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

So again, as pointed out earlier, Jones must have fabricated his data for the paper to be in error. That's what you should be accusing him of. What you shouldn't be doing, is misrepresenting the findings of a paper whose experimental conclusions you don't like. Integrity. It's that simple.

Which analytical technique did Tillotson use to conclusively identify as thermite residue the remnants/byproducts of his nanocomposite after reaction? How did he phrase his "thermite detection" procedure?

If you have the paper, and if you read it, then you can answer this question. Quote Mr. Tillotson verbatim, please. Thank you.

Originally posted by snowcrash911

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

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 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.

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

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

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

I see you are still so confused about this you accuse me of lying. You assume that a reductant is present for the iron oxide and conclude that thermite is present. That is what has to be shown and it is not good form to assume what you wish to show and use the assumption to show it.
I will explain this slowly for you. Tillotson knew what he had because he made it. He measured the energy output and reaction onset already knowing that he had thermite. He made it. Got that, yet?
Jones didn't know what he had. He assumed he had thermite and wanted to test it just like the guy who made thermite. What he has to do first is to show he has thermite. How? Show a reaction that can't be combustion. Did he do it? No. Jones is a poor analytical chemist and didn't think to show he had thermite before burning paint in his DSC and claiming thermite. Got that, yet?

Now for the gray layer. Was there more or less of the gray layer in the less energetic material? Answer carefully.

You responded "High explosives function by virtue of pressure/volume work, reaction front velocities and brisance. This statement is meaningless." The combustion energy of paint can be measured and it functions by making a protective film. You don't understand the thermo or are worried that you can't explain it. Maybe you forgot this part when you were busy forgetting more about thermite than I'll ever know.

The mixing. This was Jonesy's idea. The energetic matrix that he alluded to and then showed some energetic materials in a bar chart he lifted from another paper. I showed that the DSC energies were too great even mixing these with thermite. Of course, the EDAX showed no nitrogen present so these are not really candidates but they were what he put in the paper. The combustion reaction could account for some or all of the exotherm which is why he can't claim thermite and has to do more experiments.

I do enjoy your descriptions of chemical reactions and want you to know that even though you pretend to be dense, I know you are just playing around.

Jones has not shown thermite to be present in the dust. Think red paint.

Originally posted by snowcrash911
Now produce that Tillotson paper, if you even have it. (I do)

I am happy for you. I have it, too. Do you want to discuss why Jones screwed up by following Tillotson's analytical protocol?

Originally posted by snowcrash911
So again, as pointed out earlier, Jones must have fabricated his data for the paper to be in error. That's what you should be accusing him of. What you shouldn't be doing, is misrepresenting the findings of a paper whose experimental conclusions you don't like. Integrity. It's that simple.

Jones did not fabricate his data. He misinterpeted the EDAX , came to invalid conclusions, and does not understand why the DSC results he provided show the shortcomings of his conclusions. He saw what he wanted to see because he started with a predetermined conclusion. Integrity. It's that simple.

Originally posted by pteridine
I am happy for you. I have it, too. Do you want to discuss why Jones screwed up by following Tillotson's analytical protocol?

Answer the question I asked you about Tillotson. Quote him verbatim. I prefer that much better than your hollow clueless posturing on a paper you deliberately misrepresent. (I'm busy cooking up something for the Pentagon thread, so kindly stop wasting my precious time)

I don't know what it is with folks like you, that you need to have things repeated to you, over, and over, and over. Stop dodging this, this may be the fourth time you've done so:

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.

Sit still and stop dodging.

Allow me to correct myself. You're not clueless, worse, you're deliberately deceptive.

Originally posted by pteridine
I see you are still so confused about this you accuse me of lying.

Nope. I'm pretty sure you're lying, and it's getting worse by the hour.

Originally posted by pteridine
You assume that a reductant is present for the iron oxide and conclude that thermite is present. That is what has to be shown and it is not good form to assume what you wish to show and use the assumption to show it.

No, a reducer is present, as well as an oxidizer, and since mostly elemental reaction product (Fe) is present afterward not present beforehand, a thermitic reaction has occured. Period.

Originally posted by pteridine
I will explain this slowly for you.

What, you got some sort of impediment?

Originally posted by pteridine
Tillotson knew what he had because he made it. He measured the energy output and reaction onset already knowing that he had thermite. He made it. Got that, yet?

No. Tillotson tested the reaction products as if he wasn't sure they were really produced by thermite. That is the essence of science. Got that?

Originally posted by pteridine
Jones didn't know what he had. He assumed he had thermite

And how the hell do you know that, pteridine? Can you read his mind? Can you read the minds of Basile, Harrit, Keogh, Farrer and Jones? No you can't, pteridine, so stop pretending you can, unless you believe in superstition.

Originally posted by pteridine
What he has to do first is to show he has thermite. How? Show a reaction that can't be combustion.

False. Now quote Tillotson verbatim. Thank you.

Originally posted by pteridine
Now for the gray layer. Was there more or less of the gray layer in the less energetic material? Answer carefully.

Red/gray chips were subjected to heating using a differential scanning calorimeter (DSC). The data shown in Fig. (19) demonstrate that the red/gray chips from different WTC samples all ignited in the range 415-435 ˚C. The energy release for each exotherm can be estimated by integrating with respect to time under the narrow peak. Proceeding from the smallest to largest peaks, the yields are estimated to be approximately 1.5, 3, 6 and 7.5 kJ/g respectively. Variations in peak height as well as yield estimates are not surprising, since the mass used to determine the scale of the signal, shown in the DSC traces, included the mass of the gray layer. The gray layer was found to consist mostly of iron oxide so that it probably does not contribute to the exotherm, and yet this layer varies greatly in mass from chip to chip.

Pg. 19

We observe that the total energy released from some of the red chips exceeds the theoretical limit for thermite alone (3.9 kJ/g). One possibility is that the organic material in the red layer is itself energetic. Determination of the chemical compound(s) involved in the organic component of the red material would promote understanding. Further studies of the red material (separated from the gray material) compared to known super-thermite variants using DSC, TGA, FTIR (etc.) analyses would certainly be in order. In particular, NMR and GC-mass spectroscopy and related studies are urged to identify the organic material.

Pg. 28

For good measure:

The abundant iron-rich spheres are of particular interest in this study; none were observed in these particular chips prior to DSC-heating.

Pg. 29

Originally posted by pteridine
You responded "High explosives function by virtue of pressure/volume work, reaction front velocities and brisance. This statement is meaningless." The combustion energy of paint can be measured and it functions by making a protective film. You don't understand the thermo or are worried that you can't explain it. Maybe you forgot this part when you were busy forgetting more about thermite than I'll ever know.

As mentioned earlier, a crucial difference in thermites and explosives is the time for the reaction to reach completion. Thermites are bimolecular reactions and reaction rates are limited by diffusion times between reactants. Whereas HE are typically monomolecular and reaction rates occur more rapidly only limited by chemical conversion rates. Thermite mixtures of nano-sized reactants reduce the critical diffusion length thus increasing the overall reaction rate.

Granier, 2005

I forget more about nanothermite every second than you struggle learning about in a month.

Originally posted by pteridine
The mixing. This was Jonesy's idea. The energetic matrix that he alluded to and then showed some energetic materials in a bar chart he lifted from another paper. I showed that the DSC energies were too great even mixing these with thermite. Of course, the EDAX showed no nitrogen present so these are not really candidates but they were what he put in the paper. The combustion reaction could account for some or all of the exotherm which is why he can't claim thermite and has to do more experiments.

False. Explained to you repeatedly. See quote from pg. 29 of the Active Thermitic Material paper cited above.

Originally posted by pteridine
I do enjoy your descriptions of chemical reactions and want you to know that even though you pretend to be dense, I know you are just playing around.

Jones has not shown thermite to be present in the dust. Think red paint.

WHY THE RED/GRAY CHIPS ARE NOT PRIMER PAINT

So far, no good, pteridine. Try thinking to begin with.

Ironically, I don't even WANT to defend Jones. But, since I can't stand lies from ANY side, here I am. Truthers, debunkers, both groups consist mostly of fools and knaves.

Pssst... I know you partially lifted your "research"... from the Granier paper.

Another thing, before I call it a day here.

Please post a DSC graph of WTC primer paint.

Cheers, and Merry Christmas!

For the sake of the readers I'll jump in here and say in my opinion the thermite/thermate/nanothermite, present or not, is simply a distraction added to complicate the overall analysis. No offence meant to those who feel it's a subject worth pursuing. If I'm correct the involved discussion here proves my point.

Originally posted by Kester
For the sake of the readers I'll jump in here and say in my opinion the thermite/thermate/nanothermite, present or not, is simply a distraction added to complicate the overall analysis. No offence meant to those who feel it's a subject worth pursuing. If I'm correct the involved discussion here proves my point.

Kester, analysis of 9/11 is going to be complex whether you like it or not... That is why 90% of the 9/11 Truth Movement believes false claims: ignorance. Poor basic education. It can never be excluded that some of these claims were deliberately inserted to poison the well. But it can certainly be concluded that large batches of truthers feel nature and its physical phenomena should be dumbed down and simplified especially for them, rather than realizing it is they who should be smartening up.

reply to post by snowcrash911


I understand how the simple thermo can overwhelm you while you are busy forgetting all about thermite. Your statement "No, a reducer is present, as well as an oxidizer, and since mostly elemental reaction product (Fe) is present afterward not present beforehand, a thermitic reaction has occured. Period" shows that you believe Jones and do consider yourself somthing of an expert. If you are not overly inflated, you might want to consider the evidence before speaking from ignorance. This has not stopped you in the past, but perhaps you should reconsider and behave like a rational human being.
An oxide is present, certainly. Iron oxide is one of the common pigments in red paint. Jones' evidence for aluminum is a little less certain. Looking at the elemental maps and various images, what is claimed to be aluminum appears to be an aluminosilicate clay, such as kaolinite. XRD would readily answer this question but it was not carried out for some reason. The simple solution is for Jones to run the DSC under an inert atmosphere and look for reaction. This would be definitive and lead to resolution of the issue of paint-on thermite which, by the way, would do little to the structure other than warm it up a bit.
Consider that the chips were separated using a magnet. Any "mostly elemental reaction product (Fe)" would also be attracted to the magnet, so there is a question of whether such material contaminated the samples from the beginning. If we look at the products resulting from the DSC, we see particles are not "mostly elemental" based on the EDAX analysis. We also note that the reaction started and then stopped. The "highly engineered" material extinguished before it reacted completely. Defenders of the Jones paper have never been able to explain this away and I hope that you haven't forgotten this, along with everything else thermitic, and can respond with something other than your usual bombast and ad hominem attacks.

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by Kester
For the sake of the readers I'll jump in here and say in my opinion the thermite/thermate/nanothermite, present or not, is simply a distraction added to complicate the overall analysis. No offence meant to those who feel it's a subject worth pursuing. If I'm correct the involved discussion here proves my point.

Kester, analysis of 9/11 is going to be complex whether you like it or not... That is why 90% of the 9/11 Truth Movement believes false claims: ignorance. Poor basic education. It can never be excluded that some of these claims were deliberately inserted to poison the well. But it can certainly be concluded that large batches of truthers feel nature and its physical phenomena should be dumbed down and simplified especially for them, rather than realizing it is they who should be smartening up.

Thank goodness you've been able to see through all the ruses, and are able to bring the truth to we unwashed masses. Man, get over yourself.

Originally posted by Kester
For the sake of the readers I'll jump in here and say in my opinion the thermite/thermate/nanothermite, present or not, is simply a distraction added to complicate the overall analysis. No offence meant to those who feel it's a subject worth pursuing. If I'm correct the involved discussion here proves my point.

Yep, very likely a false lead designed to burn-up years in useless discussions.

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Kester, analysis of 9/11 is going to be complex whether you like it or not... That is why 90% of the 9/11 Truth Movement believes false claims: ignorance. Poor basic education. It can never be excluded that some of these claims were deliberately inserted to poison the well. But it can certainly be concluded that large batches of truthers feel nature and its physical phenomena should be dumbed down and simplified especially for them, rather than realizing it is they who should be smartening up.

This is why I consider the physical evidence on the Fresh Kills Landfill to be of prime importance.

I suspect the elevator mechanics who allegedly abandoned those trapped in the elevators to their fates may have been involved in the addition of thermite. I also suspect they and their controllers were manipulated into this position to help set up certain well known politicians and others as the fall guys. Imagine the successful outcome of an investigation that accurately identifies methods of destruction and guilty parties yet allows the main participants to remain unidentified and in plain sight.

I admire your work and understand it is essential. If I'm correct the thermite issue needs to be resolved so we can get to the heart of the matter. Only people like yourself can do this.

As to complexity. Does this answer give an idea of the complexity I see in this case?

Originally posted by septic

Originally posted by Kester
For the sake of the readers I'll jump in here and say in my opinion the thermite/thermate/nanothermite, present or not, is simply a distraction added to complicate the overall analysis. No offence meant to those who feel it's a subject worth pursuing. If I'm correct the involved discussion here proves my point.

Yep, very likely a false lead designed to burn-up years in useless discussions.

While the hangman shops around for the cheapest rope, the executioner sharpens his axe and the mass grave digger digs mass graves.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by snowcrash911

 

We also note that the reaction started and then stopped. The "highly engineered" material extinguished before it reacted completely. Defenders of the Jones paper have never been able to explain this away and I hope that you haven't forgotten this.

"One might speculate that the red thermitic material has been attached to rusty iron by an adhesive. The cooling effect of the iron in such close proximity, acting as a heat sink, might quench the reaction and explain the fact that unreacted red thermitic material, always found by us in thin layers, remains in the dust. These hypotheses invite further experiments." (Harrit, Jones et al., 2009)

"DSC experiments may confirm incomplete reactions caused by heating rates and Al particles." (Granier, 2005)

Then there's the various effects of oxide shell thickness.

None of this though "debunks" anything.

Unless there really was nanothermite in the WTC, if I were to guess about the why of all this, I'd say either the experimental data or the chips were fabricated and then inserted into the dust. I have an idea who might have done that. Needn't necessarily be the "NWO". But all of it is speculation, so I'll keep it to myself.

Originally posted by Kester
I admire your work and understand it is essential. If I'm correct the thermite issue needs to be resolved so we can get to the heart of the matter. Only people like yourself can do this.

I need not be admired. All I'm able to do is recognize some people who ought to be admired... I'll name them. OneWhiteEye, Femr2, Major Tom, Achimspok, as well as my friends Jon Gold and YT, who lost a family friend aboard UA 93. Hell, I'll even throw in Dr. Frank Greening and Frédéric Henry-Couannier.

Originally posted by Kester
As to complexity. Does this answer give an idea of the complexity I see in this case?

I'm not sure what you mean? You mean the necessity of going to Fresh Kills? Well yes, I can see your point. I fear they're just waiting it out, as they always do.