PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

reply to post by Doctor Smith

Jones paper debunks itself. The energy in excess of thermite was due to combustion. The release was more energy than thermite or any combination of thermite with any high explosive. The results are worthless because Jones ran the reaction in air. It's just paint until the reaction occurs in the absence of air.
No thermitic reaction proved. Back to the lab for Jones and crew.

reply to post by Doctor Smith

double post

[edit on 5/29/2010 by pteridine]

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


The figure I referenced shows the disparity between a known nanothermite and Jones' sample. Different onset temperatures and shapes indicate that DSC in air cannot resolve the question. Until Jones runs this under Argon and sees the exotherm, it is just burning paint or, as was previously noted, burning MEK.

Originally posted by Doctor Smith
reply to post by Joey Canoli

 

The most hilarious point about this paper: 1-There was a reaction right at 460C 2- The chips were soaked in MEK 3- Jones claims this is part of the thermitic reaction 4- MEK auto-ignites at 460C.

Exactly wrong. That was a seperate experiment in which Jones used the solvent MEK to show that the paint from the WTC would dissolve while the alleged nano thermate did not dissolve.

1- show me where any from of themxte ignites at 450C.

2- nearly all organics light at 450C

3- paint has organics

4- Jones admits that at the very least, some of the heat is from organics

5- he can't say how much cuz he's avoided doing any experiment that would answer this, like say doing it again in an inert atmosphere.


Every rational person understands why Jones has avoided this.

Originally posted by THE AQUARIAN 1

Why haven't you focused on this?

"Several paint samples were also tested and in each case, the paint sample was immediately reduced to fragile ashes by the hot flame. This was not the case, however, with any of the red/gray chips from the World Trade Center dust."
Page 16.

Maybe it's because Jones admits to getting his paint sample by scraping it off the football stadium at BYU.

Why comment on pure stupid?

Hi, I'm new, @ am known as kno. (That's a long story...) A year or so after 9/11 I read, in our local newspaper, that everyone had admittted to the intentional destruction of bldg 7 & the owner got a huge ' insurance ' pay out. I still think the reported events of 9/11 don't really make a lot of sense.

k

Originally posted by knonot2
Hi, I'm new, @ am known as kno. (That's a long story...) A year or so after 9/11 I read, in our local newspaper, that everyone had admittted to the intentional destruction of bldg 7 & the owner got a huge ' insurance ' pay out. I still think the reported events of 9/11 don't really make a lot of sense.

k

If "everyone had admitted to the intentional destruction of bldg 7" why do you suppose the insurers paid out ?

Originally posted by knonot2
Hi, I'm new, @ am known as kno. (That's a long story...) A year or so after 9/11 I read, in our local newspaper, that everyone had admittted to the intentional destruction of bldg 7 & the owner got a huge ' insurance ' pay out. I still think the reported events of 9/11 don't really make a lot of sense.

k

Yes, that is correct.

Silverstein admitted to having the buildings pre-wired with explosives.

This is not abnormal, all tall buildings are designed with intentional, controlled emolition in mind just in case the CIA, Secret Service, SEC, or any other guv agency decides to rent out office space. This is because they will have sensitive documents in them that they don't want to fall into the people's hands in case of a fire, for these guys routinely just leave all their paperwork just lying about, nor are the hard drives on their computers encrypted or protected in any way.

Silverstein will be going to prison soon, the trials are underway right now. So far, he has confessed to being part of a worldwide cabal that routinely "shear the sheep", in their parlance. This because even though they are a shadowy, infinitely powerful group that can do anything they want, to anybody they want, with no need for actual money, they want all the monet anyways.

This is why the Federal Reserve needs to be abolished. Bernanke, etc are all part of this cabal, and will also be going to trial. Currently, they are under arrest and housed in Levenworth. They are talking too.

I expect that every still living President will be getting called before it's all over, and they will all be going to jail, once the truth is out. Same with Congress. Same with all the kangaroo court justices, on every level.

The trials, of course, are being held in Richard Gage's basement, with such luminaries as Steven Jones, DRG, Judy Woods, etc serving as the other 8 justices, patterned after the former Supreme Court.

For they are the only ones we can trust.

I'm surprised that your local newspaper didn't report on this too.

/sarcasm.....

reply to post by pteridine

Jones paper debunks itself. The energy in excess of thermite was due to combustion. The release was more energy than thermite or any combination of thermite with any high explosive. The results are worthless because Jones ran the reaction in air. It's just paint until the reaction occurs in the absence of air. No thermitic reaction proved. Back to the lab for Jones and crew.

So according to you. Some type of contamination in the air made Jone's red and gray chips put out more than twice the energy of the known nano thermate? Doesn't sound possible to me. Just any old contamination could cause a huge energy increase? If we could find out what that magical contamination is we would have the next breakthrough!

I don't think so. It's just illogical.

[edit on 29-5-2010 by Doctor Smith]

[edit on 29-5-2010 by Doctor Smith]

Originally posted by Doctor Smith
reply to post by pteridine

 

So according to you. Some type of contamination in the air made Jone's red and gray chips put out more than twice the energy of the known nano thermate? Doesn't sound possible to me. Just any old contamination could cause a huge energy increase? If we could find out what that magical contamination is we would have the next breakthrough!

I don't think so. It's just illogical.

Contamination in the air is not the issue. The issue is combustion. Energy per unit mass of thermite is low because the oxidizer is included in the mixture and is included in the mass. Thermite does not need air to react. A simple hydrocarbon like candle wax has far more energy per unit mass than thermite when burning in air.
Jones DSC experiment is the hydrocarbon matrix burning in air, not thermite.

reply to post by LieBuster


Where did all that aluminum come from?

Did you ever check the exterior of the WTC? The entire exterior was covered in aluminum cladding. There is your source of aluminum!

reply to post by GenRadek


I have reviewed most of the 1000's of replies and its conclusive from the evidence given from both sides that WTC 7 was demolished and did not come down because of the fires or damage alone.


There was a security measure implemented shortly after the 93 bombing of the wtc that the building would have to have a fail safe installed and maintained incase of a repeat of such an event. The fail safe was to ensure that the building will not topple over many square blocks and that the sensitive information maintained in these building could not be compromised to fire or firefighting activities.

The building were pre wired with explosives and maintained as ordered by the port authority and other agencies for the safety and security of this country.




[edit on 30-5-2010 by Shadow Herder]

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
reply to post by GenRadek

 

I have reviewed most of the 1000's of replies and its conclusive from the evidence given from both sides that WTC 7 was demolished and did not come down because of the fires or damage alone.


There was a security measure implemented shortly after the 93 bombing of the wtc that the building would have to have a fail safe installed and maintained incase of a repeat of such an event. The fail safe was to ensure that the building will not topple over many square blocks and that the sensitive information maintained in these building could not be compromised to fire or firefighting activities.

The building were pre wired with explosives and maintained as ordered by the port authority and other agencies for the safety and security of this country.

[edit on 30-5-2010 by Shadow Herder]

Well I am glad that is finally all cleared up. Where are you going with this first - Washington Post? New York Times? ABC? CBS? NBC? Fox? CNN? I am sure the DOJ and the FBI would be interested. That's kind of the thing they do, know what I mean?

Boy, 6 billion people in this world and you're the only one with this earth-shattering info.

reply to post by Shadow Herder


It is interesting that the buildings were prewired with explosives. So far, you are the only one with evidence.
Maybe it occurred to a few people that setting charges and leaving them for many years might be more dangerous than not and they didn't go through with their nefarious plan. One little office fire and disaster for thousands.....

reply to post by pteridine


What disparity?

reply to post by Joey Canoli


What's the difference?

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


Look at the figure. Note how the two DSC traces are completely different? That disparity.

reply to post by pteridine


It gives off more energy? So what. It's not macro-thermite, this is stated quite clearly in the paper.

The basic facts are as follows:

1. The thermitic reduction-oxidation reaction of
aluminum and iron oxide occurred. Oxygen was transferred from the iron oxide to the elemental aluminum.

Do you dispute this? How else would this transfer have taken place?

2. Elemental iron spheres were found in the samples after ignition suggesting a reaction of temperatures above 2800 degrees F. These spheres were not present before ignition.

Do you dispute this? If so, refer yourself to Fig. (20). "Photomicrographs of residues from red/gray chips ignited in the DSC. Notice the shiny-metallic spheres and also the translucent
spheres. Each blue scale-marker represents 50 microns."

3. The comparison between commercial thermite and the WTC test samples in figures 24 and 25 are virtually identical, with the post-DSC WTC samples showing a significantly larger amount of elemental iron.

Is this what you're disputing?

Point out EXACTLY where your problems exist with this paper. I expect you to either LINK the exact excerpts from the paper or CUT AND PASTE excerpts of the paper directly into this forum, citing the page number or figure number, which is customary when discussing a public document, I don't think I'm expecting too much, as this is what I expect from myself.

Looking forward to clearing up any more confusion you might have.

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


People in Hell expect ice water, too. I will explain this, yet again. Try to follow along. I hope to clear up any confusion that you may still have, provided that you understand a bit of thermodynamics. If that is not true, let me know and I’ll simplify it further.
Point by point:
1.“The thermitic reduction-oxidation reaction of aluminum and iron oxide occurred. Oxygen was transferred from the iron oxide to the elemental aluminum.”
a. Not true. This is what Jones tried to show and failed. This Redox reaction runs in the absence of air and Jones erroneously ran the DSC in air. This means he can’t separate combustion of the carbonaceous matrix from any other reaction. Back to the lab for him.
“2. Elemental iron spheres were found in the samples after ignition suggesting a reaction of temperatures above 2800 degrees F. These spheres were not present before ignition.”
b. Not true. Nowhere does Jones state such. See figure 26 which shows EDAX elemental analysis of a residue microsphere. Note the elemental composition. What he does say is “In several spheres, elemental iron was verified since the iron content significantly exceeded the oxygen content.” This, of course, does not verify elemental iron. It does not show what other elements were present in these spheres and begs the question of why there was such disparity in the products of such a “highly engineered” substance. We must conclude that it was not as engineered as he thought. He must also correctly state that no such spheres were found during SEM analysis. That does not mean that they were not there.
“3. The comparison between commercial thermite and the WTC test samples in figures 24 and 25 are virtually identical, with the post-DSC WTC samples showing a significantly larger amount of elemental iron.” After you look up fly ash and discover nearly identical similarities between flyash components and the spheres from thermite, look at Fig. 29, which compares the DSC of a known nano-thermite with the red chips. This eliminates the possibility that Jones missed any spheres, which is entirely likely as he also misidentified the kaolinite [white faceted shapes] in the red chips. Note in figure 29 how the onset temperatures are different, the shapes of the curves are different, and the end of reaction is different. Certainly not a match but Jones has a desired conclusion and must arrive at it. Note also that the spheres shown in Fig 26 are attached to unreacted super thermite. It didn’t even stay lit. This does not bode well for the highly engineered claim.
Now we can examine your first statement: “It gives off more energy? So what. It's not macro-thermite, this is stated quite clearly in the paper.”
It is certainly not “macro-thermite” and doesn’t appear to be any other kind of thermite, based on the evidence presented. This is why I think you may not have passed a high school chemistry course yet. The size of the particles don’t have anything to do with the theoretical energy of reaction. The only thing they effect is rate of reaction. The limit is the limit whether we are dealing with big lumps or atoms [that would be smaller than the magic “nano”].
Now we come to figure 30. Note red bars and blue bars. We will compare the blue bars which is energy per unit weight; all we have for the samples. First, I will explain to you why thermite has such a poor energy density. It is because the oxidizer, iron oxide, is weighed as part of the thermite. This means that I have to consider the weight of relatively heavy iron oxide when I do the calculations. If I were to burn something in air, I wouldn’t have to consider the weight of the oxidizer [oxygen in air] and would have a much higher energy per unit weight. Any hydrocarbon has about ten times the energy of thermite per unit weight. Candle wax, peanut butter, Styrofoam coffee cups, etc. all easily beat thermite. They cannot, however, react in the absence of air, which thermite can do.
Now to figure 30. Note how the “highly engineered” material is inconsistent in its energy output. Maybe there was more oxidized iron sticking to some paint chips more than others. Note how two of the chips [3 &4] had far more energy than straight thermite [remember, these are theoretical maxima and are not effected by particle size.] Note also that any combination of thermite and high explosives will have less energy than chips 3 & 4. What could possibly cause this? Jones ran the DSC in air. This could only be combustion of the binder. Jones admits this possibility when he states “As this test was done in air it is possible that some of the enhancement of energy output may have come from air oxidation of the organic component.” Not only possible but a certainty. He can't say how much energy was from combustion and how much was from some other reaction. He cannot conclude that thermite was present...but he does. Then he goes on to say “It may be that this material is used not as a cutter-charge itself, but rather as a means to ignite high explosives, as in super-thermite matches.”
This last makes no sense at all. Jones estimated that ten tons of unburnt material used in super-thermite matches was in the dust. Here is some absolutely new material used as ignitors for high explosives that doesn’t burn. Ten tons of ignitors would be used for how many tons of explosives that didn't go off? Maybe this is why there is no evidence of demolitions.

Any questions?