I Was A "Professional" 9/11 "Truther" (And I Still Am!)

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Doctor Smith

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: hellobruce

So you now think Jones's paper is NOT a credible source!

Funny, Yet no one on here can provide any credible sources but only give their "opinions" and demanding for everyone to believe their "opinions are the facts.

Source Please.

I see you are back to your old tricks with your favorite word, "opinion" and demands for credible sources. You do this whenever you have backed yourself into a corner, which seems to be fairly often.

The Jones paper is the source of the sample collection descriptions. I provided that reference for you, but it seems that you have again failed to read the paper that you are so strongly opinionated about. Who is telling you what to think and say? Are you buying into Gage, et al., or some other half-baked website? Jones provided no information on storage, protection from humidity and oxidation, or protection from contamination of 5+ year old samples in his 'credible source' paper that you are purportedly basing your opinions on.

Unless you can show credible sources that describe the storage, protection from humidity and oxidation, and protection from contamination, the samples are suspect along with the scientific capabilities of the Jones team. Your 'opinions' don't count. Provide the reference or admit that you have no such evidence and it is only your 'opinion.'

My earlier challenge to you is still open. I made this general challenge in the past on several threads and no one has disproved my conclusions. No one has even tried. Either they are not capable or can see the truth to my analysis of Jones' data. You can start with Jones' thermodynamic data and we can work our way to the DSC and EDAX so we can discover that all of this fuss was over red primer paint.

By questioning the chain of custody you are effectively accusing the scientists and the citizens of conspiring to fake evidence by manufacturing high-tech energetic nanocomposites that only a handful of labs in the world can even make and adding them to samples! That sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory to me! And yet you find the idea of the government tampering with evidence ridiculous! Someone get Pat a tin foil hat!

Now that red/gray chips, or at least particles purporting to be them, have been found in professionally collected samples independent of Steven Jones', debunkers can now be assured that these red/gray chips, whatever they are, did not enter Jones' samples via accidental contamination, and were not intentionally added by 9/11 truth activists. So criticisms regarding the collection and chain of custody of Jones' samples are now null and void.

source


Physicist Steven Jones - one of the scientists who found thermite
in the World Trade Center dust discusses in depth his process of discovery
using the scientific method. Chain of custody of the WTC dust and nanothermite are discussed in depth.

The chips are red primer paint on the gray iron oxide that was the original surface of the steel beams comprising the superstructure of the WTC. Jones estimated that there were ten TONS of unreacted red/gray chips in the rubble. Ten tons of some super reactive material didn't react. What dangerous stuff. Pictures of the steel beams in various memorials show the red primer paint coating the metal. There are not any flammability warnings or 'no smoking' signs around the memorials and, amazingly, they are still unscathed.

The reason that the organic binder in the paint has more energy than thermite per unit weight in the DSC is that when burning a hydrocarbon, the oxidant is the oxygen in air and it is not part of the measured weight. In the case of conventional thermite, the oxidant is iron oxide which makes up a significant fraction of the measured weight. This type of measurement would show that candle wax has more caloric content than thermite on a mass basis. This doesn't mean that candle wax burns hotter than thermite, just that it has a much larger caloric output per unit weight.
What Jones did was run the DSC in air, burn the binder in the paint, and claim it was thermite. He ignored the fact that thermite does not need air to react and that his measurement should have been reaction under argon or nitrogen. Too much energy was produced for it to be thermite even though the combustion was incomplete. In his burning desire to find thermite, he never did the simple calculation that would have showed his gross error. After much criticism, he said he would run the DSC under inert and publish the results. It has been five years and he either never kept his word or found out how wrong he was and decided to continue his fraud for personal reasons.
I haven't decided whether his initial experiment was planned deception or just incompetence. From his statements, I lean toward blind incompetence followed by the inability to admit error and the desire to continue to deceive the gullible.

I understand your desire for there to be a conspiracy of some sort but any conspiracy is likely more of a coverup by various agencies and government entities after they failed to prevent the attack or were afraid to admit to substandard materials of construction and paid off building inspectors. I invite you to use the data in the paper and show how the thermodynamics indicate that the material is some form of thermite. Then, once you have that, explain how the material was ignited when only a thin layer of it was coating the substantial heat sink of a steel beam. Finally, given the thermal output that you calculated and using the heat capacity of structural steel, calculate the temperature rise of a beam if all the material could be ignited.

I await your response.

This has been addressed many times. Super simple.

(1) The paint was heated and was found to be stable. It never ignites it only cracks. It could never put out that type of energy. They would never paint the trade centers with a material that was more reactive than known nano thermite.

(2) The reacting chips also produce a high enough heat to create iron sphere's. So their is no way in hell it could be primer paint.




And if this isn't good enough why don't you or anyone else challenge them with a peer reviewed paper? They are waiting for someone to correct them. They will be the first to admit if they have overlooked something. But Official Story believers just wimp out and only post unproven remarks on the internet.

originally posted by: Doctor Smith
They will be the first to admit if they have overlooked something.

No, funny how you ignore that they never tested it in a inert atmosphere, and 5 years after they said that they would we are still waiting for that test! But they refuse to do it as they know it destroys their silly conspiracy theory!

a reply to: Doctor Smith

But Official Story believers just wimp out and only post unproven remarks on the internet.

You mean like missiles and space beams ?

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: firerescue

During World War II navies found that years of peacetime painting had built up combustible layer on the steel

Found that enemy bombs/shells would ignite this layer sparking an intense fire with dense choking smoke.

The key word is combustible.
Not explosive.

Almost 100 years ago LOL. They may have had paint like that.

These days they have a specific specifications for paint and anything else. They surely wouldn't paint buildings with explosive or combustible paint anymore. And never would any paint fire produce iron spheres.

Holograms and nukes! Imagine, white puffs of "smoke" from a building collapsing which was full of drywall?

a reply to: Doctor Smith

Then why is it required to keep cans of spray paint in a flammables storage locker at work? If things are more advanced nowadays!

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Doctor Smith
They will be the first to admit if they have overlooked something.

No, funny how you ignore that they never tested it in a inert atmosphere, and 5 years after they said that they would we are still waiting for that test! But they refuse to do it as they know it destroys their silly conspiracy theory!

So anytime someone unknown person on the web suggests some test. They're suppose to jump to it? Go on some time consuming ghost chase? Challenge them with a peer reviewed paper. Use the scientific method to prove them wrong if you can.

originally posted by: Doctor Smith
So anytime someone unknown person on the web suggests some test. They're suppose to jump to it?

It is a basic test if testing something like "thermite".... the fact they have never done it, or given the results if they did it just shows what a fraud their "paper" actually is, and only the gullible fall for their bad science!

Here is a link of placing a painted chunk of metal in a burn barrel created iron spheres. He has a scanning electron microscope. So cool!

www.internationalskeptics.com...

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Doctor Smith

Then why is it required to keep cans of spray paint in a flammables storage locker at work? If things are more advanced nowadays!

Elementary. The paint obviously uses a solvent that is flammable. Once the solvent evaporates the paint is no longer flammable.

If someone with a scientific background challenges them they will respond. Until today I didn't think their was a stupid question. I hope you guys weren't schooled in America.

originally posted by: Doctor Smith

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: firerescue

During World War II navies found that years of peacetime painting had built up combustible layer on the steel

Found that enemy bombs/shells would ignite this layer sparking an intense fire with dense choking smoke.

The key word is combustible.
Not explosive.

Almost 100 years ago LOL. They may have had paint like that.

These days they have a specific specifications for paint and anything else. They surely wouldn't paint buildings with explosive or combustible paint anymore. And never would any paint fire produce iron spheres.

I just told you how paint is still combustible. I think they still use oil paint and flammable solvents to clean brushes. You just made a general comment how paint is safer nowadays and I just made a general comment how it can still be flammable and has risks.

originally posted by: Doctor Smith

This has been addressed many times. Super simple.

(1) The paint was heated and was found to be stable. It never ignites it only cracks. It could never put out that type of energy. They would never paint the trade centers with a material that was more reactive than known nano thermite.

(2) The reacting chips also produce a high enough heat to create iron sphere's. So their is no way in hell it could be primer paint.

And if this isn't good enough why don't you or anyone else challenge them with a peer reviewed paper? They are waiting for someone to correct them. They will be the first to admit if they have overlooked something. But Official Story believers just wimp out and only post unproven remarks on the internet.

Super simple if one is ignorant of the chemistry. Dried paint has organic binder; it is a plastic with pigment in it.
Remember that I told you that energy output was not measuring temperature, it was measuring calories. Hydrocarbons have more calories per unit weight than thermite, nano-thermite, thermate and other variants.
They did admit that they overlooked something and said that they would run the DSC under an inert atmosphere. That was five years ago. Apparently, they didn't get the answer that they wanted.

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Doctor Smith

This has been addressed many times. Super simple.

(1) The paint was heated and was found to be stable. It never ignites it only cracks. It could never put out that type of energy. They would never paint the trade centers with a material that was more reactive than known nano thermite.

(2) The reacting chips also produce a high enough heat to create iron sphere's. So their is no way in hell it could be primer paint.

And if this isn't good enough why don't you or anyone else challenge them with a peer reviewed paper? They are waiting for someone to correct them. They will be the first to admit if they have overlooked something. But Official Story believers just wimp out and only post unproven remarks on the internet.

Super simple if one is ignorant of the chemistry. Dried paint has organic binder; it is a plastic with pigment in it.
Remember that I told you that energy output was not measuring temperature, it was measuring calories. Hydrocarbons have more calories per unit weight than thermite, nano-thermite, thermate and other variants.
They did admit that they overlooked something and said that they would run the DSC under an inert atmosphere. That was five years ago. Apparently, they didn't get the answer that they wanted.

In terms of energy density, thermite is roughly comparable to TNT, packing slightly less energy per unit of mass but about three times as much energy per unit of volume. In terms of power density, thermitic preparations range across a wide spectrum, whose upper end appears to be comparable to conventional high explosives.

Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust

So you believe dry paint puts out the same energy as TNT? And will reach a high enough temperature to melt iron into sphere's? Laughable. Even if your correct and the material won't explode in a vacuum. The material is still proven to be highly explosive. The paint was scientifically proven to be inert.

Just for info:

You can create these 'iron rich microspheres' very simply by applying a lighted match to a ball of steel wool. They really aren't anything very special except when it comes to 9/11 arguments.

Why's that?

a reply to: Pilgrum

Was there a steel wool storage facility in the twin towers?

a reply to: Doctor Smith

Not even noble gasses are truly inert. Do you even know what inert means. If paint was inert, it would not be destroyed by fire / chemical action. Would not produce gasses when heated nor soot when burnt. Know why wood burns. Heat breaks some of the wood down to a flammable gas. Are you saying paint cannot go under a similar process.

Since you ignored steel spheres created from painted steel in a burn barrel from a wood fire the first time......
www.internationalskeptics.com...

a reply to: neutronflux

Not even noble gasses are truly inert. Do you even know what inert means. If paint was inert, it would not be destroyed by fire / chemical action. Would not produce gasses when heated nor soot when burnt. Know why wood burns. Heat breaks some of the wood down to a flammable gas. Are you saying paint cannot go under a similar process.

Paint does not put out the same type of energy as TNT no matter how high you heat it.

Since you ignored steel spheres created from painted steel in a burn barrel from a wood fire the first time...... www.internationalskeptics.com...

The few sphere's produced in the burning barrel do not match the WTC dust sample sphere's when using spectrogram. And one more thing. He admitted to scraping off the material from the metal which could have scraped off some previously made spheres from the forging of the steel years earlier.

originally posted by: Pilgrum
Just for info:

You can create these 'iron rich microspheres' very simply by applying a lighted match to a ball of steel wool. They really aren't anything very special except when it comes to 9/11 arguments.

Why's that?

You can produce iron oxide not elemental iron. Does not match the sphere's produced in the WTC dust. Only the reacted red/grey chips match in spectrogram.

Steel-Wool Iron Spheres Debunked Again: Shame on NMSR´s Dave Thomas

originally posted by: Doctor Smith

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Doctor Smith

This has been addressed many times. Super simple.

(1) The paint was heated and was found to be stable. It never ignites it only cracks. It could never put out that type of energy. They would never paint the trade centers with a material that was more reactive than known nano thermite.

(2) The reacting chips also produce a high enough heat to create iron sphere's. So their is no way in hell it could be primer paint.

And if this isn't good enough why don't you or anyone else challenge them with a peer reviewed paper? They are waiting for someone to correct them. They will be the first to admit if they have overlooked something. But Official Story believers just wimp out and only post unproven remarks on the internet.

Super simple if one is ignorant of the chemistry. Dried paint has organic binder; it is a plastic with pigment in it.
Remember that I told you that energy output was not measuring temperature, it was measuring calories. Hydrocarbons have more calories per unit weight than thermite, nano-thermite, thermate and other variants.
They did admit that they overlooked something and said that they would run the DSC under an inert atmosphere. That was five years ago. Apparently, they didn't get the answer that they wanted.

In terms of energy density, thermite is roughly comparable to TNT, packing slightly less energy per unit of mass but about three times as much energy per unit of volume. In terms of power density, thermitic preparations range across a wide spectrum, whose upper end appears to be comparable to conventional high explosives.

Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust

So you believe dry paint puts out the same energy as TNT? And will reach a high enough temperature to melt iron into sphere's? Laughable. Even if your correct and the material won't explode in a vacuum. The material is still proven to be highly explosive. The paint was scientifically proven to be inert.

This is about measurement in a DSC. Apparently, you didn't read my posts or didn't understand them, much like you don't understand Jones' paper, DSC, or the chemistry involved.
As you are a Google Warrior, look up the heat of combustion of a hydrocarbon and compare it to thermite and TNT on a mass basis. Then, look at Jones' data and see that his claimed thermitic material is putting out more energy than thermite on a mass basis. Then consider that paint is a carbonaceous polymer that can combust under the conditions that these 'scientists' used for the DSC. Then note that even when heated with a torch, not all of the red chips react and the spheres are 'iron-rich' or have no iron at all. This highly energetic material self-extinguishes. No wonder that Jones estimates that ten tons of unreacted red chips remain in the dust; it won't stay lit, which is what must make it so subtly dangerous.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

See how none of the theories hold up when slightly scrutinized by a modestly educated individual like myself. It's no wonder no peer reviewed papers have been submitted to challenge Steven Jone's peer reviewed paper.