It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
You still think it's paint?
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 .
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.
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.
...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.
Dried paint will burn quite energeticly without the addition of fictional thermite.
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:
There was a small puff when he put a blowtorch on his samples.
Just to clarify, the paint samples did not create iron microspheres after ignition.
Several paint samples were also tested and in each case, the paint sample was immediately reduced to fragile ashes by the hot flame.
Evidence? Links? Sources?
Paints exist that have the "same chemical composition as thermite" as you call it.
Yeah? And you ignored the iron microspheres created by the ignition of this "paint chip".
Jones didn't find paint with similar properties, and ignored any effect aging could have.
Yes, here are the conclusions:
Any more conclusions we can draw from all this?
Originally posted by TupacShakur
but you failed to acknowledge the fact that the paints he tested didn't exhibit similar results
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?
Can you explain to me what you think the sentence "Jones didn't find paint with similar properties" means?
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.
For the rest, I already pointed you to a paint with the "same chemical composition as thermite" as you call it. Pay attention.
Actually it's made pretty clear in the paper:
As for spheres, he does not make apparent that those micro spheres were not already in the sample
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.
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.
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.
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?
nor does he make apparent that no paint exists that can produce them
Evidence? Links? Sources?
"Iron rich" spheres are actually added to several types of paint. It is no mystery at all to find them.
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".
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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'm not going to argue with you there
If so, I would suggest that you have way too much time on your hands.