Hypothesis: The Professor Stephen E. Jones Story.

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by pteridine

 

Professor Steven Jones not only proved that he found a super na-nothermite in his testing but he shows what was paint and what super na-nothermite.

Carry on, asking questions with questions…

In many threads, I have showed how Jones' so-called "science" is wrong using his own data. The self-extinguishing super nano-thermite is looking more and more like red paint. You, his primary cheerleader, are the last to realize it. Jones' life story may well expose him for the publicity-hungry individual that he has become if it shows anything of his true nature.

"Asking questions with questions" is how it is usually done.

reply to post by pteridine

In many threads, I have showed how Jones' so-called "science" is wrong using his own data.

The only thing you proved was how good you are at giving your opinions.

The self-extinguishing super nano-thermite is looking more and more like red paint.

“Is looking more and more like paint”? Thanks for your opinions
But Jones proved it was na-nothermite, not just paint.

You, his primary cheerleader,

I am no one’s cheerleader, perhaps you feel insulting me with your “sarcastic opinions” makes you credible some how?

Jones' life story may well expose him for the publicity-hungry individual that he has become if it shows anything of his true nature.

“If it shows anything”? You would think after 9 years that would have been exposed by now. Perhaps Jones true nature is using science to prove the OS is lie.
I find it ironic that you accuse Jones of all these negative agendas, in just about every 911 thread related to Steven Jones topic, or na-nothermite. Yet when you have been confronted for proof to your silly allegations, we get nothing from you, why is that?
Besides your sarcastic opinions, you need to stop with the ”character assassinations.”

"Asking questions with questions" is how it is usually done.

Sometimes, however you never answer questions that is required of you.

I don’t believe you know how it works.

It is my opinion that you have some kind of agenda here and I don't think the truth is one of them.



[edit on 5-9-2010 by impressme]

reply to post by impressme


Your responses are always interesting even if your unconditional defense of Jones' poor science is without basis. Jones, as you may know, no longer has any standing in the scientific community because of the lack of science in his latest papers. His movie will undoubtedly paint him as a martyr and not a publicity hound.
Why do you promote Jones' world view without questioning his evidence?
Do you deny that the chips self extinguished? Do you deny that Jones' data showed that combustion was occurring in the DSC? Do you reject the concept that to prove a thermite reaction, Jones has to first run the DSC in the absence of air?
There is no evidence of nano-, micro-, meso-, or macro- thermite.

reply to post by pteridine

It is really interested how hard you defend the OS fallacies .
The reason I defend Jones science is because no one has refuted it yet.

Jones, as you may know, no longer has any standing in the scientific community because of the lack of science in his latest papers.

Lack of science? That is ridiculous, and untrue. Do you make up this garbage as you go?

That is your opinion, nothing more. It is such a pity that you have now resorted to continue on with your ”character assassinations.” because you couldn’t bring any science to the table to disprove Jones Journal, and yet you brag to everyone that you’re a scientist, how interesting.

His movie will undoubtedly paint him as a martyr and not a publicity hound.

You do not know what his movie will bring about. This is your assumptions the very same assumptions and speculation you brought to the table in trying to debunk Jones Journal.

Why do you promote Jones' world view without questioning his evidence?
Do you deny that the chips self extinguished? Do you deny that Jones' data showed that combustion was occurring in the DSC? Do you reject the concept that to prove a thermite reaction, Jones has to first run the DSC in the absence of air?

I have question his evidence, however Jones sciences still stands very credible and will do so until another scientist can prove Jones science is flawed by presenting a peer reviewed paper showing his or her work in great detail. If it is proven that Jones work is flawed and that he did not discover super na-nothermite or what ever, then I will ceased in supporting Jones work. I am only interested in the truth. If you can prove Jones work is flawed by doing a “peer reviewed paper” against Jones work, then I will be happy to read it. But until then your opinions do not measure up to real science.

There is no evidence of nano-, micro-, meso-, or macro- thermite.

That is completely false and you know it. You believe there is no evidence, because you want there to be no evidence. It doesn’t support your belief system.




[edit on 5-9-2010 by impressme]

reply to post by impressme


I'll ask again: Do you deny that the chips self extinguished?

Do you deny that Jones' data showed that combustion was occurring in the DSC?

Do you reject the concept that to prove a thermite reaction, Jones has to first run the DSC in the absence of air?

reply to post by pteridine





I’ll ask you again do you “deny”
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.

Do you deny, that spheres found in the WTC
dust (Fig. 27) and a representative XEDS spectrum from
such a sphere (Fig. 28); we invite the reader to compare
these results with those found for ignition of commercial
thermite and for ignition of red/gray chips (above).

Do you deny, that ordinary thermite acts as an incendiary
when ignited.

Do you deny, that the ingredients are ultrafine-
grain and are intimately mixed, the mixture reacts very
rapidly, even explosively [20]. Thus, there is a highly energetic
form of thermite known as an energetic nanocomposite
or “super-thermite,” composed of aluminum and iron oxide
with at least one component being approximately 100 nm or
less, often along with silicon and carbon [19-28].

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by pteridine

 

I’ll ask you again do you “deny”
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.

The evidence obtained in the DSC is in air and is not compelling at all, as the energy output shows combustion. Because of this, there is no way to discriminate between combustion and reaction of thermite. Of course, we have a hint as to the power of the super nano-thermite. It self-extinguished after it was ignited. Oops.
Now you answer one of my questions.

[edit on 7-9-2010 by impressme]

reply to post by pteridine

The evidence obtained in the DSC is in air and is not compelling at all, as the energy output shows combustion Because of this, there is no way to discriminate between combustion and reaction of thermite.

Really? And where is your proof to support your “opinion”?

have a hint as to the power of the super nano-thermite. It self-extinguished teraf it was ignited. Oops.

I like how you cherry pick one test result and twisted it, as if all Jones ignited tests ALL fizzled out, that was just one of many test Jones did. Stop misrepresenting Jones Journal.

[edit on 7-9-2010 by impressme]

reply to post by impressme


The proof of combustion is in Jones' data. Remember?
As to the self-extinguishing 'super nanothermite,' that was the key photo you and others used to claim the spheres were iron. Of course, they aren't, but this was part of your "evidence" of thermite.
No wonder ten tons of it were left in the dust; it won't stay lit.

I have answered one of your questions. Are you able to answer any of mine?

reply to post by pteridine

The proof of combustion is in Jones' data. Remember?
As to the self-extinguishing 'super nanothermite,' that was the key photo you and others used to claim the spheres were iron. Of course, they aren't, but this was part of your "evidence" of thermite.
No wonder ten tons of it were left in the dust; it won't stay lit.

Pteridine, you answered one question out of hundreds that you refuse to answer.
The question you answered was “completely false” and you only gave your opinions and you did not bring any sources to back your opinions or claims.

You are not discussing, or debating anything honestly in here, you cherry picked “one test result” that Jones did out of many.
That test was not the factor in determining Super na-nothermite. Furthermore, you need to stop misrepresenting Jones sciences and twisting his test results.

*Iron spheres were found under DSC testing*!

When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring
at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. [color=gold]Numerous iron-richspheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these
chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic

www.bentham-open.org...

How did you come up with 10 tons un-lit thermite?
your response to me was completely untrue and I just prove it by posting Jones test results that you claim did not produce or find evidences of "iron spears."

I am done discussing Jones report with you. You have done everything you can in twisting Jones science in order to find a flaw.

The readers will have no problem in seeing who has been genuine and who "is twisting the facts."

The readers will have no problem in the link below of who was twisting Jones science to fit there OS agenda.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[color=gold]IGNORE!!

reply to post by impressme

The "source" that you ask for is Jones paper. Perhaps you still don't realize that that is what I used in my technical criticisms of his work. The photos of the partially-burned, self-extinguishing chips are from Jones paper. Maybe the ultra nano-thermite is the OSHA safety version that goes out. The photos and data were used as "evidence" of iron spheres by several of your fellow travellers and they used the melting point of iron as the temperature of reaction. The difference between iron-rich and iron is significant and the temperature claims are groundless.

The ten tons was his figure based on the total dust and the fraction of red chips he found, assuming a representative sample. The number came from an interview or email exchange of Jones right after publication. At the same time he said that maybe the chips were fuse material. Obviously, he didn't think about it very hard because 10 tons of unburned fuse is even less probable that 10 tons of unburned thermite. This entire exchange is somewhere in my files but is not worth looking for as it does not affect the results of the paper.

Pretending indignation does not alter the fact that you are incapable of defending Jones' work or participating in any reasonable discussion about it. Maybe you can try for a part in his movie. I'll look for you in the cheerleader costume.

Originally posted by impressme
until another scientist can prove Jones science is flawed by presenting a peer reviewed paper

It is so funny how you want a scientist to refute Jones paper with a peer reviewed article, whilst you ignore the fact that Jones paper was not peer reviewed, and he had to publish it in a pay to publish vanity journal!

reply to post by dereks

Originally posted by dereks
Originally posted by impressme
until another scientist can prove Jones science is flawed by presenting a peer reviewed paper

It is so funny how you want a scientist to refute Jones paper with a peer reviewed article, whilst you ignore the fact that Jones paper was not peer reviewed, and he had to publish it in a pay to publish vanity journal!

BENTHAM OPEN publish over [color=gold]250 peer-reviewed open access journals. These free-to-view online journals cover all major disciplines of science, technology, and medicine.

www.bentham.org...

Yes dereks, that’s how it works, (science = peer review.)
No, I do not ignore any facts dereks perhaps, it is you who has been misinform, or you are ignoring the facts that Jones Journal was “peer reviewed” in an Bentham open access , so people do not have to pay to read it. Not only was Jones Journal peered reviewed so was 250 other Journal at Bentham.org
Jones Journal was published in the vanity journal and yes, it cost money or do you think publications are all free?

Steven E Jones, ay..... well, I had to write a blog collecting together all the stuff about thermite.

You want to know the truth? Then check the evidence.

911thermitefree.blogspot.com...

Someone else spent quite a bit of time making this:

reply to post by izopen


People are taking the conventional properties of thermite and trying to apply those properties to why thermite couldn't have been used on 9/11. The truth is, thermite can be engineered in all different manners to get different properties when applied to various explosives or other processes. It's not like they dtrapped thermate canisters to the beams inside the towers.

To get an idea of the different studies on nanoaliminun powders, read the folowing:

Military Reloads with Nanotech

Smaller. Cheaper. Nastier. Those are the guiding principles behind the military's latest bombs. The secret ingredient: nanotechnology that makes for a bigger boom.

DETONATION PROPERTIES OF EXPLOSIVES CONTAINING NANOMETRIC
ALUMINUM POWDER

Nanometric aluminum powder is known to react more rapidly than
conventional, micron-size aluminum grades in propellant and explosive
compositions. Defence Research and Development Canada - Valcartier
(DRDC-V) and the Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO)
are collaborating to assess the potential of nanometric aluminum powders
in explosive compositions. Various plastic-bonded explosives (PBXs) and
TNT-based formulations have been developed to compare ultrafine and
conventional micron-sized aluminum. Explosive performance was
determined by VoD measurements and plate dent depth tests.

--airspoon