99% Undeniable Conclusive Evidence That 9/11 Was An Inside Job

reply to post by Darkwing01

It proves absolutely nothing.

Since the chips had more than Iron Oxide and Aluminum in it's composition, there is no reason to expect them to give off only the energy density of those two elements reacting, i.e. a thermite reaction. The other elements present must be taken into account. But those using this line of argument like to forget about the other elements in the chips.

reply to post by NIcon


That is indeed the problem, Jones' experiments don't really prove anything. His conclusions do not follow from his experiments.

reply to post by -PLB-


They most certainly do prove something, and if you would do your research and spend your time reading their paper instead of opinionated blogs, you would know exactly their main argument of why they concluded it's a thermitic material. If you read their paper maybe you would stop using the energy density of wood, which has nothing to do with these chips, as an argument against the paper.

reply to post by NIcon


Lets hear it, what is their "main" argument? The reason I brought up the energy density of wood is because it strongly looked like that Tupac thought that a high energy density means that it is more explosive. He posted those energy densities as if they meant something in favor of his case (why else post them). It would be more useful if you explained Tupac why those values are pretty much meaningless.

reply to post by -PLB-


Haven't you read their paper? They layout their thought process pretty well in their "Conclusions" section. They even number them, so it's not too hard to follow along.

It seems you were making the case that it wasn't thermitic with this opening statement, "Which is just proof it was not thermite or any known explosive." And then it seems to me that you offered up proof with the energy density of wood to support your opening statement. Usually that's how people make an argument, they state their position and then offer proof. Is this not what you were doing?

Originally posted by NIcon
Haven't you read their paper? They layout their thought process pretty well in their "Conclusions" section. They even number them, so it's not too hard to follow along.

So they do not have a "main" point but a number of points. I already thought I missed it, but it turns out you were talking nonsense.

It seems you were making the case that it wasn't thermitic with this opening statement, "Which is just proof it was not thermite or any known explosive." And then it seems to me that you offered up proof with the energy density of wood to support your opening statement. Usually that's how people make an argument, they state their position and then offer proof. Is this not what you were doing?

I already explained why I brought up the energy density of wood. Do you want me to explain it to you again? What exactly did you not understand of my explanation?

reply to post by -PLB-

So you haven't read the paper have you? There's only one point that they conclude a thermite reaction occurred, which I take as the "main," since the paper is about "Active Thermitic Material Discover in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe." All the other points are "minor" conclusions which led up to the "main".

I was just asking you to clarify your position. So we are in agreement the energy density of wood has nothing to do with these chips. That's good.

Edited to add: But there is also one more thing... can you expand upon your statement that "His conclusions do not follow from his experiments."? Can you be more specific of what conclusions and experiments you are talking about?

reply to post by NIcon


Sure, his conclusion:

Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.

Does not follow from his experiments. Can you tell me what experiment exactly showed that this material was highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive? There isn't any reason to think this material was anything but paint, at least not from the work he presents.

reply to post by -PLB-

Does not follow from his experiments. Can you tell me what experiment exactly showed that this material was highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive? There isn't any reason to think this material was anything but paint, at least not from the work he presents.

Did you watch that video I posted on the last page? Check it out, since you must not have watched it when I first posted it: journalof911studies.com...

There is a reason to think this material wasn't paint, because it has the same chemical composition as thermite, reacts like thermite when ignited, and creates iron microspheres after being ignited. The iron microspheres created after igniting the "paint chips" from the dust samples match both the iron microspheres found throughout the four dust samples and the iron microspheres that were created after he ignited actual thermite. How does that not scream "THERMITE!" to you?

And what about this:

Several paint samples were also tested and in each case, the paint sample was immediately reduced to fragile ashes by the hot flame. This was not the case, however, with any of the red/gray chips from the World Trade Center dust.

The chips from the dust sample react in a completely different way than any of the paints that he tested, but despite that you still think there's no reason that it's not paint?

What about this:

7. Could the Red Chip Material be Ordinary Paint?
We measured the resistivity of the red material (with very little gray adhering to one side) using a Fluke 8842A multimeter in order to compare with ordinary paints, using the formula:
Specific resistivity = RA / L
where R = resistance (ohms); A = cross-sectional area (m2); L = thickness (m).
Given the small size of the red chip, about 0.5 mm x 0.5 mm, we used two probes and obtained a rough value of approximately 10 ohm-m. This is several orders of magnitude less than paint coatings we found tabulated which are typically over 10^10 ohm-m [31].

You still think it's paint?

What about this:

Another test, described above, involved subjection of red chips to methyl ethyl ketone solvent for tens of hours, with agitation. The red material did swell but did not dissolve, and a hard silicon-rich matrix remained after this procedure. On the other hand, paint samples in the same exposure to MEK solvent became limp and showed significant dissolution, as expected since MEK is a paint solvent.

Do you still think it's just paint? After looking at his experiments, there isn't any reason to think that this is paint.

reply to post by -PLB-


In early years of WWI found that years of painting and repainting bulkheads on ships left a highly flammable
layer over the steel

A hit by a bomb or shell would often start a fire which would ignite the paint on the walls. The resulting fire
would spread rapidly and create choking clouds of smoke

Navies quickly learned to strip off the old paint from the walls to avoid this

Yarmouth Castle disaster 1965

Excessive layers of paint were also found to be at fault. Walls were never stripped before being re-painted, which the board maintained was a fire hazard. Painted ropes had prevented several of Yarmouth Castle's lifeboats from being launched. Some passengers had difficulty escaping their cabins, as the clamps on the portholes had been painted over.

Dried paint will burn quite energeticly without the addition of fictional thermite

reply to post by thedman

Dried paint will burn quite energeticly without the addition of fictional thermite.

...How can the thermite be fictional if there is physical evidence of its existence in four different dust samples? The "dried paint" having the same chemical composition of thermite is not fiction, that is a fact. The "dried paint" creating iron microspheres when ignited, exactly what thermite does, is a fact, not fiction. The "dried paint" reacting differently than the paint he soaked in a solvent is a fact, not fiction.

The only thing that's fictional here is the idea that something with the same chemical make-up as thermite that also reacts like thermite when ignited, and creates the same by-products as thermite, but doesn't react like any paint when ignited or soaked in a solvent, and also has a different resistivity than paint is paint.

reply to post by TupacShakur


What did we learn:

There was a small puff when he put a blowtorch on his samples.

Paints exist that have the "same chemical composition as thermite" as you call it.

Jones didn't find paint with similar properties, and ignored any effect aging could have.

Any more conclusions we can draw from all this?

reply to post by -PLB-

There was a small puff when he put a blowtorch on his samples.

A bright orange puff indicating extremely high temperatures came from a chip the size of a crumb (1mm x 1mm), and also created iron microspheres, a by-product of thermitic reactions. When you downplay the reaction as "a small puff", that sure makes it seem insignificant, but you failed to acknowledge the fact that the paints he tested didn't exhibit similar results:

Several paint samples were also tested and in each case, the paint sample was immediately reduced to fragile ashes by the hot flame.

Just to clarify, the paint samples did not create iron microspheres after ignition.

Paints exist that have the "same chemical composition as thermite" as you call it.

Evidence? Links? Sources?

Jones didn't find paint with similar properties, and ignored any effect aging could have.

Yeah? And you ignored the iron microspheres created by the ignition of this "paint chip".

Any more conclusions we can draw from all this?

Yes, here are the conclusions:
--The chips found in the dust have the same chemical composition as thermite.
--The chips also react like thermite when ignited.
--After being ignited, the chips created the same by-products as thermite does when it reacts: iron microspheres.
--These iron microspheres were found in all four dust samples, indicating that a thermite reaction occured prior to the collapse.
--The chips do not react like the paint samples when ignited.
--After being soaked in a solvent, the chips "red material did swell but did not dissolve, and a hard silicon-rich matrix remained after this procedure." After the paint samples were soaked in the same solvent, they "became limp and showed significant dissolution".
--The specific resistivity of the chips was 10 ohm-m, while paint coatings are around 10^10 ohm-m, a ratio of 1:1,000,000,000.

So, a quick recap: the chips found in the dust had the same chemical composition as thermite, reacted like thermite, and created the same iron microsphere by-product as thermite does after it was ignited, the same by-products found throughout the dust samples. The chips are not paint samples because the paint samples tested do not react like the chips when ignited, the chips react differently than paint when being soaked in a solvent, and the specific resistivity of the chips compared to paint coatings is a ratio of 1:1 billion.

Tell me, what evidence do you have supporting your opinion that these chips are paint?

Originally posted by TupacShakur
but you failed to acknowledge the fact that the paints he tested didn't exhibit similar results

Can you explain to me what you think the sentence "Jones didn't find paint with similar properties" means?

For the rest, I already pointed you to a paint with the "same chemical composition as thermite" as you call it. Pay attention. As for spheres, he does not make apparent that those micro spheres were not already in the sample, nor does he make apparent that no paint exists that can produce them. "Iron rich" spheres are actually added to several types of paint. It is no mystery at all to find them.

Anyway, I hope you have send those mails. I wonder how you will react when you realize that the scientific community indeed does not take this paper seriously.

reply to post by -PLB-

Can you explain to me what you think the sentence "Jones didn't find paint with similar properties" means?

To me, that means that you said something with no evidence to back it up. Where are you getting this info from? Where in the document does he say the brand of paint that he uses and what properties it has?

For the rest, I already pointed you to a paint with the "same chemical composition as thermite" as you call it. Pay attention.

No you didn't, you just said that paint exists, and when I asked you for evidence to back it up, you just repeated that such a paint exists again with no evidence to back it up. After you find evidence that such a dangerous paint exists, find some evidence that it was used in the construction of the towers too and you may be getting somewhere.

As for spheres, he does not make apparent that those micro spheres were not already in the sample

Actually it's made pretty clear in the paper:

In a later flame-ignition test, the end product was recovered and is shown in the photomicrograph and SEM image in Fig. (23). Once again, the formation of iron-rich semispherical shapes shows that the residue had been melted, enabling surface tension of the liquid to pull it into spherical shapes.

4. Observation of Iron-Rich Sphere Formation Upon Ignition of Chips in a Differential Scanning Calorimeter
In the post-DSC residue, charred-porous material and numerous microspheres and spheroids were observed.

And even if you were right and those iron microspheres were indeed present before the reaction, how could you explain the iron microspheres anyway? The temperature necessary to create them melts steel, which jet fuel and office fires cannot do. Plus one of the dust samples was taken ten minutes after the collapse, and two more were taken the day after the collapse, all of which is detailed on page 9. This means three of the four samples were taken before the clean-up process began (Unless they started cutting the steel the next day, to which I say bravo NYC, but that still leaves one sample that's not compromised containing the same iron microspheres found in the other three), so the iron microspheres could not possbily be from workers cutting the steel.

nor does he make apparent that no paint exists that can produce them

Does that really need to be stated? It's implied that paint capable of melting steel upon ignition doesn't exist, because I'm sure he thought nobody would be stupid enough to assume such a paint exists. Steel melts at 2750*F, do you seriously think commercial paint is available that is capable of burning at such high temperatures? What company would be reckless enough to design such a paint?

"Iron rich" spheres are actually added to several types of paint. It is no mystery at all to find them.

Evidence? Links? Sources?

Anyway, I hope you have send those mails. I wonder how you will react when you realize that the scientific community indeed does not take this paper seriously.

Yeah I e-mailed 10 Chemistry professors from different universities asking them about their opinions over that paper and the peer-review process of the Open Chemical Physics Journal, and so far I've only gotten one response saying: "Sorry, I can't help you with your questions".

reply to post by TupacShakur

Originally posted by TupacShakur
And even if you were right and those iron microspheres were indeed present before the reaction, how could you explain the iron microspheres anyway?

Tupac, don't fall for this line of argument. Proposing that the iron-rich microspheres were all ready in the samples is only a desperate attempt to confirm a pre-determined bias as there is no evidence they were present pre-ignition. After all the cracking and photographing and soaking and electron beam probing and tem analysis, they did not find any microspheres. It also does not make sense as some of the microspheres are actually larger than the layers that supposedly contained them.

However, it is a rather odd set of double standards on this thread that when someone proposes that explosives may have been placed in the buildings, it is then required to know exactly how many, where they were placed, how long it took to place them, and who placed them for the idea to be tenable. Yet when I've asked others about evidence of these pre-ignition microspheres, just the slightest possibility of their existence is enough to discount the chips as paint.

reply to post by MarkJS

I'm not trying to be disrespectful..... but I'm wondering what the motivation is - to prove if our government did a false-flag operation or not? Hey, if you don't trust the government.... there's a simple solution.... move out of the country.

Why are you discussing this? I (and probably others) are interested to know. I don't think this is an unreasonable question.

If you suspect that 9/11 may have been a false-flag op, are you packing your bags and having yard sales to get ready to leave the country? Or is this just an intellectual / theoretical exercise for you, with no real concrete plans to leave, or stay, once a conclusion has been reached? If so, I would suggest that you have way too much time on your hands.

reply to post by MarkJS

If you suspect that 9/11 may have been a false-flag op, are you packing your bags and having yard sales to get ready to leave the country?

No I plan to stay, I just want the people responsible to be held accountable. It's not going to happen though if nobody will accept the massive amounts of evidence that indicate an inside job. I've tended to notice that at this point 10 years later, if you believe the official story then you're probably going to stick to it. I can't remember talking to one person who began the conversation believing in the official story and left without changing their minds, despite all of the evidence. Everything is either dismissed as some crackpot conspiracy BS, or they are in epic denial and just tell me everything I say is a lie. Then there's always the appeal to "common sense", when people say that it couldn't be kept quiet and somebody would blab.

Or is this just an intellectual / theoretical exercise for you, with no real concrete plans to leave, or stay, once a conclusion has been reached?

I haven't exactly thought that far ahead, I didn't draft up a scheduled agenda and a deadline, I'm just going with the flow.

If so, I would suggest that you have way too much time on your hands.

I'm not going to argue with you there

hahahaha I just realized north tower was hit higher than I thought. Between 92-98th floor. How the hell did approx. 10% of the building implode pulverize demolish the rest of the 90% intact solid north tower. OMG I am going to believe it's magic right? you couldn't simulate that if you tried. What I wouldn't do to be a billionaire I would build exact replicas and smash planes into them all day everyday. Just to show you planes don't bring down buildings.

Official story is a fraud. Or do you believe in magic?

Oh and one last thing keep it up Tupac, your thread is EXCELLENT. the deluded come here clutching at straws hoping what they have believed isnt fake or a fraud. Thinking they know all there is to it. some of us see it clearly, some are just here to provoke you. we truthers aren't dangerous, aren't crazy, we know physics and we especially know what BS looks like. We just want the sheeple to wake up and realize it didn't happen like that. Good work. Keep it up.

ps. I also notice the amount of people that disappear when facts get too hard or not answer the questions you state. People are selective it's funny. But we see through all that.