Jones' Dust Analysis: Comparing Known Nano-Energetics ( A Response to "Pteridine" )

This is a follow up to the discussion between "Pteridine" and myself.

It appears that our debate has turned into anything but a debate. “Pteridine” has not given a definitive answer to any of my questions regarding DSC trace interpretation, definitions, or prior clarifications of previous claims.
Last and most important, “Pteridine” has not sourced any references for his claims. Therefore he is arguing from opinion and nothing more.

“Pteridine” has asked me to state my case to support my position that the chips in the WTC dust are indeed energetic. His three main contests for the dust analysis are as follows:
- 1a. Dr. Jones should have run the test in absence of air to prove a thermitic reaction.
- 1b. Iron-rich spheres are not pure iron, therefore it cannot be some sort of Thermite
- 2. Combustion occurred which contributed to the total heat which cannot be distinguished between an alumino-thermic reaction.

Claim #1a
The fact that Dr. Jones ran the test in air has absolutely no bearing on the outcome of the test because heat from combustion, nor the thermal transition time is neither hot enough, or fast enough to produce molten iron.
Tillotson ran the test in air, and Dr. Jones duplicated the environment in order to compare data. Since the DSC cannot measure total reaction heat, Tillotson used the residue to prove a thermitic reaction occurred.

First of all, let’s define a thermitic reaction:

By definition a thermite reaction is a chemical reaction in which aluminum metal (Al) is oxidized by a different metal-oxide, most commonly iron-oxide (Fe2O3) [26]. As indicated by the Latin root "therm" meaning heat, the main contribution of a thermite reaction is the exothermic heat production.

As found in the LLNL documentation, Tillotson proved a thermitic reaction by finding iron-rich spheres in his test residue:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/77fdd4611a10.jpg[/atsimg]

Did Dr. Jones find iron-rich spheres after the reaction of the chips? Yes, indeed.

Spheroids were 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.

Claim 1b
How did Jones ensure the results? He tested the chips before and after ignition noting several characteristics. That Iron Oxide existed prior to the DSC testing using high power image magnification, and elemental analysis (BSE, XEDS).
Chip surfaces featuring oxidizer (white dots)
Jones /Fournier
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fb328c6a552b.jpg[/atsimg]

Jones Close Up
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0014db4a319c.jpg[/atsimg]
LLNL / LANL
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/412d9bd42816.jpg[/atsimg]

Oxidizer Magnified
Jones
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/dca8cc3181aa.jpg[/atsimg]
LLNL / LANL
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3dd38ba96a80.jpg[/atsimg]

It is clear there are similarities of elements, textures, structures between the known nano-energetic material from LLNL and Jones’ dust sample.

**note: LLNL has done studies with Fe203 and Mo03. The photos listed from LANL are obviously not Iron Oxide, however the sol-gel process and intimate mixtures are similar. View documentation for Tillotson to study the differences. Molybdenum is more powerful, but Iron is readily available and cheaper to use producing nearly equal results.
See chart:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5bed389c5ac3.jpg[/atsimg]

Not only did Jones reference the LLNL documentation and compare the results, he also tested known thermite
along with the chips. Notice the striking comparison in the post ignition spectrums:

Chips in Dust
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4477e4afee1e.jpg[/atsimg]
Known Thermite
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fa906d4e9ff4.jpg[/atsimg]

Notice the ratio between oxygen and iron before and after ignition. The abundance of Iron vs. oxygen shows that a reduction took place. The Aluminum is now oxidized. Elemental Iron remains (FeIII) further proving a thermitic reaction took place.


Claim #2
It’s very easy to distinguish between combustion and an alumino – thermic reaction using the DSC trace.
Combustion is a slow process and creates a gradual rise in the exotherm, and a broad curve. An explosive reaction produces a sharp, near immediate increase, a narrow band followed by a sharp drop in heat because the fuel is consumed almost instantly. There are hundreds of examples to support this fact. Below is a known black power trace which exhibits all of the criteria outlined in this paragraph:

www.nrcan.gc.ca..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> www.nrcan.gc.ca...
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/52a6f42947f5.jpg[/atsimg]

Tillotson LLNL
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b71532097af4.jpg[/atsimg]

LANL
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2ebf1f20bf4a.jpg[/atsimg]

Jones
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/67600896103a.jpg[/atsimg]

There is absolutely no reason to debate this fact any further. Jones exotherm trace flat out proves an explosive, chemical reaction – NOT COMBUSTION.

At this point, “Pteridine” must be able to provide a DSC trace for any of the elements found in Jones’ sample which might show a broad trace, slow exotherm, followed by a gradual decrease in heat. “Pteridine” must be able to show a credible source for his proof showing setup parameters for the DSC test as I have done.
Total heat required cannot be achieved by combustion. We know for a fact that there is not enough energy available from the organic materials to reach the melting point of iron.

LANL has specified a heat of reaction including combustion as 912’C (Mo03) which falls short by about 600’C. We know for a fact that conventional thermite can produce up to 2500’C which is more than 900’C over the temperature required to melt iron.

Source:
en.wikipedia.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> en.wikipedia.org...
We also know that LLNL has produce mixtures of nano-thermite that can produce over 4000’C of reaction heat:

Tillotson, 2001
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8d188900b91d.jpg[/atsimg]

In Summary, “Pteridine” must acknowledge that he has accepted that iron-rich spheres exist in Jones’ post- ignition samples and that iron-rich not only means a thermitic reaction took place, it also means “Pteridine” was incorrect about the spheres needing to be 100% iron.

There is a mountain of proof in this post alone to show that the chips resemble nano-energetic materials produced by LLNL. The photos, and the science prove it. Backed with sources from government labs no less.

reply to post by turbofan

....drop in heat because the fuel is consumed almost instantly.

Well, there's the kicker. In as much as these folks seem to find this material in every dust bunny in lower Manhattan then it proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that the stuff was not "consumed". Ergo, it is something else - paint maybe?

reply to post by hooper


Sorry, your "dust bunny" theory doesn't compare to the OP's intelligent analytical posting. You have obviously foiled yourself.

Originally posted by Another Vodka
reply to post by hooper

 

Sorry, your "dust bunny" theory doesn't compare to the OP's intelligent analytical posting. You have obviously foiled yourself.

Sorry, didn't mean to foil myself, I've been working on that problem and I hope not to foil myself again.

I know you would rather play around with the lab work mumbo-jumbo but before you can even start looking at means and methods, you have to start with the basics and they just aren't addressed. Where are the control samples that prove that the material found in their examples is unique and related to the events of 9/11?

I'll tell you where they are - they don't exist. No control group of samples was ever collected or analyzed. Which basically invalidates everything past the title of the paper.

reply to post by hooper


Show me a sourced DSC plot of a paint sample that:
- exhibits a sharp exotherm around the 430-500'C heating temperature of ignition
- has a narrow exotherm equal to, or less than the LLNL sample.
- has a quick decay as shown by all known explosive and thermitic materials

- has an XEDS element spectrum as shown in the Tillotson, and Jones diagrams
- must consist of Iron Oxide prior to ignitoin, and elemental iron post ignition
- has nano sized plates embedded in an organic matrix as shown in the LANL and Jones study

- shows an oxidizer such as Fe203 (Iron Oxide), or Mo03 (Moly.) when magnified to the nano scale
- can produce iron rich spheres as a post ignition residue.
- comparable to heat output as a known thermite, or nano-thermite

When you, or anyone else that makes excuses for this study can source a paint that can do all of that
come back and debate with some stance.

Until then, please refrain from showing your ignorance of science by claiming the chips are paint.

As if paint would be applied to core columns of a steel framed building if the paint could potentially melt the
core columns in a fire!

Turbofan,
I just want to thank you on behalf of all of the "truthers" out there like myself whom had grown tired of the constant barrage of non-sensical arguments based upon disproven science and ridiculous assumptions. Your technical analysis is the equivalent of kryptonite for their imaginative tales and as the threads have shown the "trusters" are no match for you. It was a for-gone conclustion that they'd constantly ignore direct questions, distract and derail the thread at every turn, then conspicuously disappear when their tactics proved ineffective. Still, it is an exercise in futility. The big bad gum't ain't gonna let us have no investigation, these fools will never stop spreading this BS on ATS, and if we ain't careful we "truthers" ain't gonna be flyin' nowhere anymore.

reply to post by turbofan


Sure, soon as you show me the control group samples that would validate the entire exercise!

holy crap dude get a day job....

ok.. so "nanothermite superduper awesome melty putty" was used to take out the WT Towers.

How did it get there (behind the walls onto the support beams im assuming) and enough of it to ensure the building colapses "free fall" (so can i assume since you all scream controlled demolition also, that # super melty putty was put on every floor OH and it makes Ka-BOOM noises too cause there were bombs too) LOL you guys seriously...

Thats right... totally blow common sense out the window and keep screaming about these absurdities.... seriously.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by turbofan

 

Sure, soon as you show me the control group samples that would validate the entire exercise!

You can contact Lawrence Livermore National Lab about the control samples. They are the ones who wrote
several papers on nano-energetics. The papers are references in Jones' study.

reply to post by Velocismo


I have a day job thanks; quite a good one too.

Just let me know when you guys are here to debate instead of posting useless opinions. Before you come
back, try to find a source for your claims.

Good luck finding a super-duper paint that is just as explosive and fits all of criteria listed.

reply to post by turbofan


Sure man, your totally right. lets say this is 100% acurate and indisputable.

so then the next logical step is (like i said):

How did it get there (behind the walls onto the support beams im assuming) and enough of it to ensure the building colapses "free fall" (so can i assume since you all scream controlled demolition also, that super melty putty was put on every floor OH and it makes Ka-BOOM noises too cause there were bombs too)

so what was it?

nanothermite?
bombs?
both?

quick! dream up something...

reply to post by turbofan


I see you have surrendered on the actual thread and have reverted to repeating yourself hoping that some will ignore the criticisms and believe you. This is a common tactic among the truthers and usually occurs when they run into an uncomfortable argument that they are unable to respond to. I see this happen with religious zealots, also, and I am not surprised that you succumbed to the energetics argument by changing the subject from numerical data to how the DSC looks.
It is up to you to show a reference that says you can determine the source of the exotherm by the slope and determine how much was from combustion and how much was from other reactions. You have made the claims, so the burden is on you.
Meanwhile, explain the numbers, and we will move on to other points in the paper.
You can't deconvolute the energetics no matter what you do and so you wish to ignore them. Burning is occurring and how much is in question. This means that the claims of thermite are in doubt and Jones has proved nothing.
Control samples should have been the red paint on the steel recovered from the collapse. Jones would never think of it or wouldn't want to compare them anyway. Of course, you can always claim that all the paint is thermite which means that the event was planned 30 years in advance and the thermite was painted on 30 years in advance.
All Jones has to do is to run the DSC under argon. He said that he would do many other analyses in the Norwegian radio interview and still has not published. I guess that the truther crowd wouldn't like the headline "Professor Steven Jones proves Red Paint covered the WTC steel."

Originally posted by Velocismo
reply to post by turbofan

 

Sure man, your totally right. lets say this is 100% acurate and indisputable.

Well, it pretty much is. Nobody has been able to disprove the science to this date including yourself.

How did it get there (behind the walls onto the support beams im assuming)

People on the inside let it happen. Simple. You know there was a shut down period, and you
also know the elevator shafts were going through some sort of repair.

Who's to say the men working on the shafts were not given a large supply of nano-energetic material
to prep the columns? They wouldn't even have to know what they were using.

and enough of it to ensure the building colapses "free fall"

The same way engineers plan to load enough material to CD any other high rise building.

so what was it? nanothermite? bombs? both? quick! dream up something...

If you had read the study and this post, it's clear we're dealing with at least nano energetic material.
Once we find evidence of anything else, I'll let you know.

I don't like to speculate without evidence. Neither should you.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by turbofan

 

I see you have surrendered on the actual thread and have reverted to repeating yourself hoping that some will ignore the criticisms and believe you.

Actually, you asked me to present my case as you constantly refused to answer questions in the debate thread.
Go check out your quoted words, it's all there for you to read. However, it the spirit of good sportsmanship
I've copied the same reply in the old thread.

Feel free to debate in either thread, it matters not to me.

It is up to you to show a reference that says you can determine the source of the exotherm by the slope and determine how much was from combustion and how much was from other reactions. You have made the claims, so the burden is on you.

I already DID. Try reading the LLNL and LANL documents for further information on what I've already posted.

This means that the claims of thermite are in doubt and Jones has proved nothing.

Funny that you overlooked the explanation for a thermitic reaction. You might want to read that paragraph
over and understand the temperatures involved to produce the iron spheres and that you were WRONG
about the iron-rich spheres needing to be 100% iron to prove thermite.

YOu have posted that numerous times over this forum and I"m sure I can find at least ten instances of this
if you like?

Once again your OPINION means nothing in a scientific debate. You are required to back up your dribble
with credible scientific sources. Good luck.

Originally posted by turbofan

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by turbofan

 

Sure, soon as you show me the control group samples that would validate the entire exercise!

You can contact Lawrence Livermore National Lab about the control samples. They are the ones who wrote
several papers on nano-energetics. The papers are references in Jones' study.

You really have no idea what a control sample is and how it works and why it is necessary, do you?

Even if Jones or someone else proved beyond doubt that nano-thermate is present in the dust given to him by a woman who lived close to the WTC, that does not prove a conspiracy/inside job/take your pick. Pressed hard to explain what nano-thermate was doing in dust from the destroyed towers, the New York authorities or Federal Government could - whether it was true or not - admit that girders and supports in the towers had been secretly painted with nano-thermate at some time in order to assist their controlled demolition when the decision was eventually taken to bring them down. The point is that there will be a back-up explanation ready to deal with this evidence should it ever get into the public arena and appear to pose a serious challenge to the official story of 9/11. The sad truth is that - despite what Dr Jones and his acolytes would have you believe - thermite/thermate/nano-thermate is NOT a smoking gun for 9/11 being an inside job. The elite within the US government who participated in 9/11 will have a fall-back explanation prepared for this should the American media start to take Jones' claims seriously, which of course they are never likely to because they are controlled by these elites.

So it does not matter whether he is right or not. Jones was always the Pied Piper of Hamelin who took his supporters up a cul-de-sac that leads nowhere in the fight for justice for the 3000 people murdered on September 11, 2001. Whether he was right or wrong is irrelevant to this issue, and the 9/11 truth movement should, instead, focus on contradictions, lies and discrepancies that cannot be explained away and which prove 9/11 conspiracy beyond doubt.

When I pointed out to hooper on another thread that the debunkers who don't live up to the standards that they would use in an attempt to diqualify steven jones's paper on Namo thermite, disqualify thier own OPINIONS unless they meet the SAME STANDARD, this was his response

Be my guest. Find real peers of the persons who prepared the NIST report and have at it, page by page. Please tell me when you're done. Love to see the finished product. Mind you, peers - not just any Tom, Dick or Harry with an engineering or architecture degree. Peers, equals, persons who by education, training and experinece are qualified to speak on the many subjects in the report. And not some 3 paragraph essay about how they distrust the government, but a real review. Been waiting to see that for years. Still nothing - I wonder why?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

so Jones such has he is is way ahead of all of them at this point.

now to get the truth out there about the kiddy porn scanners
and the "tell your children it's just a game" types
and the bimbo gropers at the TSA
that the OS attempts to justify employing on the american Peep

reply to post by Danbones


Now you get it.

The jones essay is automatically disqualified on two grounds - it does not follow basic scientific methods principles and jones, et al are not qualified to make the statements that they did. This basement project is a no-starter. Anybody is qualified to peer review the essay as the authors themselves are not qualified.

I sure do, but try getting a sample of nano-thermite from a LLNL. You think this is some sort of corner store
product that you can grab off the shelf?

Jones had a control sample of conventional thermite. He did the before and after comparisons. Did you
notice the pretty graph and the similar elements present? Of course not!

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by turbofan

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by turbofan

 

Sure, soon as you show me the control group samples that would validate the entire exercise!

You can contact Lawrence Livermore National Lab about the control samples. They are the ones who wrote
several papers on nano-energetics. The papers are references in Jones' study.

You really have no idea what a control sample is and how it works and why it is necessary, do you?

Your opninion means nothing without backing evidence. Jones' paper follows proper scientifc method.

There are several peer reviews beyond the authors. Get a clue and get into the present for crying out loud.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Danbones

 

Now you get it.

The jones essay is automatically disqualified on two grounds - it does not follow basic scientific methods principles and jones, et al are not qualified to make the statements that they did. This basement project is a no-starter. Anybody is qualified to peer review the essay as the authors themselves are not qualified.