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

reply to post by Darkwing01


You are just stretching definitions here. Sure you can call something that is not thermite thermite anyway. And there were not iron spheres, I already pointed that out in an earlier post.

Again, I am not falling for the fallacy "Find a paint with the same properties or Jones is right". That is not how science works. Jones must prove his chips are energetic or explosive unlike any paint. When putting a blowtorch on it his chip didn't even completely react.

Originally posted by Darkwing01

Such a material could well be both thermite and paint, completely possible. But note that that doesn't mean it isn't thermite

THIS sure means it isn't thermxte.

www.nmsr.org...

"Here is the differential scanning calorimeter chart of from "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe" (Harrit/Jones et. al) : note how the peak of the "Active Thermitic Material" reaction is about 420 o Centigrade."

"In contrast, here's the exact same type of measurement - with a differential scanning calorimeter - on real thermite. This is from the paper Kinetics of thermite reaction in Al-Fe2O3 system" by Run-Hua Fana, Hong-Liang Lü, Kang-Ning Sun, Wan-Xia Wang and Xin-Bing Yi: The peaks at 650 o C are from the aluminum melting (endothermic). The exothermic ("thermitic") reaction occurs at 850 o C to 950 o C, at least 400 o C higher than the supposed "thermite" measured by Harrit and Jones."

reply to post by Joey CanoliThanks for your very clear and conscise contribution to this thread. It's input like yours that will inevitably prove that the OS is impossible to defend. Keep posting.

So now we're supposed to compare a powdered form of thermite with the red chip samples? Rather than with the sample from Tilotson (or any of the other numerous ones a person can find from Tilotson) they refer to in the paper? The chips don't seem to me to be in a powdered form?

I wonder what these New Mexicans at nmsr.org think of Tilotson's work? Did they see the DSC sample in the red chip paper they used as comparison? Do they believe Tilotson has not been experimenting with the thermite reaction? Do they believe all this "energetic materials" experimentation is bunk?

If we compare Tilotson's DSC from his paper here with their powdered version, I suppose we can only conclude that Tilotson is a quack and hasn't been near any thermite reactions in a while. I sure hope he's not getting any federal grant money or we taxpayers are really getting screwed.

reply to post by -PLB-

You are just stretching definitions here. Sure you can call something that is not thermite thermite anyway. And there were not iron spheres, I already pointed that out in an earlier post.

Just because you point it out doesn't make it true.

Define thermite for me then.

Again, I am not falling for the fallacy "Find a paint with the same properties or Jones is right". That is not how science works. Jones must prove his chips are energetic or explosive unlike any paint. When putting a blowtorch on it his chip didn't even completely react.

What do you mean? You are making the positive claim that X was Y. He who makes the claim must provide the evidence.

Jones has produced his evidence that supports his claim, yes it may not be perfect, but the nothing in science is (virtually by definition).

So you make a counterclaim, let's see your evidence for this claim. Oh you have none? Why should I believe you then?

I will believe what the evidence supports, and since there is not a shred of evidence in support of your position I cannot support it, which by default means that Jones' (even if he is wrong) is the only rationally supportable argument.

reply to post by Darkwing01


I will define what is not thermite. Thermite is not a material that consist for the most part of carbon.


What positive claim are you referring to exactly and where did I make that claim?

I wonder at which point a "thermite" mixture loses it's "thermite" classification by the addition of carbon to the mix?

reply to post by NIcon

I wonder at which point a "thermite" mixture loses it's "thermite" classification by the addition of carbon to the mix?

Yes, that IS quite odd.

So what we are saying is that if I take a pile of thermite, we know its thermite because it doesn't have a lot of carbon in it, and then put that mystery stuff on a block of wood that the block of wood plus the thermite is not thermite.

....


WAIDAMOMENT

That doesn't make any sense.

You can't define thing negatively like that, it inevitably leads to absurdities.

Here is an example of a positive definition form Wikipedia: "Thermite is a pyrotechnic composition of a metal powder and a metal oxide that produces an exothermic oxidation-reduction reaction known as a thermite reaction."

Another from (an apparently not so good) dictionary:
"a mixture of aluminum powder and a metal oxide (as iron oxide) that when ignited evolves a great deal of heat and is used in welding and in incendiary bombs"

This is a good site on thermite if it helps anyone...

A thermite reaction (sometimes called a "Goldschmidt reaction") refers to a very exothermic process occurring between a metal Oxide and a more active pure metal. The more reactive metal reduces the metal Oxide, Oxidizing itself and releasing a substantial amount of energy during the reaction.

Generally, thermite is made by mixing Iron Oxide and Aluminum powder and igniting it at very high temperatures (a few thousand degrees). The reaction releases so much energy, molten Iron metal is produced as one of the products.

The two most common types of thermite are made using either Iron(III) Oxide, Fe2O3 (also known as Hematite), or using Iron(II, III) Oxide, Fe3O4 (also known as Magnetite). The Iron Oxide is mixed with finely powdered Aluminum metal. When the thermite reacts, liquid Iron metal and Aluminum Oxide, Al2O3, is produced as a result.

www.amazingrust.com...

Lots of info on types of themite, and videos/pictures of thermite reactions/demonstrations.

Originally posted by Darkwing01

What do you mean? You are making the positive claim that X was Y. He who makes the claim must provide the evidence.

Jones has produced his evidence that supports his claim, yes it may not be perfect, but the nothing in science is (virtually by definition).

So you make a counterclaim, let's see your evidence for this claim. Oh you have none? Why should I believe you then?

I will believe what the evidence supports, and since there is not a shred of evidence in support of your position I cannot support it, which by default means that Jones' (even if he is wrong) is the only rationally supportable argument.

edit on 11-7-2011 by Darkwing01 because: typos

What evidence Jones has?? That something burns when exposed to a blowtorch and oxygen? SHOCKING!!!

I'd be more shocked if Jones ran the test in argon, or some other inert atmosphere, and then the chips burned.

Also, since when does a highly reactive "thermite" self extinguish itself before completing its reaction? I've never seen thermite or any thermate, that stopped reacting the second you removed the ignition source. If this is suppose to be some sort of "highly engineered" "Highly reactive" super nano-thermite, then I'm sorry to say, but we have very opposing definitions of "highly engineered" and "highly reactive" . In my book, that is some of the crappiest, lousiest thermite, that can't even be as good as regular, hum-drum thermite. Jones fouled up, royally.

reply to post by GenRadek

What evidence Jones has?? That something burns when exposed to a blowtorch and oxygen? SHOCKING!!!

I'd be more shocked if Jones ran the test in argon, or some other inert atmosphere, and then the chips burned.

Also, since when does a highly reactive "thermite" self extinguish itself before completing its reaction? I've never seen thermite or any thermate, that stopped reacting the second you removed the ignition source. If this is suppose to be some sort of "highly engineered" "Highly reactive" super nano-thermite, then I'm sorry to say, but we have very opposing definitions of "highly engineered" and "highly reactive" . In my book, that is some of the crappiest, lousiest thermite, that can't even be as good as regular, hum-drum thermite. Jones fouled up, royally.

Dude it was a 1mm X 1mm chip, what did you expect to happen? Unless it was Uranium or Antimatter, the reaction of a sample the size of a crumb is not going to be very profound.

C4 is a very reactive and powerful explosive, do you think if Jones put a blowtorch to a sample of C4 the size of a crumb it would blow his house up?

Originally posted by TupacShakur

Dude it was a 1mm X 1mm chip, what did you expect to happen? Unless it was Uranium or Antimatter, the reaction of a sample the size of a crumb is not going to be very profound.

C4 is a very reactive and powerful explosive, do you think if Jones put a blowtorch to a sample of C4 the size of a crumb it would blow his house up?

FYI:

C4 does not explode when exposed to fire. If he had a 1" by 1" by 1" block of C4 and placed the detonator on it, it would still blow up and at least destroy a desk or table.

reply to post by GenRadek

FYI:

C4 does not explode when exposed to fire. If he had a 1" by 1" by 1" block of C4 and placed the detonator on it, it would still blow up and at least destroy a desk or table.

Alright it doesn't matter what it takes to make C4 react, a 1mm x 1mm chunk of C4 would not blow up a desk. 1 inch on the other hand, that's a whole different story, but that is 25X larger than a 1mm block.

1 inch = ~25mm, so scale down blowing up a desk by 25 times and you have a bright *poof* at best, similar to the dust chip igniting.

reply to post by TupacShakur


One still might expect this highly reactive, super engineered material to at least burn completely. It didn't. It's not thermate.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

One still might expect this highly reactive, super engineered material to at least burn completely. It didn't. It's not thermate.

It's not?

--It has a similar chemical composition to thermite.

--When ignited, it produces a bright orange flash as well as creates iron spheres just like thermite does, and the paint chips just turned to ash.

--It reacts differently than the paint samples when soaked in a solvent.

--It has a specific resistivity that is a billion times less than paint.

--The DSC trace found it to be more energetic than thermite.

But despite all of that evidence that those chips are thermite and that they are not paint, since a chip the size of a crumb didn't blow up the Earth, it's not thermite.

It didn't burn completely? Oh goodness, no!!!!! My conspiracy theory is crumbling!!! Is that seriously all it takes for you to doubt the idea of the chips being thermite? There is so much evidence that says those chips are thermite! But you find one little flaw that you can grasp at, and you conclude it's not thermite because of that one little point? Does that one aspect complete debunk the previous experimentation?

What about the iron spheres produced after the reaction? Those require a temperature hot enough to melt steel! Paint cannot do that; thermite can.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

One still might expect this highly reactive, super engineered material to at least burn completely. It didn't. It's not thermate.

Is it random criteria night already?

Ooh golly.

I once had a dog that was very faithful. If your pet is not faithful it is not a dog.
C4 is highly explosive, if it doesn't explode when I lick it its not C4.
Human beings are sentient and intelligent beings, OS'ers are not human!?!?!??!

Attack of the lizard men!!!! Everyone HIDE!

Why would you expect it to burn completely? Do you have any experimental evidence to support this notion?

I didn't even need to read that whole thing.
It was a inside Job 100%. But if ya believe that you're a loon.
You could tell on the day it happened. Not to mention the mis info over the pentagon.

Keep em comeing OP.

Originally posted by TupacShakur
It didn't burn completely? Oh goodness, no!!!!! My conspiracy theory is crumbling!!!

Is that seriously all it takes for you to doubt the idea of the chips being thermite? There is so much evidence that says those chips are thermite! But you find one little flaw that you can grasp at, and you conclude it's not thermite because of that one little point? Does that one aspect complete debunk the previous experimentation?

To me it is a bit hilarious that the fact it didn't react very well, even when you put a blowtorch on it, is a minor point to you. It makes me wonder how deluded somebody can be.

reply to post by -PLB-

To me it is a bit hilarious that the fact it didn't react very well, even when you put a blowtorch on it, is a minor point to you.

That is a minor point, because every piece of evidence says it's thermite, and nothing says that it is paint, so I'm not going to forget about all of the previous points made in the paper because it didn't react perfectly. It still reacted...do you remember what the paint chips did in that same experiment?

Originally posted by Darkwing01


Is it random criteria night already?

Ooh golly.

I once had a dog that was very faithful. If your pet is not faithful it is not a dog.
C4 is highly explosive, if it doesn't explode when I lick it its not C4.
Human beings are sentient and intelligent beings, OS'ers are not human!?!?!??!

Attack of the lizard men!!!! Everyone HIDE!

Why would you expect it to burn completely? Do you have any experimental evidence to support this notion?

Thermite burns completely. Ergo it is not thermite.

This is correct on both a logical and intuitive level. Your comparisons are both wrong and a bit silly.