The Core Comprises Steel Beams And Columns With Reinforced Concrete Infill Panels.

Originally posted by pteridine
Termites and hacksaws were not tested for, nor were Smurf droppings.

This, I feel, requires a special mention. I greatly enjoy your posts, your writing style and technical expertise are a great inspiration. While I personally find this sort of humour very welcome in a somewhat difficult world I don't think this is appropriate for ATS. At a risk of sounding equally ridiculous I'm sure there is an appropriate forum somewhere on the internet for discussing Smurf droppings.

Originally posted by Kester
It doesn't appear to have been a quiet event. Multiple circuits detonating in very quick succession creates a roar to our ears rather than the series of bangs heard in many conventional demolitions.
The detonation sequence began both above and below the impact zone. The video evidence shows the upper parts of the buildings blowing away upwards but of course simultaneously falling into the rapidly growing dust cloud.
The light signature of explosives is visible in some demolitions and not visible in others depending on the placement of the explosives.
I freely admit to ignorance regarding the technical details of detonation, particularly sequential detonation.
I haven't mentioned the former BYU professor nor will I. It seems inappropriate that you should attempt to use him to make some point about my words.
I readily agree that incompetence amongst officials is rife and I believe this should be seen by the young as a strong motive to enter politics and help clear this mess up.
I do not "wish to search for plotters". I seek answers for the questions that presented themselves to me when I innocently began looking for more details on the WTC disaster.

If you look carefully, you will see that none of the debris moves upwards. It moves outward and down. The light and sound signatures of sequential detonation were not present; random reflections and the noise of the collapse are not indicative of sequential demolitions that must clear each floor in under 200 milliseconds. Only gravity works as quickly and without any embarrassing explosions.
You have also not yet addressed the problem of sequential demolitions of explosives hidden inside cured concrete. This problem and long term stability have always been stumbling blocks for those who think that demolition was "built in" for some reason. The solution to the set of problems regarding opportunities for placement and wiring of explosives immediately before the event provides another set of equally awkward problems.
In my discussions, I have found the more desperate demolition theorists will revert to the thermite claim and I was indicatng to you that thermite was not discovered in the dust nor would it work rapidly enough. There are no quiet, invisible explosives as much as they are yearned for and even claimed, on occasion.
Seek answers using gravity and structural failure and the contrived, tortuous plots involving demolition, secret societies, collusion of thousands, holograms, invisible missiles, and all sorts of entertaining and most improbable components will disappear in the blink of an eye....except for the Smurf droppings and those tiny hacksaw blades.

Originally posted by pteridine
I was indicatng to you that thermite was not discovered in the dust

A material which, if ignited, undergoes an exothermic reaction producing previously molten spheres of mostly elemental iron, is thermitic. Your only option is to accuse Steven Jones et al. of fabricating their research data, which could be, but not that the data as presented does not support active thermitic material.

Read the above carefully before you respond.

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by pteridine
I was indicatng to you that thermite was not discovered in the dust

A material which, if ignited, undergoes an exothermic reaction producing previously molten spheres of mostly elemental iron, is thermitic. Your only option is to accuse Steven Jones et al. of fabricating their research data, which could be, but not that the data as presented does not support active thermitic material.

Read the above carefully before you respond.

I have shown, on many occasions, the faults and inconsistencies in the Bentham paper. The thermodynamics alone bring the conclusions into question. Jones' estimate of ten to 100 tons of such unreacted material [looking amazingly like the red paint that covered the steel of the WTC] in the dust coupled with the claim that it is highly energetic should provide a little skepticism for those that do not wish to delve into the chemistry. If ten to 100 tons did not ignite, how much did and what did it do? Henryco at Darksideofgravity tried to replicate Jones' results and couldn't.
The thermite claim is unsupported.

Originally posted by pteridine
Henryco at Darksideofgravity tried to replicate Jones' results and couldn't.
The thermite claim is unsupported.

Yes, and if Frédérique Henry Couannier's tests apply to the entire set, that means Jones et al. fabricated their data.

I, too, find their mass estimates extrapolated from their sample far-fetched. But I can only conclude that if what they present in their paper isn't thermite, then Harrit, Jones, Basile and others conspired to hoax the 9/11 Truth Movement.

We do have (all slow-motion at various levels) video from Mr. Basile:



But, unfortunately Mr. Jones has a questionable rap sheet of pseudoscientific claims (his Nature published and verified muon-catalyzed fusion research not included)

So..

Originally posted by pteridine

If you look carefully, you will see that none of the debris moves upwards. It moves outward and down.

This is a very good point and one that I feel proves misdirection in some parts of the so called 'Truth Movement'. Still images appear to show material travelling up and outwards. What the video shows is the central part of the dust cloud being drawn down as the main part of the building falls giving the illusion in still images that the ejected material has travelled up before falling.
As you say one only needs to look carefully to see this. This creates uncomfortable questions about the people who have promoted the idea of ejected material being thrown upwards and out. Whatever their motives they have discredited themselves.

Unfortunately I have other business too attend. I will return to this as soon as I am able.

reply to post by snowcrash911


Jones, et al., misinterpreted their data to see what they wanted to see. Running the DSC in a stream of air was one of their biggest blunders. The energy output was greater than any combination of any of their explosives and thermite could produce, hence combustion was occurring and they could not discriminate between that and thermite.
By failing to use the scientific method and assuming a conclusion before doing the experiment, they invalidated their results. Henryco was upset that he couldn't reproduce the results and concluded that his chip samples may have been sabotaged. How one can sabotage a paint sample is not known.
The publication of the paper caused the Bentham editor to resign her position in protest so there was apparently some irregularity in the peer review process, of whatever rigor Bentham requires. Jones has no standing in the scientific community and has squandered what little reputation he once had. He is a known publicity hound and is not to be trusted other than to promote his own agenda.
There is no evidence of thermite in the WTC dust.

reply to post by Kester

They want the material under 1/4 inch containing much of the missing human remains moved to a respectful place as they were told was going to happen, before it was suddenly bulldozed over the rest of the building remains. Again the words used give a false impression. Unrecovered human remains. Whats unrecovered about a pile of fine debris? It was recovered then disposed of like garbage. That's the issue that led to the creation of wtcfamiliesforproperburial.

I agree with that respect thing. I saw a reporter giving a news bit one time while standing on fresh kills and at her feet on the ground were all these white bits that looked like pieces of bone. I was like wow what is that, but they didn't notice and I didn't record it and haven't seen it since. If they bulldozed the area maybe that is why; to further bury evidence of that nature.

I saw another news report that claimed that bits of bone and mummified flesh were found on the tops of nearby buildings long after the event that had been missed by forensics. Like how thorough is that? And I get your call that plans, blueprints and actual construction are three different things, but am not sure. Maybe that has more to do with construction companies, materials substitution and kick backs.

Then there is the extreme explosive nature of all the events that occurred that day. Some believe that maybe this event was planned ahead like all other false flag events throughout history that have been used to justify wars (I agree). But actually planting explosives or thermite charges ahead of time would be so involved and destructive to the building itself (let alone noticeable by all the people that worked there). Knowing something about explosives and demo, I find that hard to accept.

But hey, this IS ATS, the conspiracy theory forum. All claims are welcome, just be ready to back it with more than your opinion. Of course you are alreadfy finding that out huh?

So bring it, and be ready to defend it and also to have it "pulled" out from under you like this video of "explosiveless" demo from France:

reply to post by intrptr

So bring it, and be ready to defend it and also to have it "pulled" out from under you like this video of "explosiveless" demo from France:

In which the top sections accelerate through a weakened zone then decelerate once they do work destroying the lessor weakened lower structures. It also shows the top sections being destroyed at the same rate as the lower sections, which is why they initiate the collapses at mid-height.

Originally posted by pteridine
Jones, et al., misinterpreted their data to see what they wanted to see. Running the DSC in a stream of air was one of their biggest blunders.

False, they simply replicated the experiment by Tillotson et al. You have not read Tillotson's paper, you are simply parroting JREF. That is not needed. Which is why I asked you to carefully read my response.

Originally posted by pteridine
The energy output was greater than any combination of any of their explosives and thermite could produce, hence combustion was occurring and they could not discriminate between that and thermite.

This is anti-scientific gibberish. If elemental iron is found in previously molten spheres not before, but after, a thermitic reaction has occurred, that is, oxygen molecules transferred from iron oxide to aluminum. The DSC plot dovetails with Tillotson. Yes, there is an organic component in the chips, but it isn't bound to any other elements. No, it's not paint.

Originally posted by pteridine
By failing to use the scientific method and assuming a conclusion before doing the experiment, they invalidated their results.

They constructed a hypothesis and conducted an experiment. There is nothing wrong with this approach, and it does not violate the scientific method. What does violate the scientific method, however, is playing the armchair debunker mind reader, and yapping about chemistry and the scientific method, both of which you do not understand.

Originally posted by pteridine
Henryco was upset that he couldn't reproduce the results and concluded that his chip samples may have been sabotaged. How one can sabotage a paint sample is not known.

XEDS analysis excludes the possibility of any of these samples being paint. That is, if you care to present Frédéric Henry-Couannier's full conclusions rather than the parts you cherry pick. I suggest you read the STJ911 FAQ, too.

Originally posted by pteridine
The publication of the paper caused the Bentham editor to resign her position in protest so there was apparently
some irregularity in the peer review process, of whatever rigor Bentham requires.

You must be unfamiliar with my article on the subject then. Pileni lied, disqualifying her opinion. The paper was peer reviewed, among others, by the department head of physics at BYU. It's being peer reviewed for years now by all of us. The paper is public. I have yet to see a non-thermitic explanation for a thermitic reaction.

Originally posted by pteridine
Jones has no standing in the scientific community

He has papers published in Nature. You don't.

Originally posted by pteridine
and has squandered what little reputation he once had. He is a known publicity hound

There is no basis for this claim. If media contacts Jones with inquiries, he will naturally respond. After all, he wants his research to be known.

Originally posted by pteridine
and is not to be trusted other than to promote his own agenda.

There is reason to question Jones' integrity, certainly. But such questions were properly unearthed by truthers like me, not debunkers like you.

Originally posted by pteridine
There is no evidence of thermite in the WTC dust.

You were doing just fine, until you started lying.

A material containing aluminum and iron oxide, which, after ignition, produces iron-reduced metallic spheres not present beforehand, is thermitic.

Therefore, there is evidence for thermite in WTC dust, and the only reason it could not be evidence if is the experiments by Jones, Harrit, Farrer, Keogh, Ryan, Basile were fabricated. That could be a reasonable allegation. What is not a reasonable allegation, however, is arrogantly pretending a scientific paper you don't understand doesn't support experimental results you don't like.

I have plenty of reservations about nanothermite in WTC dust, but I don't need the usual "debunker" mendacity to get there. I also believe the WTC buildings could have collapsed naturally, but again, I don't need the usual "debunker" subterfuge and lies to get there.

Now, I don't wish to get into the habit of defending Steven Jones, who in his spare time investigates all kinds of wacky things, but I don't wish to lie to attack him either. Repeat your lies, as many times as you wish, the only recourse you have is alleging he fabricated his data. That, I can understand. Lying to avoid having to cope with the implications of his data, I don't. I could get into a protracted argument with you, debunking each and every single nonsensical (mutually exclusive!) dodge vomited out by the debunker community over the years. I've forgotten more about nanothermite than you will ever learn. I could engage in yet another back-and-forth; but I don't care to. The nanothermite issue is not on my priority list. Carry on.

reply to post by pteridine

There is no evidence of thermite in the WTC dust.

Agreed... except, there may be residue that could be construed to appear as though thermite was involved. Thermite is composed of AL powder and Iron Oxide (rust). Mixed and ignited it burns at 5000 degrees melting thru just about anything in its path, leaving a slag like mass of grey/black metal pools and rivulets.
OK...
Given the time the gasoline fires worked on the aluminum plane parts and any steel items on every office floor, they may have volatilized and mixed during the violence of the collapse, winding up in the basement where they appear to be rivulets of slag produced by thermite. Spectrographic analysis would show a mix of FE and AL.

The temperatures needed to melt metal in the towers prior to collapse might be provided by the wind rushing in to the floors on fire with all the windows blown out (like a venturi in a carburetor say). That was like a blast furnace at altitude with steady winds that day. Would melt anything.

Or after collapse, the temperature in the "cocoon" of the basement under all that debris spiked and melted metal then too. See smoke from fires for days. Principle is simple enough. Get a Weber "Smokey Joe" Barbecue. Pop on the lid and temp increases inside the "bubble".

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by pteridine

 

There is no evidence of thermite in the WTC dust.

Thermite is composed of AL powder and Iron Oxide (rust). Mixed and ignited it burns at 5000 degrees melting thru just about anything in its path, leaving a slag like mass of grey/black metal pools and rivulets.

Thermite reaches ~2500°C and ~4500 F. Thermite can be composed of various metals and metal oxides.

Originally posted by intrptr
Given the time the gasoline fires worked on the aluminum plane parts and any steel items on every office floor, they may have volatilized and mixed during the violence of the collapse, winding up in the basement where they appear to be rivulets of slag produced by thermite. Spectrographic analysis would show a mix of FE and AL.

The second law of thermodynamics entirely precludes stochastic mixtures of nanothermite spontaneously forming into crystallized platelets and carbon nanotubes. More pseudoscientific gibberish. Build a structure containing aluminum and iron (partially oxidized) .. and collapse it. You will never get nanothermite.

Originally posted by intrptr
The temperatures needed to melt metal in the towers prior to collapse might be provided by the wind rushing in to the floors on fire with all the windows blown out (like a venturi in a carburetor say). That was like a blast furnace at altitude with steady winds that day. Would melt anything.

Or after collapse, the temperature in the "cocoon" of the basement under all that debris spiked and melted metal then too. See smoke from fires for days. Principle is simple enough. Get a Weber "Smokey Joe" Barbecue. Pop on the lid and temp increases inside the "bubble".

ACME cartoon chemistry at its finest. I suggest you read prof. Thomas Eagar's paper on the WTC collapses, so that you may understand the intricacies of fire dynamics, which, clearly you don't at this point. RJ Lee reported "extremely high temperatures during the collapse." The usual "expected" rejoinder is a lie: RJ Lee statistically identified WTC dust by analyzing the distribution of its elemental contents. Hence previously molten iron microspheres were "expected" from WTC dust, as explained here. As you can tell this could go on and on and on, with one ridiculously false, pseudoscientific "debunker" claim refuted after another. It's been going on for years, going around in circles.

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by pteridine
Jones, et al., misinterpreted their data to see what they wanted to see. Running the DSC in a stream of air was one of their biggest blunders.

False, they simply replicated the experiment by Tillotson et al. You have not read Tillotson's paper, you are simply parroting JREF. That is not needed. Which is why I asked you to carefully read my response.

I will respond to each of your points as I have time. Do not presume to tell me what I have read and what I have not read. If you look carefully at JREF, you may find that I am the author on an early criticism of Jones' shoddy analytical chemistry.
Thoughtless replication is not an excuse. Running the DSC in a stream of air was one of their biggest blunders.
Tillotson analyzed a material he synthesized; Jones was doing a forensic analysis and didn't consider that organics in the material would burn and that it would be important to show reaction in the absence of air.
Also note that the DSC traces of Tillotson are dissimilar to Jones DSC and only produce 1.5 kJ/g of the theoretical 3.9 kJ/g. Most likely this is due to surface oxidation of the aluminum. Surface oxidation has a more significant effect on nanoparticles than larger sized materials. Jones sees none of this effect because he is burning paint binder in an air stream.

Originally posted by snowcrash911
Now, I don't wish to get into the habit of defending Steven Jones, who in his spare time investigates all kinds of wacky things, but I don't wish to lie to attack him either. Repeat your lies, as many times as you wish, the only recourse you have is alleging he fabricated his data. That, I can understand. Lying to avoid having to cope with the implications of his data, I don't. I could get into a protracted argument with you, debunking each and every single nonsensical (mutually exclusive!) dodge vomited out by the debunker community over the years. I've forgotten more about nanothermite than you will ever learn. I could engage in yet another back-and-forth; but I don't care to. The nanothermite issue is not on my priority list. Carry on.

How can you say "I've forgotten more about nanothermite than you will ever learn" when you don't know who I am? Then you accuse me of lying and tell me that you "could get into a protracted argument with you, debunking each and every single nonsensical (mutually exclusive!) dodge." Of course, you have on your good shirt and don't want to mess it up in a fight because your mom would be unhappy or you would thrash me right now. Gosh, I am lucky to escape with my life.
Why don't you take a few sentences and write out what you know about thermite and explosives so I can study up on it. Carry on.

Originally posted by pteridine
I will respond to each of your points as I have time.

I'm sure you will.

Originally posted by pteridine
Do not presume to tell me I have read and what I have not read. If you look carefully at JREF, you may find that I am the author on an early criticism of Jones' shoddy analytical chemistry.

I'm not sure which is worse, being the originator or the parrot of such pseudoscientific claptrap.

Originally posted by pteridine
Thoughtless replication is not an excuse. Running the DSC in a stream of air was one of their biggest blunders.

No it wasn't. Trotting this argument out as if it in any way "refutes" an active thermitic reaction is your biggest blunder, not theirs.

Originally posted by pteridine
Tillotson analyzed a material he synthesized;

So do you have the paper? You can prove you have it by posting it or linking to it.

Jones contacted Tillotson to ask him if he had conducted his tests in air. He did.

Originally posted by pteridine
Jones was doing a forensic analysis and didn't consider that organics in the material would burn and that it would be important to show reaction in the absence of air.

I didn't know the WTC existed in an airless vacuum on 9/11; that's news to me. I didn't know the presence of air explains a thermitic reaction, where metal oxide bondings are unbound, and transferred to another metal, in other words, the departure of oxygen from the oxidizer to the reducer in a reduction/oxidation reaction.

Originally posted by pteridine
Also note that the DSC traces of Tillotson are dissimilar to Jones DSC and only produce 1.5 kJ/g of the theoretical 3.9 kJ/g. Most likely this is due to surface oxidation of the aluminum. Surface oxidation has a more significant effect on nanoparticles than larger sized materials.

Yes, and oxide shell thickness and packing density has been discussed between Metamars and Ryan Mackey at JREF. I put it to you that the presence of an organic component increases the energy yield. Not surprising. The samples were ignited in air, and so was the WTC. An experiment conducted in vacuum is not required to determine if a material is actively thermitic. One merely must the establish the newly found presence of thermite reaction byproduct, such as previously molten microspheres, composed of mostly elemental iron.

Originally posted by pteridine
Jones sees none of this effect because he is burning paint binder in an air stream.

A material containing a reducer and an oxidizer metal, which, if ignited, forms previously molten microspheres, containing mostly elemental iron, is actively thermitic.

You cannot get out from under this basic fact. There is no non-thermitic explanation for a thermitic reaction. The only option you have is to allege experimental data fabrication, which is fine with me, unlike lying about the Active Thermitic Materials paper which some "debunkers" feel justified doing. The end (debunking) does not justify the means (lying).

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by pteridine
The energy output was greater than any combination of any of their explosives and thermite could produce, hence combustion was occurring and they could not discriminate between that and thermite.

This is anti-scientific gibberish. If elemental iron is found in previously molten spheres not before, but after, a thermitic reaction has occurred, that is, oxygen molecules transferred from iron oxide to aluminum. The DSC plot dovetails with Tillotson. Yes, there is an organic component in the chips, but it isn't bound to any other elements. No, it's not paint.

Here is more detailed gibberish for you to prove anti-scientific. It is part of an explanation for those unfamiliar with DSC and the thermodynamics of reaction. Carry on.

Jones runs the DSC in air rather than under argon so he can’t determine if any heat generated was from a reaction or combustion. In retrospect, he realized that he erred when he did this and adds weasel words on page 27 of his paper; “As this test was done in air it is possible that some of the enhancement of energy output may have come from air oxidation of the organic component.” The phrase “air oxidation of the organic component” is Jones-Speak for combustion. This means that it could have burned to make the heat and there is no way to tell how much heat was made by combustion [“air oxidation of the organic component”] and how much was made by a reaction of some sort.
The thermite reaction is more complex than most imagine. For the purposes of this discussion we will allow that it is simply the reduction of a metal oxide, in this case iron oxide, with elemental aluminum. We will also use Jones statement of the theoretical maximum of 3.9 kJ/g [page 27]. This theoretical maximum applies to all thermite reactions, regardless of particle size. Not all thermite reactions may give this value; thermites with larger particles are claimed to produce a few percent less energy, but the thermite reaction has 3.9 kJ/g as its upper limit regardless of particle size. What does change with particle size is the rate of reaction. The smaller the particles are, the faster they react and the faster the energy comes out.
Now for the energetics shown in Fig 30 on page 27. We will be concerned with the blue bars; energy per unit mass in kilojoules per gram [kJ/g]. In this figure, the energies of various nitrogenous explosives HMX, TNT, and TATB are compared with thermite and the four chips analyzed by the DSC. This discussion uses only what was in Jones' paper.
Based on this figure, we see the following theoretical and measured energies:

Not measured in this experiment:
HMX = 5.5 kJ/g
TNT = 4.5 kJ/g
TATB = 4.1kJ/g
Thermite = 3.9 kJ/g
Measured in this experiment:
Chip #1 = 1.5 kJ/g
Chip #2 = 2.5 kJ/g
Chip #3 = 7.5 kJ/g
Chip #4 = 5.9 kJ/g

The first thing we notice is the wide disparity of values for the “highly engineered” material. This should raise doubts as to sample collection and preparation and even if the materials are the same thing. By other analyses, they appear similar.
Now we note that two of the chips, #3 and #4, have far more energy than if they were 100% thermite. They also have more energy than any of the high explosives or any combination of thermite and any high explosive. Arithmetically, if we have a 50:50 mix of thermite and HMX we should have an energy of about 4.7 kJ/g. How can this be?
To explain this, we must understand what is being measured and how. The explosives and thermite have, internal to them, their own oxidants. We include their oxygen in the weight we measured. If we measure heat from a burning hydrocarbon, for example, we don't include the weight of the oxygen in the air we use to burn it. Candle wax burning in air has about 10 times the energy of thermite using this convention. What does this mean? It means that some, if not all, of the energy from the red chips is due to burning of the carbonaceous paint matrix in air.
Jones is vague about this problem and says on p27. “We suggest that the organic material in evidence in the red/gray chips is also highly energetic, most likely producing gas to provide explosive pressure.” What might that energetic material be? Jones has no clue. His team lacks the chemical knowledge to postulate a reasonable composition. It has no nitrogen, so it is not one of the explosives shown. It is energetic when burning in air. Volatilized, it will produce gas but it does not seem to be otherwise energetic. How can Jones discriminate between explosives, thermite and plain old burning paint?
He can re-run the DSC under an argon atmosphere. What a simple and elegant solution. Under argon, all the energy coming out will be from the thermite and its energetic additives.

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by pteridine
Thoughtless replication is not an excuse. Running the DSC in a stream of air was one of their biggest blunders.

No it wasn't. Trotting this argument out as if it in any way "refutes" an active thermitic reaction is your biggest blunder, not theirs.

Originally posted by pteridine
Tillotson analyzed a material he synthesized;

So do you have the paper? You can prove you have it by posting it or linking to it.

Jones contacted Tillotson to ask him if he had conducted his tests in air. He did.

Originally posted by pteridine
Jones was doing a forensic analysis and didn't consider that organics in the material would burn and that it would be important to show reaction in the absence of air.

I didn't know the WTC existed in an airless vacuum on 9/11; that's news to me. I didn't know the presence of air explains a thermitic reaction, where metal oxide bondings are unbound, and transferred to another metal, in other words, the departure of oxygen from the oxidizer to the reducer in a reduction/oxidation reaction.

The samples were ignited in air, and so was the WTC. An experiment conducted in vacuum is not required to determine if a material is actively thermitic. One merely must the establish the newly found presence of thermite reaction byproduct, such as previously molten microspheres, composed of mostly elemental iron.

A material containing a reducer and an oxidizer metal, which, if ignited, forms previously molten microspheres, containing mostly elemental iron, is actively thermitic.

You cannot get out from under this basic fact. There is no non-thermitic explanation for a thermitic reaction. The only option you have is to allege experimental data fabrication, which is fine with me, unlike lying about the Active Thermitic Materials paper which some "debunkers" feel justified doing. The end (debunking) does not justify the means (lying).

I hope you are not too confused with all this technical stuff. After all, you forgot more about this than I will ever know. The reason we want to run the DSC in an inert gas is so we can see the thermite reaction. Thermite doesn't need air to react. If there is no reaction in an inert gas stream, there is no thermite and all the other experiments are meaningless.
Of course, combustion of an organic increases energy yield. Where are the mostly iron spheres? I believe that they were "iron containing" and their existence does not prove they were formed by a thermite reaction. Interestingly enough, the red chips self-extinguished after ignition. If we look at the paper, we see partially combusted red chips with translucent spheres attached in Figure 20. Why would such a "highly energetic" material start burning and then stop? Could it be that it ran out of binder to combust?

It would be useful if you would stop calling me a liar. It is so common and reeks of close-minded desperation. It is unbecoming of someone with a level of forgetfulness such as you.

Originally posted by pteridine
Jones runs the DSC in air rather than under argon so he can’t determine if any heat generated was from a reaction or combustion.

A material containing a reducer and an oxidizer metal, which, if ignited, forms previously molten microspheres, containing mostly elemental iron, is actively thermitic.

Originally posted by pteridine
In retrospect, he realized that he erred when he did this and adds weasel words on page 27 of his paper; "As this test was done in air it is possible that some of the enhancement of energy output may have come from air oxidation of the organic component." The phrase "air oxidation of the organic component" is Jones-Speak for combustion. This means that it could have burned to make the heat and there is no way to tell how much heat was made by combustion ["air oxidation of the organic component"] and how much was made by a reaction of some sort.

Tillotson conducted his test in air and measured the energy yield. Jones conducted his test in air and measured the energy yield. The WTC stood in air, not in vacuum, otherwise, its managers, office workers, janitors, CEOs, secretaries, parking valets, PANY security personnel, receptionists, IT experts and other living organic beings would suffocate.

Originally posted by pteridine
The thermite reaction is more complex than most imagine. For the purposes of this discussion we will allow that it is simply the reduction of a metal oxide, in this case iron oxide, with elemental aluminum.

How about you put it less simple? I'm very curious what else happens but the reduction-oxidation of metals and the production of heat and reaction byproduct. Nanothermite reaction rate is characterized by particle size, specific surface area, particle morphology and the chemical characterics of the ingredients.

Originally posted by pteridine
The first thing we notice is the wide disparity of values for the "highly engineered" material.

Due to the mass of the gray layer.

Originally posted by pteridine
This should raise doubts as to sample collection and preparation and even if the materials are the same thing.

No it doesn't.

Originally posted by pteridine
Now we note that two of the chips, #3 and #4, have far more energy than if they were 100% thermite.

There is an organic matrix in the sample... did you notice? Tillotson conducted his test in air and measured the energy yield. Jones conducted his test in air and measured the energy yield. The WTC stood in air, not in vacuum, otherwise, its managers, office workers, janitors, CEOs, secretaries, parking valets, PANY security personnel, receptionists, IT experts and other living organic beings would suffocate.

Originally posted by pteridine
They also have more energy than any of the high explosives or any combination of thermite and any high explosive.

High explosives function by virtue of pressure/volume work, reaction front velocities and brisance. This statement is meaningless.

Originally posted by pteridine
Arithmetically, if we have a 50:50 mix of thermite and HMX we should have an energy of about 4.7 kJ/g. How can this be?

Huh? Why would you mix the two? Are you bored?

Originally posted by pteridine
To explain this, we must understand what is being measured and how. The explosives and thermite have, internal to them, their own oxidants.

Yes, brilliant.

Originally posted by pteridine
We include their oxygen in the weight we measured. If we measure heat from a burning hydrocarbon, for example, we don't include the weight of the oxygen in the air we use to burn it. Candle wax burning in air has about 10 times the energy of thermite using this convention. What does this mean? It means that some, if not all, of the energy from the red chips is due to burning of the carbonaceous paint matrix in air.

The material is demonstrably not paint. Thermitic paint: the debunker crock of the century.

A material containing a reducer and an oxidizer metal, which, if ignited, forms previously molten microspheres, containing mostly elemental iron, is actively thermitic. If you wish to accuse Jones et al. of fabrication, that is fine with me. Lying about the paper is not.

Originally posted by pteridine
I hope you are not too confused with all this technical stuff. After all, you forgot more about this than I will ever know. The reason we want to run the DSC in an inert gas is so we can see the thermite reaction. Thermite doesn't need air to react. If there is no reaction in an inert gas stream, there is no thermite and all the other experiments are meaningless.

And if there are is a material containing a reducer and an oxidizer metal, which produces previously molten spherules containing elemental iron after ignition, there has been a thermitic reaction.

I'm not the one confused. I would postpone the triumphant nose-thumbing and the rather tragic victory tap-dancing, giving the fact that you are apparently determined to lie about the paper (the means) to achieve your desperate debunking (the end).

Now produce that Tillotson paper, if you even have it. (I do)