thoughts on Prof. Jones proof of thermite/mate

well considering that this thread is ACTUALLY about jones' methods and the impact that those methods could have on his findings, anyone got any input into the actual topic of the thread?

because my thinking is that if jones' methods were sloppy and therefore suspect, we should be entertaining other ideas as to what caused the heat areas and heated (molten?) steel and or other metals in the debris piles.

why waste our time chasing ideas that have NO actual PROOF? if jones didnt actually find real proof of thermite then it goes back to just a hypothesis, and imo not a very good one.

however, if we can eliminate other causes we may very well get back to thermite/mate, but as i dont believe that jones' methods were accurate ill stay with the "wheres the proof" stance on thermate/mite

I have repsect for Jones bringing to light wtc7 and controlled demo theory, we need guys like him if we wanna expose 9/11 but his thermite theory doesn't hold much water (excuse the pun), whats more shouldn't he know better? He has first hand experience with thermite and knows its capabilities, yet it seems quite clear thermite alone cannot explain the anomalies of Ground Zero. So whats the deal with that?

Originally posted by VicRH
whats more shouldn't he know better? He has first hand experience with thermite and knows its capabilities, yet it seems quite clear thermite alone cannot explain the anomalies of Ground Zero. So whats the deal with that?

Jones is a nuclear physicist that has worked with cold fusion I believe. Some have speculated that he is out to spread dis-info by directing the evidence and conversations to thermate instead of more exotic weapons (which he may have been a part of at Los Alamos). Who knows. I'm still up in the air on the whole thing.

[edit on 6/15/2007 by Griff]

well i doubt he's deliberatly spreading disinfo in order to obfuscate the truth movement personally. i think he falls into of two categories.

he's either just a sloppy scientist and honestly thinks he's on to something

or

he's either SO convinced that the govt is behind 911 that he's willing to make sure that his tests give him a predetermined outcome.


his science was sloppy wishful thinking at best. outright lies at worst

i mean these are highschool basics. set up a control group, establish a baseline, make sure you factor in and rule out possible cross contamination from external sources, and basic to any investigation is document and establish a chain of custody.

i havnt read where he did any of this, so if he did and just didnt publish these things then its still sloppy science.

i mean, no one is disputing that the sulpher COULD be in the steel naturally as part of the manufacturing process are they?

well, tritium levels were elevated at ground zero, and that is the indicator they look for in cold fusion experiments.
jones has claimed 'no nukes' because of a lack of some other radioactive whatnot.
i find judy woods' find about the particle beam company being hired by NIST for their report very interesting.

i do not know enough about chemicals to have an opinion on what should be seen, and what shouldn't be.
i do know there were flashes seen, and flashes are on video.

jones' method seems to be 'one thing at a time'. he's still working on the problem.

Originally posted by billybob

i do not know enough about chemicals to have an opinion on what should be seen, and what shouldn't be.

but it does make sense to you that if youre going to look for things like sulpher in a sample of anything that you may want to analyze other samples to see if sulpher is something in all steel and to establish how much is normal so that you can compare to see if what you found is abnormal right?

and it should make sense that you want to know where your sample came from so that it isnt from just some random guy who COULD have gotten it from anywhere?

im really not trying to be condecending...it just seems to me that so many people put so much faith in his "discovery" that they dont ask the follow up questions to know if they have something to be excited about or if its just some wild goose chase that will cause them to waste time they could be using on more productive areas of research.

but maybe its just me.

Originally posted by Griff

Jones is a nuclear physicist that has worked with cold fusion I believe.

[edit on 6/15/2007 by Griff]

Thats right, there is an actual conspiracy on Jones himself about the whole cold fusion project as some of the scientists working on the project claim he was throwing spanners into the works to suit his own agenda. So this wouldn't be the first time he is accused of spreading dis-info.

TBH when i first heard Jones I didn't trust him, but the more I listened the more I was inclinded to take what he was saying more seriously. But now I don't know anymore. I don't like to think he is some kind of shill and if he was i don't think he would be suggesting controlled demolition. Doesn't mean to say he is right or wrong, I personally think its most likely he is just wrong or been mislead somewhere. I dont know.

Originally posted by VicRH
I personally think its most likely he is just wrong or been mislead somewhere. I dont know.

reminds me of Don Quixote

hearts in the right place, but that doesnt make him any less crazy

sure, a bit of a crazy old science lecture who has a thermite fetish! I expect if he could cook his meals with it he would.

sure, a bit of a crazy old science lecture who has a thermite fetish! I expect if he could cook his meals with it he would.

omg a triple post.. doh Mods!!

[edit on 15-6-2007 by VicRH]

well id have guessed more along the lines of "i know im right and im by god gonna damned well prove it no matter what"

and i suppose it IS possible that since his field is physics he really had no idea that steel is made with things that DO contain sulpher.

but thats where good lab practices come in, creat your control group and establish a baseline. if he had tested 5 more samples and used the values from those for his base then he could tell if his wtc sample really did have elevated sulpher levels and THAT would have been a find, so long as he had ruled out other possible contaminates (yes, things like the infamous drywall) so a few extra hours of testing and he could have laid this all to rest.

yet he didnt.

i find that odd, and because of that i find his results to be suspect.

Originally posted by Damocles
i find that odd, and because of that i find his results to be suspect.

I definately think he is guilty of at least jumping the gun. And I agree about the control group and such.

Reply to Billybob's comment:

"it amazes me how far some people will stretch their rationalization 'skills' to try and mask the obvious truth.

there was molten steel. accept it.

steel getting to that state would also retain it's heat longer than a metal with a lower melting point, so lower temperatures, and, say melted babbit ot aluminum, don't cut it as an explanation. (also, because these metals are not yellow hot when they begin to flow)"

No, it would not. Even a physics freshman could tell you that that the rate of loss of heat from a hot body depends on its thermal conductivity and temperature gradient. Body 1 could be at a much higher temperature initially than body 2 and yet become cooler after a given time if its thermal conductivity was much larger.
Pure aluminum has a thermal conductivity of 222 W/m-C and cast iron has a thermal conductivity of 55 W/m-C.
www.engineersedge.com...
Heat therefore drains from aluminum about four times more quickly than it does from iron.

[edit on 15-6-2007 by micpsi]

I thought this worthy of its own thread, but hey, im only a mere mortal.

Dr Steven Jones Debunks Thermite Theory

In an Email Conversation between Dr James Fetzer and Dr Steven Jones , it was established Jones was showing videos of Controlled demolition using military thermite . There was a very important ingredient that was not found.. Jones has had to rethink his opinion and has stated as such.. The first email is off Fetzer:
External Source


"You do not seem to have found BARIUM NITRATE, Ba(NO3)2, an ingredient in military versions of thermite, yet you have used videos of the use of military versions of thermite to illustrate its cutting power relative to engine blocks. I presume those exercises included Barium Nitrate among the ingredients. Don't these videos have to be redone relative to these analogs? How do experiments with thermite relate to work on thermite analogs? How do these "analogs" work?
-----

Fetzer likely meant to ask about barium oxide, which would be left after the incendiary reaction. And indeed, wikipedia's definition of thermate confirms that military-grade thermate contains 29 percent barium nitrate:

"Thermate is an incendiary compound used for military applications. Thermate, whose primary component is thermite, also contains sulfur and possibly barium nitrate, both of which increase its thermal effect, create flame in burning, and significantly reduce the ignition temperature. Various mixtures of these compounds can be called thermate, but, to avoid confusion with Thermate-TH3, one can refer to them as thermite variants or analogs. The composition by weight of Thermate-TH3 (in military use) is 68.7% thermite, 29.0% barium nitrate, 2.0% sulphur and 0.3% binder.
-----

Jones has acknowledged as much in an article posted on his website, in which he announces he is now on the hunt for 10 tons worth of other, ill-defined "thermite analogs" -- any of which would still be woefully inadequate to explain the scale of the damage at the World Trade Center.
source
www.total411.info...

ps, i am struggling with outside tags source, first bit is mine

.........um, what?

we're not talking about heat here, we're talking about the fact that jones based his entire PROOF of thermite on teh fact that he discovered sulpher in his "sample" but didnt appear to take into consideration that sulpher could be organic to the manufacturing process...like i said in my opening post for this thread. (read coke, iron pyrite etc)

so, mind going into who/what yorue responiding to mc?

i mean im sure you make a good point but some context might help

Originally posted by Pootie
The president of Tully Construction of Flushing, NY, said he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at Ground Zero. Bollyn also cites Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, MD, as having seen

Leslie Robertson now says he doesn’t recall making that statement

I just wanted to show that these quotes my not be 100% accurate.

The president did NOT see pools of molten metal. I have seen an e-mail from him in which he admitted that he had merely been told of this by one of his contractors. Second hand, hearsay evidence. Therefore worthless.

From the other thread.

Originally posted by Fowl Play
Jones has acknowledged as much in an article posted on his website, in which he announces he is now on the hunt for 10 tons worth of other, ill-defined "thermite analogs" --

Hmm. I have asked on here before about the barium nitrate. Maybe they are reading us?

any of which would still be woefully inadequate to explain the scale of the damage at the World Trade Center.

Not sure how you can state this? If you believe that all the destruction was done by plane damage, fire and kinetic energy alone, just one piece of thermite whatever would be enough to explain the scale of damage.

It's like saying that plane damage, fire and kinetic energy was enough to do what was seen. Then say that you would need tons of explosives to do it. But, in the latter, there is still the plane damage/fire and kenetic energy invloved.

Or another way of putting it:

A + B + C = destruction seen

but

A + B + C + thermite < destruction seen

See my point?

BTW FowlPlay......NICE FIND



[edit on 6/15/2007 by Griff]

You are all welcome to read my critique of Dr Steven Jones new paper at
janedoe0911.tripod.com...

@mic: thanks for clearing that up, i was confused.

@fowl: good post, the points i was raising in this thread were specifically directed towards the group of "alternative theorists" that cling to jones and his "proof" like a baptist to the 2nd coming of christ. it would seem that most (myself included) didnt realize that he's officially redacted himself from the thermite claims for the time being, but that doesnt change the fact that he's still held up as a champion by many in the truth movement. my goal was to get some objective thinking when considering the works he's published on finding traces of sulpher in the steel and that was what had apparently lead him to believe he'd found PROOF positive of thermite/mate.

i just wanted to point out that if his lab practices skipped a few steps then his conclusions may be less than accurate and the thermite/mate issue would have to be reexamined from teh beginning.

am i going to say its impossible that there was thermite/mate present? no, just that using jones as your "proof" may not be the best idea.

great find fowl.