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: 8
69
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 11:08 PM
reply to post by pteridine

Not to mention, at least one (possibly two) of the samples were at serious risk of being contaminated.

I'll have to look around a bit for confirmation, but I'm fairly sure at least one of the samples came from a lady, who shared her apartment with an artist who works with metals and welding.

Also, another one of the samples was collected from the Brooklyn Bridge, so how could be excluded that such a sample was the product of local maintenance?

posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 12:55 AM
reply to post by pteridine

Busted? What do you call it when you post an equation that is the formula for normal Thermite? we are discussing na nothermite.

For posting a balanced equation of the thermite reaction?

Yes, it is for normal thermite, not for nano thermite, as you seem to skirt away from.

Tell you what, why don’t you give us the equation for super nano Thermite?

page 23 of Jones paper. Did you actually read the paper?

Everyone is well aware of Jones discussion of the standard thermite equation, what I find amusing is you are comparing Jones paper to regular 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

Very amusing indeed.

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.

It doesn’t matter if the tests were done with or with out oxygen. What does matter is that the testing showed that the particals from the chips were not of a normal thermite

Right here, Jones proves this is not commercial thermite and the particals do not respond as normal thermite but of a more powerful incendiary.

Pg (23)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].
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
must wait for a future study. 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.

Ignoring these findings and skirting around all my questions and throwing out your un scientific ramblings and paraphrasing Jones work says enough.

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.

No it does not, yes it burns faster, much faster than commercial thermite ,however it makes it more powerful and release greater amounts of energy.

Reactions with nano-sized particles don't make any more energy than thermodynamics allows.

No you are wrong again. Again you are talking about regular thermite. Jones test proved superthermite by the behaviors of the partical spears and the energy output, the speed of the burn.

"Superthermites" use tiny particles of aluminum known as "nanoaluminum" (

posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 09:01 AM
reply to post by impressme

It looks like Jones has established that nano-thermite was introduced by certain parties (as yet unnamed) into the WTC towers to aid in their collapse.
Would that be a fair summary?
Rather than get bogged down in trying to prove this to a rock, perhaps we could move on at some point to how it was accomplished? Who put this stuff there?

posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 09:29 AM

Originally posted by roboe
reply to post by pteridine

Not to mention, at least one (possibly two) of the samples were at serious risk of being contaminated.

I'll have to look around a bit for confirmation, but I'm fairly sure at least one of the samples came from a lady, who shared her apartment with an artist who works with metals and welding.

Also, another one of the samples was collected from the Brooklyn Bridge, so how could be excluded that such a sample was the product of local maintenance?

Obviously. I didn't know they used nano thermite for welding? Those welders are really high tech with material that ignites and melts iron into spheres at something like 400 degrees Celsius lol.

posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 09:34 AM

Originally posted by Doctor Smith
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.

I apologize as I should have been a little more specific. I was referring to the garbage incinerators that burn garbage. Iron containing spheres are formed in them from burning the garbage itself without the use of thermite. Fly ash also contains lots of iron containing spheres as well and is used in cement.
And your comment there just shows how truely interested you are in the actual truth.

posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 09:41 AM
reply to post by impressme

well then impressme how about you post the reaction formula of this super-duper nanu nanu thermite that barely works?

Wait a minute, i though the grain size of the thermite has no bearing on the formula reaction. So if this special nanu-nanu thermite is so special because its nano-sized, how does that change the reaction formula? Also, whatever the components of the thermite mixture, the reaction ends up the same, and it still will burn in the absense of oxygen. [Edit to add:] oh and by the way, after looking up superthermites, and the different "mixes" of thermites one very clear string connects nearly ALL thermites: the oxidizer. Every single one includes an oxidizer. And guess what the oxidizers have in them? OXYGEN. The oxygen that is used up to have the reactions occur without an external source of oxygen. Hence why the need a reactant AND an oxidizer. Which means they will burn without external oxygen sources. Are you understanding this fact?
en.wikipedia.org...

Heh but I doubt you will respond cause I can tell when I am being ignored. Ah well, maybe one of your cheerleaders can ask you what I am asking you.

[edit on 8/7/2010 by GenRadek]

posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 03:15 PM
reply to post by impressme

It is unfortunate that you have absolutely no knowledge of chemistry and thermodynamics and insist on arguing based on cut and paste from the someclownsfortruth sites. It is getting tedious explaining the same things to you again and again.

Note that the nano thermite uses exactly the same stoichiometry as regular thermite. The total theoretical energies are the same. The difference lies in how fast the energy comes out. The finer the size, the quicker the reaction but the total is the same.

Jones talks about ENERGY/VOLUME yield but shows his plot as ENERGY/MASS because he weighed the chips. You cannot compare the two although Jones attempts to.

Is he trying to con people or is he just incompetent?

He claims " We suggest that the organic material in evidence in the red/gray chips is also highly energetic “ but when we compare ENERGY/MASS data, NO COMBINATION of the thermite and any of his explosives will produce the energy output per unit mass that his data shows for the two more energetic chips.
This means COMBUSTION MUST BE occurring. Because he did the DSC in air, he doesn’t have any idea how much of the energy is due to combustion. Then you quote Pg (22) “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. as super nano thermite.”
This may be compelling to people who have no idea how to do chemical analyses, such as Steven Jones. He erroneously assumes a thermite reaction when he has oxygen and organic binder present. The DSC proves only that carbon burns. Apparently, Jones has not yet discovered fire. His science lags a little; maybe you can help him out and explain fire to him.

posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 08:07 PM

It is unfortunate that you have absolutely no knowledge of chemistry and thermodynamics and insist on arguing based on cut and paste from the someclownsfortruth sites.

You are sadly wrong, however cutting and pasting the facts from Jones paper to prove your opinions are wrong, is apparently upsetting to you, as you have just demonstrated.

Note that the nano thermite uses exactly the same stoichiometry as regular thermite.

Not quite but very close.

The total theoretical energies are the same.

In some cases is some of the testing, but again not exactly the same.

The difference lies in how fast the energy comes out.

That is true.

The finer the size, the quicker the reaction but the total is the same.

The finer the size the quicker the reaction that is true, but the total is not the same.
If it was, you would have been happy to demonstrated that, as I am going to prove you wrong again Your commercial thermite will not burn at the same rate as super nanothermite, both react differently under the same testing.

Pg( 27)Again,
conventional thermite is regarded as an incendiary whereas
super-thermite, which may include organic ingredients for
rapid gas generation, is considered a pyrotechnic or explosive
[6, 24]. As this test was done in air it is possible that
some of the enhancement of energy output may have come
from air oxidation of the organic component.[/wx]

Pg (23)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
ultrafine
grain (UFG) aluminum in air [18].

[edit on 7-8-2010 by impressme]

posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 08:10 PM

Pg (23)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
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]

posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 08:11 PM

Jones talks about ENERGY/VOLUME yield but shows his plot as ENERGY/MASS because he weighed the chips.

Oh, he shouldn’t have weigh the chips? Lol and this prove what?

You cannot compare the two although Jones attempts to.

Why can no one compare the two, please demonstrate this by showing your science.

Is he trying to con people or is he just incompetent?

Why are you asking me this question? I am not a mind reader.

He claims " We suggest that the organic material in evidence in the red/gray chips is also highly energetic “ but when we compare ENERGY/MASS data, NO COMBINATION of the thermite and any of his explosives will produce the energy output per unit mass that his data shows for the two more energetic chips.

You are wrong as Jones dose show us a comparison.

Fig. (30). Energy release for monomolecular explosives HMX, TNT and TATB, for energetic composite Al/Fe2O3, [21] and energy release
by mass for four red/gray chips found in the WTC dust as measured in a Differential Scanning Calorimeter.

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

posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 08:12 PM
reply to post by pteridine

This means COMBUSTION MUST BE occurring. Because he did the DSC in air, he doesn’t have any idea how much of the energy is due to combustion.

That is you opinion, would you please demonstrate this? Does it even matter, it will only go to prove what he has already proven.

Then you quote Pg (22) “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. as super nano thermite.”

What’s your point?

This may be compelling to people who have no idea how to do chemical analyses, such as Steven Jones. He erroneously assumes a thermite reaction when he has oxygen and organic binder present.

And you are who again? No, he did not assumed thermite reaction when oxygen and organic binders were present, the is no assuming when the test result proved the chips thrematic reaction as he shows in his paper.

It really amazes me how well you go about distorting some of Jones test results and trying your best to convince the readers that do not understand all these test results that your right.
Obviously, you have an agenda and the truth is not one of them.

[edit on 7-8-2010 by impressme]

posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 08:13 PM
reply to post by pteridine

He erroneously assumes a thermite reaction when he has oxygen and organic binder present.

That is untrue, you and I have been over this already you are repeating the same nonsense. I have already demonstrated by showing the thermite reaction in Jones paper and yes even in “oxygen.”

Continuing on distorting Jones test results, you are only making yourself look very disingenuous.

The DSC proves only that carbon burns.

Yes, carbon burns. However, that is not all the DSC proves.

Apparently, Jones has not yet discovered fire. His science lags a little; maybe you can help him out and explain fire to him.

Your opinions about Jones character are meaningless and are unproductive.

You have been asked repeatedly to put up, yet you have not. The only thing you have proven so far is how good you are at giving your opinions and nothing else.

posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 08:31 PM
reply to post by impressme

Why is there chips of thermite in the dust? When thermite ignites, all of it is consumed by the reaction.

I also very much doubt that thermite eating away at the structure would cause a sudden, global, symmetrical collapse, but that is just my opinion.

posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 08:56 PM
reply to post by impressme

Even you should be able to follow this:

1. Thermite will react in air or without air
2. Paint will burn in air but not wthout air
3. If you run the DSC in air, you don't know whether it is paint or thermite
4. Jones ran the DSC in air
5. He doesn't know whether it is paint burning or thermite
6. Because of this he can't claim thermite and hasn't proved thermite
7. What experiment must Jones do to determine the character of the red chips, Impme? Can you guess?

posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 09:37 PM
reply to post by impressme

Now we will show Jones arithmetic errors in his DSC analysis.

Consider Fig 30 on page 27 of the Bentham paper. Note the red and blue bars. The red bars show energy per unit volume and the blue bars show energy per unit weight. See how there is only energy per unit weight data [blue bars] for the chips. This means that all the comments about energy per unit volume are not applicable to this paper.

Consider the values of the blue bars for all the compounds shown. For the energetic materials, thermite is at 3.9 and HMX is about 5.5 or so and the others are in-between. [There is a problem with not finding any nitrogen in the EDAX analysis which eliminates any nitro compounds, but we will play along for now.]
Now look at the values for the chips. It is puzzling how these highly engineered chips would have so much variation, isn't it? The values for the chips #3 and #4 are about 5.9 and 7 kJ/g, respectively; bigger than any of the explosives.

Now we show that these two chips have to be burning in the DSC. This is because they are making more energy than they could possibly make if they were 100% thermite. They are making more energy than they could possibly make if they were 100% HMX. This means that any combination of thermite and HMX can't produce the energy of the chips. A 50:50 mix would make about 4.7 kJ/g. The only way we can get this amount of energy is through burning the carbonaceous binder in air. Why? Because when we weigh the chips we weigh whatever carbon is present but we never weigh the oxygen we use to burn it. We weigh the oxygen in the thermite and the HMX but not the oxygen in the air. This results in a much higher energy per unit weight for things we burn in air than for thermite. About 10 times more for common hydrocarbons.

Now we know that at least some of the energy has to come from burning and maybe all of the energy has to come from burning. How can we tell the difference between energy from burning and energy from reaction? We can eliminate burning by eliminating oxygen and what is left has to be something other than burning. How can we eliminate oxygen? We can run the DSC under Argon. Until that is done, we have no way of saying what the source of heat was.

Jones doesn't know the source of the heat and can't claim thermite. the paper proves nothing.

What experiment do you think should be done?

posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 04:19 AM
I think it is only fare to say the debunkers could not put up any sources or science to back their claims. As far as I am concern, Jones Thermite paper still stands, until new science can disprove Jones Thermite paper.

Do not be fooled by opinions.

pteridine, you have not answered any of my questions to any of my posts with any sources, just your opinions nothing more.

It takes science to discredit science, not one’s opinions. I have played your circular logic game long enough. As members of ATS we are in here to deny ignorance not to promote it by given our opinions and insist they be accepted as fact. Pteridine you have repeatedly complained to me that you do not like how Jones did his experiments and testing. Why don’t you do your own testing, and write your own paper and have it peer reviewed to show your science against Jones paper. Time to move on.

posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 09:32 AM

Originally posted by impressme
I think it is only fare to say the debunkers could not put up any sources or science to back their claims. As far as I am concern, Jones Thermite paper still stands, until new science can disprove Jones Thermite paper.

What do you mean, "disprove Jone's paper"? The paper has never been proved becuase it never has gone through any peer review. Has Jones ever given his samples to others to confirm his analysis? From what I have heard, he has not.

Jones has long been notorious for wanting to believe there was some conspiracy behind the 9/11 attack so it's no surprise he'd invent his own evidence to support it. Whether the evidence he invented has any credibility has yet to be proven.

Do not be fooled by opinions.

I agree, particularly the opinions being passed off as evidence. Jones is the quintessential conspiracy con artist passing off innuendo as fact, specifically in this case- nowhere has he been able to prove this supposed nanothermite he had found played any part in the destruction of the WTC. go ahead and insist it was nanothermite if you so desire, but as far as I'm concerned, all Jones has proved is that some guy might have dumped a bag of thermite into the WTC dust after it had already collapsed.

[edit on 10-8-2010 by GoodOlDave]

posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 09:36 AM
reply to post by impressme

Why don’t you do your own testing, and write your own paper and have it peer reviewed to show your science against Jones paper. Time to move on.

Yeah Pteridine, why don't you have someone mail you some dust off the ground that they think came from the World Trade Center, assume there is some exotic compound contained therein, fabricate some controls out of thin air, conduct some tests in your garage, write up a paper, pay some website to publish it, and then claim its been "peer reviewed" with no exceptions taken.

Now that's science!!!

posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 09:50 AM
reply to post by hooper

I really liked the part where he used a multimeter to help establish that what he had wasn't paint chips!

Where is CSI New York when you need them? They could loan him their thermite(excuse me, nano-thermite) goggles so he could see them under the nanothermite-o-light.

[edit on 10-8-2010 by butcherguy]

posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 10:54 AM
reply to post by impressme

I have used Jones' words to show how he completely botched the analyses. I have shown how his data do not justify his conclusions. I have shown the errors in his protocols. The paper was not peer reviewed by anyone with knowledge of analytical chemistry. I can see how this misguided piece of work was claimed to be peer reviewed only if the peers were fellow charlatans and crazed divinity professors.
Those who understand logic and reason have written "Ol' Paint" Jones off as either an incompetent or a charlatan. Only the diehard few that are lacking in reason and desperate for "evidence" of any conspiracy continue to accept his paper.
It will languish in the humor section until it is brought out in an undergrad chem class as the best bad example of an Analytical Chem paper. If I ever do have strangers sending me sweaty handfuls of dust with paint chips in them, I will certainly put new batteries in my multimeter before I make any measurements.

new topics

top topics

69