It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Additonal Experiments with Nano Therm. vs. WTC Dust

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 01:31 AM
link   
Source: Kevin Ryan




posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 01:59 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


I saw this too and linked it in another thread.

Even though it is readily apparent that this stuff is not reacting with atmospheric oxygen he should really do one in a vacuum or something just to shut our friends the debunkers up once and for all.

Having said that I have no doubt that they will conjure up another excuse.



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01Even though it is readily apparent that this stuff is not reacting with atmospheric oxygen he should really do one in a vacuum or something just to shut our friends the debunkers up once and for all.


Those that understand the science wont cry about doing the experiment with inert gas, or in vacuum.

As you say, it's apparent that the alumino-thermic reaction is taking place without the need of atmospheric
oxygen. The fact that Iron Oxide is reduced to elemental iron, and aluminum oxide is present means that the
oxygen was 'transferred' during the chemical reaction between the Iron Oxide and Aluminum.

The oxygen in the air is irrelevent in this reaction.



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


I agree, it is kinda pointless, because if you thought atmospheric oxygen was relevant in the first place you don't understand what is going on to begin with.



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 08:21 AM
link   
Kevin Ryan? The water lab guy?



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Ad hominem is one kind of attack that they will almost certainly employ fairly early in the discussion.



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   
I see that Jon is doing his disingenuous chem lab experiments again. He breezes by the energy output [we know combustion was occurring] of the red chips and immediately goes on to make a thermite that contains viton. Why did Jon pick Viton as a binder? No Viton was found in the red chips. He could have used many other binders but picked Viton. Didn't this seem curious to any true believer? We have seen Jon at work in his other videos and know that he has an agenda. It turns out that Viton makes a nice thermite with aluminum, no iron oxide needed. en.wikipedia.org...
Why would Jon use Viton AND iron oxide? This use of viton allows the iron oxide to remain unreacted and this is seen in the photos of the residue. Why would he want unreacted iron oxide to remain? Because Jones had unreacted iron oxide in his combustion residue. The experiment was designed to produce residue that looks like what Jones found, post combustion, while having nothing to do with the "10 to 100 tons" of red chips.

At the very end, he shows us a glimpse of an IR spectrum and says it "matches well." It would be good to actually see the reference because it doesn't look like it "matches well." More disinformation and trickery.

Ho ho, Jon, Gotcha!



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 




Ho ho, Jon, Gotcha!


Hardly, firstly this is not Jones doing the experiment, it is Kevin Ryan.

Secondly, he says why he is using Viton very clearly at the outset, because that is a formulation of nano-thermite described independently in the scientific literature.

from that wiki page:

PTFE or other fluoropolymer can be used as a binder for the composition. Its reaction with the aluminium, similar to magnesium/teflon/viton thermite, adds energy to the reaction.
.

It is not clear that this is the same formulation as that of the WTC dust particle, in all likelihood by the looks of it it is not. But that is hardly the point now is it?
edit on 25-7-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



It turns out that Viton makes a nice thermite with aluminum, no iron oxide needed. en.wikipedia.org...


WOW! That's dishonest and misleading even by thruther standards.

If you make a visual comparison of the reaction in Kevin's video above to the reaction in Jones's red paint chip video:



You will see that Kevin's reaction emits a light greater than that of an open flame and leaves a glowing metal residue.

Jones's paint chip on the other hand emits a light exactly equal to that of an open flame and has no glowing metal after the combustion.

Both Jones and Ryan have failed to convince me that the paint chips are thermite.



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


Firstly, this is a far larger sample than one single chip.

Secondly, as to the brightness you might not want to use clip were the color spectrum is obviously grossly distorted and slow motion.

In the more more well known clip you can see the WTC sample is plenty bright:


Just as a matter of interest though, where exactly in Loose Change is that reddish clip from, I haven't watched the film and clicking through it didn't reveal it.

The clip you linked doesn't say where it is from (except loose change) and it seems odd to me in many respects, mostly because I haven't seen it in any other context.
edit on 25-7-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by pteridine
 




Ho ho, Jon, Gotcha!


Hardly, firstly this is not Jones doing the experiment.

Secondly, he says why he is using Viton very clearly at the outset, because that is a formulation of nano-thermite described independently in the scientific literature.

from that wiki page:

PTFE or other fluoropolymer can be used as a binder for the composition. Its reaction with the aluminium, similar to magnesium/teflon/viton thermite, adds energy to the reaction.
.

It is not clear that this is the same formulation as that of the WTC dust particle, in all likelihood by the looks of it it is not. But that is hardly the point now is it?


It is exactly the point. Viton and aluminum are a thermite without iron. No Viton was found in the red chips; no fluorine was shown in the EDAX. Cole does experiments with no bearing on the red chips and then tries to link his experiments with known thermites to the WTC.
The last time around he made thermate and showed how it cut metal, which it was designed to do. It proved nothing except to the poor fish on the thermite bandwagon. This time he works a thermite that gives residue resembling Jones experiment. He could have just as easily cooked up a little Rusteolum but he has to link this to thermite.
Jon compares the photos of the residue of his experiment with those from Jones' experiment. He is hoping to tie his thermite to Jones' paint chips and fool those who don't understand what he has done.The use of Viton to get the thermite reaction while having excess iron oxide present gives residue that looks like the residue from the DSC, which was combustion of binder in paint chips. Of course, this was a planned outcome and will fool only those who wish to be fooled.

Someday, Jon Cole will actually do an experiment that bears on the issue. This one is just another "so what" demo from a high school chem lab. Not even a "nice try" for this obvious misdirection. Definite "Gotcha."



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 




It is exactly the point. Viton and aluminum are a thermite without iron. No Viton was found in the red chips; no fluorine was shown in the EDAX. Cole does experiments with no bearing on the red chips and then tries to link his experiments with known thermites to the WTC.


It's not Cole, it's Ryan.

He never said this IS the same stuff, he states at the outset that he is testing different formulations. The reddish color clearly comes for the iron oxide and the iron is melted post-reaction. Your source does NOT state that iron does NOT react in a Viton thermite with iron oxide added, it is just something you made up. There is no reason to imagine it would not.

He didn't claim that this is the same formulation, it obviously isn't, but nobody knows what the exact formulation of the WTC stuff was and reverse engineering a compound formulation is not a simple task like you seem to imagine it is.

(why do you imagine Coke still bothers to hide its recipe when the ingredients are easily discoverable?)
edit on 25-7-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-7-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by pteridine
 




It is exactly the point. Viton and aluminum are a thermite without iron. No Viton was found in the red chips; no fluorine was shown in the EDAX. Cole does experiments with no bearing on the red chips and then tries to link his experiments with known thermites to the WTC.


It's not Cole, it's Ryan.

He never said this IS the same stuff, he states at the outset that he is testing different formulations. The reddish color clearly comes for the iron oxide and the iron is melted post-reaction. Your source does NOT state that iron does NOT react in a Viton thermite with iron oxide added, it is just something you made up. There is no reason to imagine it would not.

He didn't claim that this is the same formulation, it obviously isn't, but nobody knows what the exact formulation of the WTC stuff was and reverse engineering a compound formulation is not a simple task like you seem to imagine it is.


You are correct, it is Ryan's work. It reminded me of Cole in the pace and intonation.

All the iron wouldn't react if Viton were present and that is what gives it the red color so he can show the crowd that the residue is red, just like Jones'. He is testing "different formulations" for what reason? To see if thermite still works? As to the formulation of the paint chips, we know that they didn't contain any nitrogen-based explosives. We know that they did contain the elements of aluminum and iron which is the basis for the claim by Jones. We also know that it contained carbon and oxygen, but not fluorine, which makes his experiment disingenuous. The iron is probably as the oxide. The aluminum may be as an aluminosilicate or as elemental aluminum and an aluminosilicate. Jones avoids any conclusive analysis so as not to break the spell of those he has in thrall.



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


What makes you think a conclusive analysis would be such an easy feat.

You are just making stuff up in you imagination and presenting it as fact. Are you arguing that reverse engineering a chemical formulation is a cake-walk?

Can you outline the steps Jones et al. SHOULD take to easily reverse engineer the stuff you are talking about. We know it isn't Viton thermite, but we also know it is not paint.

So you're the genius, what type of thermite is it then and how was it made?
If you STILL want to claim its paint it should be easy for you to find the specific brand and type so it can be tested.

Come now, this is easy-peasy so I expect you will have no troubles doing either.



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by pteridine
 


What makes you think a conclusive analysis would be such an easy feat.

You are just making stuff up in you imagination and presenting it as fact. Are you arguing that reverse engineering a chemical formulation is a cake-walk?

Can you outline the steps Jones et al. SHOULD take to easily reverse engineer the stuff you are talking about. We know it isn't Viton thermite, but we also know it is not paint.

So you're the genius, what type of thermite is it then and how was it made?
If you STILL want to claim its paint it should be easy for you to find the specific brand and type so it can be tested.

Come now, this is easy-peasy so I expect you will have no troubles doing either.



Thermite has not been proved. Jones analyses are flawed. If he gets a few analytical chemists to help him, he should be able to reverse engineer the red chips. He'll probably also need a paint chemist. In many threads I have shown how his own data is self-inconsistent. If we are to believe Jones, there should only be iron oxide, aluminum, silicon, and a carbonaceous binder. No Viton, no Molybdenum, no sulfur, no KMnO4, no Ba[NO3]2, and no high explosives.
First, Jones should use x-ray diffraction to determine the inorganic species. It is highly likely that some, if not all of the aluminum present is as an aluminosilicate clay. If he can't find aluminum metal, he can't claim thermite and should look for another conspiracy. He should also rerun the DSC in the absence of air to eliminate the combustion term from his energetics. If an exothermic reaction takes place in the absence of air, he will then have to determine what the reaction is. Once that is done, he will then be able to state how the thin film affected the collapse of the WTC, if at all.



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Jones analyses are flawed.


This coming from "an anonymous internet expert" who couldn't debate me on the entire scientific paper,
and tried to disprove Jones' analysis by limiting information and evidence to one experiment/test at a time?


If it was that simple, Jones would have done one test and called it a day! But guess what PT? Jones is
smarter than you, he did several tests and experiments using an assortment of high tech tools to prove
his science.

Why don't you stop mucking up this thread and agree that the nano-therm. mix produce by Ryan looks
very similar to the chips found in the dust.

That's all this thread is about...a known thermite mixture made in front of your eyes and ignited to produce
a similar residue which was extracted from the WTC dust samples.



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 




If we are to believe Jones, there should only be iron oxide, aluminum, silicon, and a carbonaceous binder.


Can we please have some evidence in support of your notion that just because you know what it is you should also know how to make it?

What an absolutely mind-bogglingly crazy concept. Is this what you have been reduced too. At this point aliens and HAARP beams really ARE a more plausible option.

At least those things are not necessarily false (there is just no reason to believe them to be true). What you are postulating is so far removed from reality that you'd need to be in a different dimension for it to start making sense.

Think about what you are claiming for a second. Are you simply unaware that is a logical absurdity?



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


How about debunking Kevin Ryan experiment, by giving some credible source, not your bias opinions.
We are examining the facts

Your opinion on this subject are completely wrong, perhaps if you brought some credible sources to this board to back your “assumptions” then maybe people might take you seriously.

As a member said earlier this test is not the work of Steven Jones, so why railroad the topic to discuss someone else work. This thread is not about Steven Jones or your bias opinions about his science?


Thermite has not been proved. Jones analyses are flawed.


That is completely untrue and you have never been able to dis-prove Jones Science was flawed; your opinions are not the facts. Science has proved you wrong and I have proved you wrong to you many times on ATS in the many 911 thermite threads.

edit on 26-7-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   
May I ask why anyone is still even pursuing all these inane thermite experiments to begin with? Regardless of whether the red dust is paint, rust from the steel structure, thermite, or cotton candy, the irrefutable fact that cannot be denied is that this substance played no part in the collapse of the towers in any way, shape of form. There are hundreds of photos showing the condition of the steel recovered at ground zero and not even a single I beam showed any evidence of sabotage. Everything was either snapped like a twig or torn off like paper. Moreover, there were hundreds of people at the ground zero site...many of them trained demolitions experts...and NOT ONE PERSON saw any such signs of sabotage. I don't have to explain that lame excuses like accusing everyone of being "secret gov't agents" is not only an unsatisfactory explanation, but arrogant and disgusting.

This has all been explained before ad nauseum and I'm certain it will be explained ad nauseum for many more months to come. Why is anyone still beating this dead horse?



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


As I remember, you were at a loss to explain the combustion energies, the lack of experimental data showing thermite, the residue containing iron oxide which didn't react, and the lack of effect of a paint-thin layer of thermite on steel beams.
edit on 7/26/2011 by pteridine because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join