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

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

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.

You can't just toss all of the evidence out of the window because a chip that was taken from a sample of dust didn't react at it's full potential.

THAT is illogical and counter-intuitive.

Does seeing the thermite not completely reacting cause some chemical reactions of your own going on in your brain to misfire? Because the theory that it's a paint chip has been debunked. It doesn't react like paint in a solvent, it doesn't react like paint when exposed to a blowtorch, and it has a specific resistivity a billion times smaller than paint. So looking at that evidence from a "logical and intuitive" perspective, one would conclude that it's not paint.

The theory that it's thermite hasn't been debunked by you guys let alone by a peer-reviewed paper. It has a similar chemical composition to thermite, and creates the same by-products as thermite which require a temperate hot enough to melt steel. Looking at that from your "logical and intuitive level", you should conclude that it's thermite. However seeing it not react 100% efficiently, despite the fact that it indeed reacted at a temperature hot enough to melt steel and create iron spheres, you think it's not thermite.

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

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.

You can't just toss all of the evidence out of the window because a chip that was taken from a sample of dust didn't react at it's full potential.

THAT is illogical and counter-intuitive.

Does seeing the thermite not completely reacting cause some chemical reactions of your own going on in your brain to misfire? Because the theory that it's a paint chip has been debunked. It doesn't react like paint in a solvent, it doesn't react like paint when exposed to a blowtorch, and it has a specific resistivity a billion times smaller than paint. So looking at that evidence from a "logical and intuitive" perspective, one would conclude that it's not paint.

The theory that it's thermite hasn't been debunked by you guys let alone by a peer-reviewed paper. It has a similar chemical composition to thermite, and creates the same by-products as thermite which require a temperate hot enough to melt steel. Looking at that from your "logical and intuitive level", you should conclude that it's thermite. However seeing it not react 100% efficiently, despite the fact that it indeed reacted at a temperature hot enough to melt steel and create iron spheres, you think it's not thermite.

Its a fact that any form of thermite will burn in inert air. All Jones had to do was run his DSC in an inert atmosphere, like argon, and we would have had 99% proof if it was or wasnt thermite. But he didnt, he wont, and he makes a BS excuse why he didnt. So no. Jones didnt find thermite, and all he did find was that something burns when you blow air on it with a blowtorch.

reply to post by GenRadek

Its a fact that any form of thermite will burn in inert air. All Jones had to do was run his DSC in an inert atmosphere, like argon, and we would have had 99% proof if it was or wasnt thermite. But he didnt, he wont, and he makes a BS excuse why he didnt.

Hey don't pout at me, if you have a problem with his experimentation why don't you contact him by E-mail or phone and ask him about the issue personally? Better yet, why don't you find some critics of his experimentation at a university that would be willing to do those experiments themselves? Get a chip or two from Jones, and let them figure it out?

So no. Jones didnt find thermite, and all he did find was that something burns when you blow air on it with a blowtorch.

Yeah, things burn in air. Take a blowtorch, light a piece of paper, and it'll burn, but will that piece of paper burn and create iron-spheres which indicate a temperature hot enough to melt steel? What about your keyboard? TV remote? Windex? Lava lamp? Cell phone? Bleach? Sharpies? Paint Thinner? Will any of those things burn at a temperature of at least 2750* F?

reply to post by TupacShakur

Its a fact that any form of thermite will burn in inert air. All Jones had to do was run his DSC in an inert atmosphere, like argon, and we would have had 99% proof if it was or wasnt thermite. But he didnt, he wont, and he makes a BS excuse why he didnt. So no. Jones didnt find thermite, and all he did find was that something burns when you blow air on it with a blowtorch.

Think about this for a second, what is burning that is coming out of a blowtorch?

You couldn't just use propane or LPG, because these won't burn in an Argon atmosphere. No, you would need to use an oxy-fuel torch.

Oxy-fuel, let's think about this a second. What does the "oxy" in oxy-acetylene mean? Just how valid is your test? How sure are you paper wouldn't burn in an argon atmosphere when subjected to an oxy-fuel torch? Could this even still be considered an Argon atmosphere?

What other ignition source do you propose? I am fairly confident I can come up with similar problems in anything you suggest.

It is not as simple as just coming up with some random criteria and expecting everyone to jump to your whim.

Again: Jones did not identify it as thermite on the basis of it reacting alone.

reply to post by TupacShakur


How about Jones' team doing the experiments correctly themselves instead? He is making the claim, he has to come with the evidence. Why should anyone care about the bs claims of Jones is he doesn't even want to do the proper experiments himself? I may have told you already, it were iron rich spheres, not iron spheres. And again, how do you know they were not already in the sample? (because Harrit/Jones, the guys who fckd up that other experiment, say so).

Originally posted by Darkwing01
What other ignition source do you propose? I am fairly confident I can come up with similar problems in anything you suggest.

If you had paid any attention and actually read the critics you would have known that this is about the DSC experiment. If you do not know what DSC is Google it.

reply to post by TupacShakur


A highly-engineered super substance designed to melt through steel that doesn't even actually burn properly?

Yep, that's a face palm.

reply to post by -PLB-

How about Jones' team doing the experiments correctly themselves instead?

How about contacting him yourself and asking him? Don't ask me, I can't use some form of voodoo to tap into Steven Jones mind, so I can't answer that question.

He is making the claim, he has to come with the evidence.

And he has backed up his claims consisently throughout the paper with the evidence that I've been repeating over and over again that you won't legitimately debunk.

You know, these things?:

--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.

Why should anyone care about the bs claims of Jones is he doesn't even want to do the proper experiments himself?

Because the claims are made and backed up by evidence in a peer-reviewed journal that was worked on multiple different people.

Niels H. Harrit*,1, Jeffrey Farrer2, Steven E. Jones*,3, Kevin R. Ryan4, Frank M. Legge5,
Daniel Farnsworth2, Gregg Roberts6, James R. Gourley7 and Bradley R. Larsen3

1Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
2Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, USA
3S&J Scientific Co., Provo, UT, 84606, USA
49/11 Working Group of Bloomington, Bloomington, IN 47401, USA
5Logical Systems Consulting, Perth, Western Australia
6Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Berkeley, CA 94704, USA
7International Center for 9/11 Studies, Dallas, TX 75231, USA

The evidence and conclusions drawn within that paper have not been properly addressed and criticized in a peer-reviewed paper, despite your claim that nobody in the scientific community takes that work seriously. You used 7 organizations earlier that back up the official story, totaling over 9500 members, yet not a single person has attempted to debunk the conclusions of the experimentation in a legitimate, scientific format. Blog posts, demanding further experimetation to back up the conclusions already drawn from expreimentation, and denying the evidence and facts is about all you have done to debunk the paper. Great work.

I may have told you already, it were iron rich spheres, not iron spheres.

Both of which require a temperature hot enough to turn it molten in order for the surface tension to pull the molten iron into spheres. Paint cannot burn at over 2750* F, unless you can find me a paint that has the same chemical composition as the dust chips, creates iron spheres as a by-product, has a specific resistivity a billion times less than other paints, reacts differently in a solvent than paint chips, and reacts differently when ignited by a blowtorch compared to other paints. Until you find experimentation to back up all of you claims, they're just claims. You're attacking fact and evidence backed statements by making baseless claims. I will trust the facts and evidence over your poor criticism 10 times out of 10.

And again, how do you know they were not already in the sample? (because Harrit/Jones, the guys who fckd up that other experiment, say so).

Well, it's stated in the paper multiple times that the spheres were not present before the reaction, and only appeared afterwords. But of course you don't trust them, 9 different people working on a peer-reviewed paper aren't scientists with nothing to gain by publishing their results, they're a bunch of liars who are pushing an anti-government agenda in order to gain support for their Mormom Revolution in which the American government would be overthrown by their misleading research, or something like that.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

A highly-engineered super substance designed to melt through steel that doesn't even actually burn properly?

So are you just going to ignore the evidence that I presented to you backing up the claims that the chips are thermite and cannot be paint? I'll repeat them again so you can address them bullet by bullet and explain how the dust chips are indeed paint and aren't thermite:

--It doesn't react like paint in a solvent.

--It doesn't react like paint when exposed to a blowtorch, because the paint chips turned to ash while the dust chips reacted energetically with a temperature high enough to melt steel.

--The dust chips have a specific resistivity a billion times smaller than paint. 1,000,000,000 times smaller. In case your incapable of visualizing exactly how astronomically smaller that is, the ratio of the Suns radius to the Earths is 109. Even at that size we could fit 960,000 Earths inside of the Sun. So if we had a Sun that was 9,174,311 times larger than our current one which is already massive, only then would the ratio equal 1:1,000,000,000. In order to satisfy that ratio, the sun would need to be 12,770,640,912,000 km. One light year is 9,460,730,470,000 km, so it would take light, the fastest moving thing in the universe (300,000 km/second), about 16 months to travel from one end of the sun the other. With that analogy on your mind, consider the specific resistivity of the dust chips to paint as that ratio and try to visualize how incredibly large that difference is.

--It has a similar chemical composition to thermite.

--It creates the same by-products as thermite which require a temperate hot enough to melt steel.

Keep clinging to your false beliefs, and continue to repeat your same point that since it didn't burn 100% efficiently it's not thermite in order to reassure yourself. It didn't burn 100% efficiently, but it still burned at a temperature of over 2750* F and created iron-spheres during the reaction. Thermite does the exact same thing when it reacts, however since the thermitic reaction was not perfectly executed by a blowtorch used in a garage, all of the evidence ceases to exist in your mind. You're like a horse wearing blinders, you can't see all of the evidence around you, but only that one tiny detail in front of your face that you're clinging to.

reply to post by TupacShakur


What I really don't understand from truthers is that they are asking for a new investigation all the time but when it comes to Jones they think it is fine as it is. To me it seems that can only mean that deep down they know it is bs, and any new experiment would destroy their fantasy. Why are you truthers not demanding the experiments from Jones that would silence the critics?

Even more astonishing is that Jones himself decided to just let it be. If he is really right then he has some amazing evidence in favor of something fishy going on. Shouldn't he be fully motivated to do any experiment that critics ask from him? There is absolutely no reason for him to not do those experiments. Except of course, if it is all bs.

The current state is that Jones is not taken seriously. If you have received some answers from those professors you mailed you should have that confirmed. Doesn't it bother you at all that he does nothing to change that?

reply to post by -PLB-


Jones said two years ago that he would shortly produce a follow-up paper addressing what he acknowledged were deficiencies in the original - the failure to run in inert, the impossibility of the thermite actually demolishing the building on its own, the fact that the stuff didn't even burn properly.

The paper has never appeared. Which is apparently a state of affairs that doesn't bother truthers.

reply to post by -PLB-

What I really don't understand from truthers is that they are asking for a new investigation all the time but when it comes to Jones they think it is fine as it is.

Jones is a part of the new investigation, we don't need the governments permission, they don't have money to dish out as it is, so it's up to individuals to take it into their own hands.

Why are you truthers not demanding the experiments from Jones that would silence the critics?

It's not the job of the supporters of his work and conclusions to criticize it and demand further experimentation, that's the job of the critics of his work.

Except of course, if it is all bs.

Yep, just a bunch of Grade-A peer-reviewed scientific BS that hasn't been criticized or legitimately debunked in a peer-reviewed journal despite the thousands of scientists that you believe oppose his work.

The current state is that Jones is not taken seriously.

That is your opinion dude, you have repeated this over and over again and your only real evidence that I've is a blog post, and two editors resigning from a different journal because of a completely different issue. If everybody sees his scientific work as a big joke, why have they not pitied him and taken a few hours to debunk that "junk science"? Why is the only skepticism limited to blogs and your opinion? Where are the peer-reviewed papers debunking any of the 4 or 5 peer-reviewed papers that I've provided? That's how it works, if you see a peer-reviewed paper that you disagree with, you publish your own work criticizing it. You don't just giggle behind their back at the silliness and badmouth their work on a blog like some 14 year old girl drama.

If you have received some answers from those professors you mailed you should have that confirmed.

I've only received one answer and he said something like "Sorry, I can't help you out with your questions".

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

Jones said two years ago that he would shortly produce a follow-up paper addressing what he acknowledged were deficiencies in the original - the failure to run in inert, the impossibility of the thermite actually demolishing the building on its own, the fact that the stuff didn't even burn properly.

The paper has never appeared. Which is apparently a state of affairs that doesn't bother truthers.

The paper was published in 2009, and it's the middle of 2011. There's still plenty of time for him to release it.

reply to post by -PLB-

If you had paid any attention and actually read the critics you would have known that this is about the DSC experiment. If you do not know what DSC is Google it.

Can you explain your proposed experimental technique for performing this test in an argon atmosphere then? Would you seal the whole machine in an argon chamber? This smells like devising a crazy, virtually impossible to conduct and ultimately unnecessary experiment as falsification of your paint theory.

I was digging around for DSC traces of paint samples and came across this discussion, referring to this paper.

The image in question is on page 21, comparing the thermite to a known paint sample. However, the picture is fuzzy so you can't see the units of the scale on the left. Having a look at the original we find clear picture of that graph on page (figure 1a on page 213) and we can see the scale on the left is milliwatt (I assume that should be /g), whereas the "thermite" DSC is in watt/g in Jones' paper (fg. 19 pg. 20). So instead of looking at two similar plots, we are looking at two materials with peaks exotherms an order of magnitude apart.

You can also have a look at the plots at this site, specifically figure 7, where the peak of the exotherm is 2 to 4 times smaller than that given in the Jones paper (ibid.) So even if this WAS organic material reacting, just which organic material do you think it is, and can you provide a trace that better matches the sample?


But you are right, I am no expert in DSC's, please point out where I am mistaken here. Before you do though, can you see that the DSC trace was not the only or even the most important piece of evidence pointing to thermite?

Originally posted by TupacShakur
That is your opinion dude

No it is called reality. The fact that there has been no response in the scientific community whatsoever proves it (except for the handful of responses on the internet). Ironically, to truthers this very same fact means that it must be a good piece of work.

It is good to see you are trying, and I am not a DSC expert either. All I know about it is what I read on the internet.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
Can you explain your proposed experimental technique for performing this test in an argon atmosphere then? Would you seal the whole machine in an argon chamber? This smells like devising a crazy, virtually impossible to conduct and ultimately unnecessary experiment as falsification of your paint theory.

A DSC is designed to do such experiments (at least some types are). The DSC results Jones is comparing his work to was also likely done under argon.

we can see the scale on the left is milliwatt (I assume that should be /g), whereas the "thermite" DSC is in watt/g in Jones' paper (fg. 19 pg. 20). So instead of looking at two similar plots, we are looking at two materials with peaks exotherms an order of magnitude apart.

You assume wrong. The left graph shows milliwatt, not milliwatt per gram. The figure also shows energy/gram, which around 3.8kJ/g. Well within the range of Jones samples (1.5 to 7.5 kJ/g)

Before you do though, can you see that the DSC trace was not the only or even the most important piece of evidence pointing to thermite?

What is according to you?

reply to post by -PLB-

You assume wrong. The left graph shows milliwatt, not milliwatt per gram.

Then the two graphs are in no way comparable and the fact that they resemble one another means absolutely nothing.

You can't just convert mW to Mw/g and pretend they are the same.

So this means that you have no basis for believing that a paint DSC will resemble Jones' DSC in air OR in argon. Is this just pure speculation on your part then or do you have a better data plot?

The figure also shows energy/gram, which around 3.8kJ/g. Well within the range of Jones samples (1.5 to 7.5 kJ/g)

The kJ/g of TNT and HMX are also within the range of Jones' paint samples, was this TNT? Or is this random criteria night again?

Apples are red, Jones' chip has a red bit, so this must be apple chunks. Amidoinitright?

Originally posted by Darkwing01
Then the two graphs are in no way comparable and the fact that they resemble one another means absolutely nothing.

When you choose to ignore that the total amount of energy per gram is very similar to Jones samples you are right. Although that would be very irrational and unscientific to do.

You can't just convert mW to Mw/g and pretend they are the same.

You can if you know the sample mass.

So this means that you have no basis for believing that a paint DSC will resemble Jones' DSC in air OR in argon. Is this just pure speculation on your part then or do you have a better data plot?

The resemblance with the paint sample you came with is greater than the resemblance with the nano-thermite sample Jones came with.

The kJ/g of TNT and HMX are also within the range of Jones' paint samples, was this TNT? Or is this random criteria night again?

But his samples are not within the range of TNT or HMX.

Apples are red, Jones' chip has a red bit, so this must be apple chunks. Amidoinitright?

That is about the level of reasoning that Jones used to come to the conclusion of thermite.

reply to post by -PLB-

You can if you know the sample mass.

Do you know the sample mass?

The resemblance with the paint sample you came with is greater than the resemblance with the nano-thermite sample Jones came with.

Yes, but the identification of thermite was not made on the basis of the DSC plots, but you are trying to make an identification of paint on that basis.

But his samples are not within the range of TNT or HMX.

Have a look at figure 30 on page 27 of Jones' paper again. This is why you can't compare the KJ/mass of self fueling systems like thermite to organic materials that require air to burn.

That is about the level of reasoning that Jones used to come to the conclusion of thermite.

Except that he didn't. The reasoning is right there in the paper, Tupac has pointed it out to you multiple times as well.

The shape of the exotherm was not the reason why Jones concluded it was thermite, but you can use it to speculate that it wasn't paint, unless you can find a paint exotherm that matches this (with the correct units). Even then it would not prove it WAS paint, because two things having the same exotherm does not make them the same thing.

You are correct about the argon atmosphere being a standard test. But still wrong in thinking it would make a difference either way, unless you can find that paint exotherm with the correct unit.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
Do you know the sample mass?

No. I do know the energy density though, and that is sufficient so make a sensible comparison.

Yes, but the identification of thermite was not made on the basis of the DSC plots, but you are trying to make an identification of paint on that basis.

Where am I doing that? My position is that the DSC trace doesn't tell us anything useful, except for the fact that the substance is definitely not a pure form of thermite or known explosive.

Except that he didn't. The reasoning is right there in the paper, Tupac has pointed it out to you multiple times as well.

Third time, what is the most compelling evidence?

The shape of the exotherm was not the reason why Jones concluded it was thermite, but you can use it to speculate that it wasn't paint, unless you can find a paint exotherm that matches this (with the correct units). Even then it would not prove it WAS paint, because two things having the same exotherm does not make them the same thing.

Lets apply this line or reasoning a bit broader:

The shape of the exotherm was not the reason why someone concluded it was paint, but you can use it to speculate that it wasn't thermite, unless you can find a thermite exotherm that matches this (with the correct units). Even then it would not prove it WAS thermite, because two things having the same exotherm does not make them the same thing.

You still haven't described how you would like the argon atmosphere test to be done.

I told you that those DSC are designed to do such experiments. If you want me to give you a description of how to operate a DSC, I don't know, but is it relevant?

reply to post by -PLB-

Where am I doing that? My position is that the DSC trace doesn't tell us anything useful, except for the fact that the substance is definitely not a pure form of thermite or known explosive.

Why not?

Organic material reacting in air (see the paper exotherm) doesn't have anywhere near the peak W/g that this stuff has.

The J/g is meaningless because, once again, it is also within the range of HMX and TNT as shown in fig.30 pg. 27.

[cross post, would like to make this clear]
You are correct about the argon atmosphere being a standard test. But still wrong in thinking it would make a difference either way, unless you can find that paint exotherm with the correct unit.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
Why not?

Organic material reacting in air (see the paper exotherm) doesn't have anywhere near the peak W/g that this stuff has.

Based on what! The paint exotherm you came with yourself even shows a similar peak.

The J/g is meaningless because, once again, it is also within the range of HMX and TNT as shown in fig.30 pg. 27.

No it is not meaningless. You just don't understand what it means, you even started out with saying that you don't know much about the subject. Within 2 posts or so you became an expert? You are making an argument from ignorance.

You are correct about the argon atmosphere being a standard test. But still wrong in thinking it would make a difference either way, unless you can find that paint exotherm with the correct unit.

Your "logic" is so incredibly illogical. Additionally you have no clue what you are talking about.

A test in argon would ensure there is no combusion of carbon, and proves that another reaction takes place. This reaction could possibly be thermite.