9/11 Explosive Evidence: Experts speak out.

great find bonez, i too was like him i didnt know about tower 7 untill three mounths ago when i first got a computer, nothing was said in meadia over here about bombs and cover ups not that i saw

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Jones has never been able to explain why the super thermite did not completely react in the DSC furnace. It would seem that a demolition material that self-extinguishes isn't very useful. Even at temperatures well above his claimed ignition temperature, the red chips only partially reacted. Since the reaction was not complete, the energy output, as calculated by Jones, was incorrect. Given that the paint had more energy in a partial reaction than would have been produced in a complete reaction by thermite [and any combination of thermite and high explosives shown in the paper] this shows that Jones protocol was faulty and his conclusions unjustified.

Jones must repeat his experiment under inert gas and show reaction in the absence of air to even claim the possibility of thermite.

Until he does this, all he has shown with these gyrations is that paint burns. If you or any "experts" have questions regarding Jones flawed chemical analyses, I will be happy to address them.

Interesting. Thanks for sharing.

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by _BoneZ_

 

No traces of det cord. blasting caps, shaped cahrges, delay tubes, radio
detonaters, etc in the debris which was sifted multiple times including final screening at Fresh Kills for
bone tissue/fragments and personal effects. Were able to recover tiny fragments from victims yet nothing survived of explosive demolition?

Nothing was found. Nada, Zip, Zilch, No Dice...

Well there were also no traces of the multiple black boxes that were in the two aircraft. You can't have it both ways, obviously if they can't find not even one (or even a piece of) the steel boxes designed to survive then it's not a stretch to think lot of stuff was pulverized(?).

Addition: Mark Basile

www.youtube.com.../u/11/JZNQq7XBLwc

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by _BoneZ_

 

OK Bonez .....

Tell me why dozens of bomb techs from the NYPD and other departments (including Passaic County NJ Sheriff
bomb squad, many of whom I have talked to), arson/explosive investigators from FDNY and ATF, demolition
experts from Pro-Tech and CDI, in addition to hundreds of ordinary FF and constructions workers could detect
any signs of explosive demolition. No traces of det cord. blasting caps, shaped cahrges, delay tubes, radio
detonaters, etc in the debris which was sifted multiple times including final screening at Fresh Kills for
bone tissue/fragments and personal effects. Were able to recover tiny fragments from victims yet nothing survived of explosive demolition?

Nothing was found. Nada, Zip, Zilch, No Dice...

Yet we are to believe these clowns who come by years later and say can prove explosive demolition from some dust ?

Sorry doesn't work......

Even if they used conventional explosives their would be very little left to find. The charges are totally consumed when used. As for the detonation cord, you wouldn't be able to distinguish that from the other wiring in the building even if they were looking. They assumed the planes were the reason for the collapse. Everyone knows about the mysterious sulfur damaged steel, molten flowing metal and the explosions heard all day. I could write a book here.

They probably used remote control detonators. More expensive but they have been around for a long time. Now they find the evidence of the nano thermate when they took the blinders off and finally looked. All because of the building 7 screw up.

In the beginning whoever went against the OS was basically fired from their position. The average employed worker goes with the flow or they won't be working for long.

Originally posted by Doctor Smith
Even if they used conventional explosives their would be very little left to find. The charges are totally consumed when used.
Now they find the evidence of the nano thermate when they took the blinders off and finally looked. All because of the building 7 screw up.

If there would be very little left to find, why do you claim that there is evidence for nanothermite? Jones estimated ten tons of red chips in the dust. Ten tons doesn't sound like a totally consumed demolition material.

Maybe red paint is a better fit.

reply to post by pteridine

If there would be very little left to find, why do you claim that there is evidence for nanothermite? Jones estimated ten tons of red chips in the dust. Ten tons doesn't sound like a totally consumed demolition material. Maybe red paint is a better fit.

That was for conventional explosives as stated. So you're mixing apples and oranges again. And as for the old red paint blunder. The elements in the Red paint in no way match the samples. And the Red Paint does not behave the same when heated.

Oh. by the way. Have you been able to find any examples of any steel frame buildings that have fallen similar to the 911 buildings 1,2 and 7? Without controlled demolition? The last time you tried you gave up in failure.

Originally posted by Doctor Smith
reply to post by pteridine

 

If there would be very little left to find, why do you claim that there is evidence for nanothermite? Jones estimated ten tons of red chips in the dust. Ten tons doesn't sound like a totally consumed demolition material. Maybe red paint is a better fit.

That was for conventional explosives as stated. So you're mixing apples and oranges again. And as for the old red paint blunder. The elements in the Red paint in no way match the samples. And the Red Paint does not behave the same when heated.

So, you are saying that the unconventional demoliton materials are so unconventional that they don't go off. This is certainly unconventional and is a new benchmark for the truther movement. As to "elements" in red paint in "no way" matching the samples, what do you think the red pigment is in metal primer? Might it be iron oxide? Do you think filler materials might be aluminosilicates?

reply to post by pteridine

So, you are saying that the unconventional demoliton materials are so unconventional that they don't go off. This is certainly unconventional and is a new benchmark for the truther movement. As to "elements" in red paint in "no way" matching the samples, what do you think the red pigment is in metal primer? Might it be iron oxide? Do you think filler materials might be aluminosilicates?

So. You are changing the subject. Can't find one example of any building globally collapsing in history. Other than that caused by controlled demolition. Only buildings 1,2 and 7 on the same day.

Thermate can be formulated to explode or to cut through steel. The red paint is not made of the same elements and does not behave the same when heated. Bringing up the paint over and over is only destroying your credibility.

Originally posted by Doctor Smith
reply to post by pteridine

 

So, you are saying that the unconventional demoliton materials are so unconventional that they don't go off. This is certainly unconventional and is a new benchmark for the truther movement. As to "elements" in red paint in "no way" matching the samples, what do you think the red pigment is in metal primer? Might it be iron oxide? Do you think filler materials might be aluminosilicates?

So. You are changing the subject. Can't find one example of any building globally collapsing in history. Other than that caused by controlled demolition. Only buildings 1,2 and 7 on the same day.

Thermate can be formulated to explode or to cut through steel. The red paint is not made of the same elements and does not behave the same when heated. Bringing up the paint over and over is only destroying your credibility.

It is you who are changing the subject and going back to the old building collapse false argument. We were discussing evidence of demolition and you made the claims that I have easily refuted. Thermates contain elements that were not found in the red chips. Iron oxide is the pigment in red metal primer. Aluminosilicates and silica are fillers in red primers. There is absolutely no evidence for controlled demolition.

reply to post by pteridine

The chips are red paint, and small-minded individuals grasping at conspiracy straws with predetermined conclusions and botched chemical analyses only work against any reinvestigation demands from being taken seriously. After all of this time, I would have expected the hard-core truthers to have figured this out. Maybe straw grasping is not limited to deluded ex-professors.

Perhaps you feel twisting and distorting Jones’ scientific findings to fit your belief system works for you. However anyone with a fifth grade reading comprehension can clearly see how Jones separated each of his tests results and explained in great detail to how each test was performed. Perhaps you feel your ”opinions” outweigh credible science.

FACT: Pteridine you were debunked repeatedly and you have never been able to debunk Jone’s thermite report, and that was proven in my thread. There appears to be a few OS defenders who deliberately go through great lengths in doing character assassination against anyone who has presented any scientific findings against the OS fairytales. In my opinion, many of the OS defenders cannot get past their patriotic beliefs, this is why many of them are the first to hand wave everything including credible science, which proves my point. Most defenders of the OS cannot dispute credible science so emotionally they attack the truth movement and by lumping all truthers as “all” believing space aliens with laser weapons blew up the WTC from Judy Woods house on the moon in their flying saucers, or invisible holograms flew in the WTC, to hush-a-boom bombs blew up the WTC. It is so ridiculous that some times I even have to laugh, and I have asked myself are these guys for real? They have to be kidding, or have they lost all sense of logical thinking.

As far as “RED PAINT” Jones proves what was the red paint and what was the red thematic material, Jones does all of this by using real science and he shows his results by explaining in great detail of why, and how, so in essence, until some blogger on ATS can show his or her scientific findings and put it through Peer review scrutiny in the scientific community, then perhaps Truthers will take notice.

Let’s not forget bloggers opinions are not credible, especially when hiding behind a keyboard and they and their opinions are not the authority of thematic science, or any science for that matter, unless they are willing to prove who they are and their educated background and again provided real scientific findings proving Jones Thermite report is flawed. Let me remind everyone again, opinions are not the facts, when it come to disprove flawed science, we want to see the evidence and science is the only evidence we can rely on.

Here is what Jones said about the red paint and the red material discoved in his testing in a controlled environment from Jones Journal.

[color=gold]Thermite Proven! Jones Science Proves Red Thematic Material not just Red Paint Chips, page 1

There are many debunkers on ATS who claim the red material in Jones peer review paper is *only red paint*. This is absolutely nonsense! Professor Steven Jones makes it perfectly clear the red material he discovered under electronic microscope is a thematic material.

(33)Thus, the middle-layer gray material contains carbon and
oxygen and presumably also contains hydrogen, too light to
be seen using this method. Since the gray inner layer appears
between two other layers, it may be a type of adhesive, binding
a red porous thermitic material to another, iron-rich material.
One mightspeculate 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 quenchthe 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.
Fig. (32). Close-up SEM image of the chip pictured on the right, the same chip but not precisely the same spot. This chip had been treated in MEK solvent so that the red layer has expanded and porosity is evident.

7. [color=gold]Could the Red Chip Material be Ordinary Paint?
We measured the resistivity of the red material (with very little gray adhering to one side) using a Fluke 8842A multimeter in order to compare with ordinary paints, using the formula:

Specific resistivity = RA / Lwhere R = resistance (ohms); A = cross-sectional area (m2); L
= thickness (m). Given the small size of the red chip, about 0.5 mm x 0.5mm, we used two probes and obtained a rough value of approximately10 ohm-m. This is several orders of magnitude less than paint coatings we found tabulated which are typically over 1010 ohm-m [31].
Another test, described above, involved subjection of red
chips to methyl ethyl ketone solvent for tens of hours, witagitation. The red material did swell but did not dissolve, and
a hard silicon-rich matrix remained after this procedure. On the other hand, paint samples in the same exposure to MEK
solvent became limp and showed significant dissolution, asexpected since MEK is a paint solvent.
Further, we have shown that the red material contains
both elemental aluminum and iron oxide, the ingredients of
thermite, in interesting configuration and intimate mixing inthe surviving chips (see Results, section 1). The species are
small (e.g., the iron oxide grains are roughly 100 nm across)
in a matrix including silicon and carbon, suggesting a superthermite
composite. Red chips when ignited produce very
high temperatures even now, several years after the 9/11
tragedy, as shown by the bright flash observed and the pro-
0duction of molten iron-rich spheres (see photomicrographs in
Fig. (20) above). Correspondingly, the DSC tests demonstrate
the release of high enthalpy, actually exceeding that of
pure thermite. Furthermore, the energy is released over a
short period of time, shown by the narrowness of the peak in
Fig. (29). The post-DSC-test residue contains microspheres
in which the iron exceeds the oxygen content, implying that
at least some of the iron oxide has been reduced in the reaction.
If a paint were devised that incorporated these very
energetic materials, it would be highly dangerous when dry
and most unlikely to receive regulatory approval for building
use. To merit consideration, any assertion that a prosaic substance
such as paint could match the characteristics we have
described would have to be accompanied by empirical demonstration
using a sample of the proposed material, including
SEM/XEDS and DSC analyses.

www.bentham-open.org.../2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM


As you can see there is a different in the red material and the red paint, some people like to twist these two comparisons around to fit their opinions against Professor Steven Jones.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by impressme


Thank you for your opinions. Jones paper remains problematical for those who still support it. His energetics are completely wrong and misinterpreted.
His methodology for showing the difference between red paint that has cured for 30 years and some unknown fresh paint is laughable. His selection of solvent to disrupt the paint matrix, MEK, shows how lacking in chemistry skills his team is. Had they asked an actual chemist what solvents would dissolve cured paint, they would not have selected MEK.
Jones discovered that red paint burns.....but most of it doesn't, if it is in Jones' lab. When you can make arguments that do not consist entirely of pasting paragraphs from Jones paper, you may join the debate. Until then, you are just leading the cheering section in the bleachers.

reply to post by pteridine

His methodology for showing the difference between red paint that has cured for 30 years and some unknown fresh paint is laughable.

His methodology? You mean Jones science? This is what I am talking about, this is an example of how OS defenders like to twist the facts, or play the word game somewhat immature if you ask me. What I find laughable is how some people on ATS are assuming and paraphrasing Jones Journal such as taking his science out of context by adding their own unbelievable assertions to it, and hoping no one will actually read Jones Journal to catch their distortions, assumptions, and outlandish claims.

His selection of solvent to disrupt the paint matrix, MEK, shows how lacking in chemistry skills his team is

Jones discovered that red paint burns.....but most of it doesn't, if it is in Jones' lab. When you can make arguments that do not consist entirely of pasting paragraphs from Jones paper, you may join the debate. Until then, you are just leading the cheering section in the bleachers.

It’s really not surprising to me, that you are upset that I took the time to actually copy and past parts of Jones Journal in proven you are wrong.
The only reason I “pasted paragraphs” from Jones Journal in this forum was to prove you were [color=gold]paraphrasing Jones Journal and twisting the facts. Says a lot doesn’t it.

reply to post by impressme

We already know what is in Jones paper and just copying and posting pieces without discussion does nothing. Jones methodology is lacking. I have shown how it is lacking in many areas.
If you want to defend his paper rather than just cheerleading, explain why it is not. Explain how the partially combusted paint chips can provide valid energetic data. Explain why MEK is a better solvent than DMF, DMSO, and methylene chloride. Explain why DSC in air is a valid protocol for a reaction that does not need air.

reply to post by Doctor Smith

They probably used remote control detonators. More expensive but they have been around for a long time. Now they find the evidence of the nano thermate when they took the blinders off and finally looked. All because of the building 7 screw up.

Remote detomaters?

Not likely in a building as large as WTC - as anyone ever tried to use a cell phone in such a building can tell you

That is why professional demolition experts use miles of det cord to tie charges togather - totally reliable

Unlike trying to ensure multiple remote detonaters work simultaneous

Again why were no traces of such detonaters found while were to find pieces of the bomb timer from
PAN AM 103 which blew up over Lockerbie at 31,000 ft and scattered debris for miles........

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Doctor Smith

 

They probably used remote control detonators. More expensive but they have been around for a long time. Now they find the evidence of the nano thermate when they took the blinders off and finally looked. All because of the building 7 screw up.

Remote detomaters?

Not likely in a building as large as WTC - as anyone ever tried to use a cell phone in such a building can tell you

That is why professional demolition experts use miles of det cord to tie charges togather - totally reliable

Unlike trying to ensure multiple remote detonaters work simultaneous

Again why were no traces of such detonaters found while were to find pieces of the bomb timer from
PAN AM 103 which blew up over Lockerbie at 31,000 ft and scattered debris for miles........

So you're guessing that because you can't always use a cell phone inside a building remote detonators used by the military and in movies wouldn't work. They wouldn't be able to find the correct frequency range to penetrate the buildings.

The plane impact wouldn't cut the detonator cords if remote detonators were used. And you could first set off the explosives near the plane impact sites. This would make it look like they caused the collapse.

Half way through this video is the opinion of someone that has worked in the demolition business.

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by pteridine

We already know what is in Jones paper and just copying and posting pieces without discussion does nothing.

So instead of guessing don't you and some others do you're own experimenting? Mark Basile Chemical Engineer did. He agrees with the Jones Papers.

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by pteridine

I have shown how it is lacking in many areas.

No you have not,the fact is you have only given your bias, opinions and nothing else.

If you want to defend his paper rather than just cheerleading, explain why it is not. Explain how the partially combusted paint chips can provide valid energetic data. Explain why MEK is a better solvent than DMF, DMSO, and methylene chloride. Explain why DSC in air is a valid protocol for a reaction that does not need air.

These are your questions, and if you want to know why Jones did or didn’t do certain test to entertain you, then why don’t you ask him? Perhaps you can answer these questions by showing your science. This thread is a game to you, nothing more. It’s really interesting the more other scientist run their test the more their conclusions are the same as Jones; this must really be disturbing to you, eh? I don’t see anyone on ATS supporting your theories or your questions. Why don’t you ask “your cheerleader friends” to answer your questions? Why this, why that? Why, why? Because, they can’t no one can. Because when one manipulates science to distort it, there are no answerers to a negative.