic in Nature?
Our observations show that the red material contains substantial amounts of aluminum, iron and oxygen, mixed together very finely. In the sample soaked in MEK, we observed a clear migration and aggregation of the aluminum away from other elements and determined that elemental
aluminum and iron oxide must be present. In the product
collected after DSC ignition, we found spheres which were
not initially present. Many of these spheres were iron rich
and elemental iron was found in the post-ignition debris.
Further, the DSC traces demonstrate that the red/gray chips react vigorously at a temperature below the melting point of
aluminum and below the ignition (oxidation) point of ultrafine
grain (UFG) aluminum in air [18].

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 = 􀀁853.5
kJ/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].



… Meanwhile, we compare with products of commercially available (macro-) thermite. During ignition of thermite, we have observed that many spheres and spheroids are formed as part of the molten product of the reaction is vigorously scattered. These particles tend to become spherical due to surface tension and, being small, are rapidly cooled and solidify as they fall through the air, thus their spherical shape is preserved.



To facilitate comparisons between the products of
red/gray chip ignition and commercial thermite ignition, we
juxtapose the respective images and XEDS spectra.

We observe that the spheroidal residues from ignition of
red chips (Figs. 25, 26) 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.


There’s more. Read the Jones paper. You don’t have to be a scientist to understand the summary of his findings. I’ve yet to see evidence proving paint chips release iron spheres when heated! That crap is from the anti-truth posse. Their agenda is to extinguish any theories about 9-11 that don’t agree with the OS. They’re not scientists or engineers; they are fakes good at the GC&P (Google, copy and paste) process. It should be evident to most that the moronic equation, 4 commercial airliners + 19 Arab hijackers = the events of 9-11, is false. Don’t fear the truth, embrace it; it’s the one thing you can trust to help you identify your enemies.

* Equation displays incorrectly on ATS, probably due to certain characters. Read it directly on pg. 23 of Jones' paper.

[edit on 7-8-2010 by truthcounts]



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
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.

That is not what I was asking, and I think you know that, so why be simplistic about it? I ask questions from people who seem to know stuff, and I get a simplistic answer from someone else. There may well be something wrong with the way the heat testing was conducted to produce a certain result as per Dr Jones's outcome. So, what I was asking was if, Dr Jones or whoever had conducted his tests properly and the outcome was an explosive type of combustion, what are the alternatives to Thermite? was the testing flawed? whatever, it behoves you to answer a little more than the way you did, and not horses for courses.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 





In fact, burning garbage creates iron containing spheres as well. Must be thermite


No it doesn't. What a joke. Ordinary fire doesn't get hot enough to melt iron period. You just don't seem capable of understanding that fact. Must be all the mercury immunizations.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by impressme
 


You are correct, I did post that snippet too much out of context, I realized that after I posted it. However, I didn't mean to imply that you thought his results were wrong, my point was and still is that the results of any test in this scenario are irrelevant because the whole premise is unscientific.

The original samples are of dubious origin and provenance and relevancy. Someone scooped up some dust on the way back from ground zero on 9/11. No idea about how much of the "sample" was from the collapse of the building and how much was there to begin with (native content). The fact that they approached the whole exercise from the standpoint that they already believed something was afoot, this is the first step in an exercise of forgone conclusions. And finally no control group, they didn't test anything samples from any other places, the comparative sample called the "paint sample" was, well, just undocumented. The whole thing stinks which is why no real science journal would ever touch something like this and they had to pay to have it published and even then it was considered so outlandish and so far removed from anything even resembling science that the editor of the pay to publish site resigned.

The "paint sample was undocumented" the very item that has been used to discredit Dr Jones in other posts here. It also begs the question what else was undocumented at ground zero, or for that matter documented.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Busted? For posting a balanced equation of the thermite reaction? How dramatic of you. This is a well known reaction whose equation is available from many sources including page 23 of Jones paper. Did you actually read the paper?
Now for a little chemistry review. Once again, the reaction is the same regardless of particle size. Nano means small particle size and just makes the reaction go faster. Reactions with nano-sized particles don't make any more energy than thermodynamics allows.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy
There may well be something wrong with the way the heat testing was conducted to produce a certain result as per Dr Jones's outcome. So, what I was asking was if, Dr Jones or whoever had conducted his tests properly and the outcome was an explosive type of combustion, what are the alternatives to Thermite? was the testing flawed? whatever, it behoves you to answer a little more than the way you did, and not horses for courses.

Reaction in the absence of air could be many things. If it is a combustion, it implies that the oxidant was included with a reductant. Examples are things like flash powders such as potassium perchlorate and aluminum dust or certain organic nitrate mixtures like Otto fuel.
The testing was flawed in many ways but the first flaw was running the DSC in air. The first test should have been the DSC in the absence of air. This would have allowed an immediate discrimination between the possibility of thermite and just plain paint. By doing the reaction in air, the test is inconclusive [although the energetics data presented say some burning is definite] and thermite is not proved.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


1. The paper was not peer reviewed.
2. The paper was flawed and proved nothing.
3. Dust samples with a chain of custody are not known to be available.




top topics



 
69
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join