PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

[edit on 31-5-2010 by Joey Canoli]

reply to post by pteridine

“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.”

And your source for “spheres were not present before ignition.” is? The reason I ask, is I did not read that in Jones paper. Then again, I could have overlook it, but I really don’t think I did.

“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.

All you are doing is guessing, assuming, speculating, and given your opinion. I do not see you presenting any credible science or sources to back your claims.

In the real world in order to debunk scientific research, one must present “credible science” to counter fraudulent science, if there is any fraudulent science, and you have not produced anything.

I can make claims’ to counter everything you have written as long as I don’t need to back them up, and that is what you are doing here.

Not true. This is what Jones tried to show and failed.

Besides your ”opinions,” do you have any sources to back this claim?


[edit on 31-5-2010 by impressme]

reply to post by impressme


Read my explanations. Jones can't claim thermite because he ran the reaction in air and some, if not all, of the energy was due to combustion. This is evident from the data in the paper.

References: "Thermodynamics," Revised, Second Edition (McGraw-Hill Series in Advanced Chemistry) (Hardcover) Gilbert Newton Lewis (Author), Merle Randall (Author), Kenneth S. Pitzer (Editor), Leo Brewer (Editor)
"Thermal Analysis of Materials" by Robert F. Speyer

reply to post by pteridine

You never answered any of my questions. You never showed any credible sciences to refute your claims. Therefore, my opinion is your wrong, and Jones is correct because he has an open peer review paper and you do not.

reply to post by impressme

The "credible science" is in my explanation. Jones' own published data shows he is not justified in claiming thermite. I have shown this many times. What part don't you understand?

As to the spheres, Jones can say he didn't find any before combustion but he shouldn't say they weren't any without an exhaustive study to find them.

Duplicate.

[edit on 31-5-2010 by THE AQUARIAN 1]

reply to post by pteridine


Oxygen was transferred from an Iron oxide to elemental aluminum. That much is very clear in the paper. In figure 6 the XEDS spectra shows an iron oxide present in the gray layers, before ignition. Figure 7 shows aluminum in the red layers and figure 17 shows elemental aluminum. Figure 18 shows oxidized iron.

Post ignition we find iron spheres, indicating degrees over 2800 degrees F. In figure 21 we find elemental iron.

Pterry attempting to rebut my claimants:

“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.”

PT: b. Not true. Nowhere does Jones state such."

On page 17 of the downloadable pdf we find this: "In the product
collected after DSC ignition, we found spheres which were
NOT INITIALLY PRESENT. Many of these spheres were iron rich
and elemental iron was found in the post-ignition debris."

Did you even read this paper?

PT: "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."

The way Jones performed these tests is not unusual. Other scientists perform tests for thermite in the same exact way:

"We used air in the studies to match conditions used by Tillotson et al., so we could compare with their results for known nanothermite -- see Fig. 29 in our paper."
--Steven Jones

PT: "It does not show what other elements were present in these spheres." Huh?

I see carbon, oxygen, iron, aluminum, silicon, and calcium shown quite clearly in figure 26.

PT: "Note in figure 29 how the onset temperatures are different, the shapes of the curves are different, and the end of reaction is different."

This is an interesting point you make. However, both samples were tested in air, suggesting a different binder.

PT: "It didn’t even stay lit."
Please post proof of this. You have made this claim consistently and have not backed it up with anything but hot air. The image in figure 26 is not proof of that.

PT: "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."

Who gives a F*ck? Oxygen was transferred from an iron oxide to elemental aluminum. What else could cause this?

PT: "This last makes no sense at all. Jones estimated that ten tons of unburnt material used in super-thermite matches was in the dust."

Jones' claim here is a theory, nothing more. You hold onto this type of thing because you can't refute science.

In regards to your continuous "it's paint claim" Steven Jones responds here:

"We have learned the composition of the “corrosion inhibition” or primer paint actually used on the WTC towers from a NIST document; see attached paper by Prof. Niels Harrit (Univ. of Copenhagen and first author on the paper). We find that zinc, chromium and magnesium are significant components of the paint used – yet these elements are ABSENT from the red material, as demonstrated in Figure 7 of our paper. Thus, the red chips cannot be the primer paint used.

On the other hand, the elements which are present in the red chips, namely aluminum, iron, oxygen, silicon, and carbon (Fig. 7) – are precisely those expected in formulations of nano-thermite as described in the literature and delineated in the paper."

In response to your continuous claim that the Bentham is a vanity paper, Steven Jones has been fielding questions from known scientists for over a year now. One such scientist has this to say:

"I do not dispute the fact that a strong exothermal reaction occurred when the samples were heated, and that iron rich spheres has been formed by reduction of iron oxide. I will not even argue against using the term thermitic reaction to describe the process."
--Ola Nilsen, Nano-scientist at University of Oslo.

Also, "I see no reason to doubt the formation of iron-rich spheres...The conclusion that heating a material containing intimately mixed particles of aluminum and iron oxide give rice to a thermitic reaction (Fe2O3 + Al → Al2O3 + Fe) is not unreasonable."
--Ola Nilsen, Nano-scientist at University of Oslo.

PT: "Any questions?"

No, just statements: Oxygen was transferred from an Iron oxide to an elemental aluminum. That much is very clear in the paper. If you want to show where that is not shown within the paper, please cite it. If you are just blindly refuting the validity of the published science and want to say "no, that didn't happen," then we have nothing more to discuss and I will bid you a fare thee well.

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

p.s. Note that the NFPA 921Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations clearly states:

“Unusual residues might remain from the initial fuel. Those residues could arise from thermite, magnesium, or other pyrotechnic materials.”

This is the standard procedure for fire and explosion investigations – looking for thermite residues. Was it applied to the WTC “crime scene”?

NIST was asked:

Question: “Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

Answer: “NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.”

reply to post by downisreallyup

 

PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

Of course it was demolished with explosives, you don't think a cgi plane could knock a building down do you?

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


There is no evdence of thermitic reaction. There is evidence of combustion. The analysis of the Jones DSC data says that there is definitely combustion but that there may or may not be thermitic reaction.

Look at the red chip with the attached iron containing spheres. Note that some of it is still red and unburnt. The red is from iron oxide. Do you comprehend that the chip hasn't completely burned?

The nanothermite tested in air was done that way because it was a known thermitic material without an organic binder. Jones should have known better than to do that in a forensic investigation [or at least the "chemists" on his team should have known better.]

To prove thermite, Jones first has to run the reaction in the absence of oxygen. When he does this he will either see a reaction or not. No reaction, no thermite conspiracy. One experiment.

Henryco did not see a reaction with the red chips and assumed that his chips were sabotaged. He also wanted a conclusion that he didn't have any evidence for.

If Jones does see an exotherm, he will then have to determine what the reaction was. He cannot assume thermite, much as he [and you] would like to. He has had a year to do this experiment and publish it. It doesn't take very long to do at a 10*C/minute thermal ramp. I wonder why he hasn't published the paper he promised and proved all of his critics wrong.

Do you understand this yet? Do you realize that none of his other testing and analyses matters until he does the DSC under inert?

Edit to add: Didn't you reference Jones stating that the primer paint had Zn and Cr in it? "We find that zinc, chromium and magnesium are significant components of the paint used – yet these elements are ABSENT from the red material, as demonstrated in Figure 7 of our paper. Thus, the red chips cannot be the primer paint used."
Jones is consistently inconsistent as the paper states "Fig. (14). XEDS spectrum of red side before soaking in MEK. Notice the presence of Zn and Cr, which are sometimes seen in the red layers. The large Ca and S peaks may be due to surface contamination with wallboard material."



[edit on 5/31/2010 by pteridine]

reply to post by pteridine

The "credible science" is in my explanation.

No, that is your opinion, nothing more.

Jones' own published data shows he is not justified in claiming thermite.

This is untrue and you know it. Again, you are making false claims, yet you fail to produce any credible sciences to support your claims. This is your opinion and it is not a fact.

I have shown this many times.

The only thing you have shown us, is the continuing of the same answer to nothing, and your opinions on this subject, nothing more.

What part don't you understand?

I understand every part perfectly clear. What you [color=gold]don’t understand is your opinions are not the facts. We are in here to deny ignorance, not to support it.

As to the spheres, Jones can say he didn't find any before combustion but he shouldn't say they weren't any without an exhaustive study to find them.

As to which test are you referring to? Because, out of these two tests, Jones has clearly showing everyone why. It is not necessary to do an “exhaustive study” to find these spheres before the combustion. Jones made it very clear they didn’t find any.

You are taken parts of Jones paper and making up nonsense out of nothing. In fact, your ridiculous statement about not finding the spheres before the combustion is irrelevant. I thought maybe, just maybe, you might have found something, apparently not.

I have presented two parts of Jones journal here, they are parts of the two tests you are referring to. Any ATS casual readers can judge for themselves, and see the nonsense you are creating.

[color=gold]2. Is the Red Material Thermitic in Nature?

Our observations show that the red material contains substantial
amounts of aluminum, iron and oxygen, mixed together
very finely. In the sample soaked in MEK, we observed
a clear migration and aggregation of the aluminum
away from other elements and determined that elemental
aluminum and iron oxide must be present. In the product
collected after DSC ignition, [color=gold]we found spheres which were
not initially present. Many of these spheres were iron rich
and elemental iron was found in the post-ignition debris.
Further, the DSC traces demonstrate that the red/gray chips
react vigorously at a temperature below the melting point of
aluminum and below the ignition (oxidation) point of ultra

ultrafine
grain (UFG) aluminum in air [18]. These observations
reminded us of nano-thermite fabricated at the Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory and elsewhere; available
papers describe this material as an intimate mixture of UFG
aluminum and iron oxide in nano-thermite composites to
form pyrotechnics or explosives [19-21]. The thermite reaction
involves aluminum and a metal oxide, as in this typical
reaction with iron oxide:
2Al + Fe2O3 􀀃Al2O3 + 2Fe (molten iron), 􀀂H = 􀀁853.5kJ/mole.

Commercially available thermite behaves as an incendiary
[color=gold]4. Observation of Iron-Rich Sphere Formation Upon
Ignition of Chips in a Differential Scanning Calorimeter

In the post-DSC residue, charred-porous material and
numerous microspheres and spheroids were observed. Many
of these were analyzed, and it was found that some were
iron-rich, which appear shiny and silvery in the optical microscope,
and some were silicon-rich, which appear transparent
or translucent when viewed with white light; see photographs
taken using a Nikon microscope (Fig. 20).

The abundant iron-rich spheres are of particular interest
in this study;[color=gold] none were observed in these particular chips
prior to DSC-heating. Spheres rich in iron already demonstrate
the occurrence of very high temperatures, well above
the 700 °C temperature reached in the DSC, in view of the
high melting point of iron and iron oxide [5]. Such high temperatures
indicate that a chemical reaction occurred.

Using back-scattered electron (BSE) imaging, spheres
were selected in the post-DSC residue which appeared to be
rich in iron. An example is shown in Fig. (21) along with the
corresponding XEDS spectrum for this sphere.

The first WTC red/gray chip so tested was approximately
1mm 􀀁 1mm. After a few seconds of heating, the high-speed
ejection of a hot particle was observed under the hand of the
person holding the torch (Fig. 22). The intense light and
bright orange color of the particle attest to its high temperature.
In this case, the attempt to recover the diminutive endproduct
of the reaction was unsuccessful. A short video clip
of the test (including slow-motion) is available here:
journalof911studies.com...
ow.mov
In a later flame-ignition test, the end product was recovered
and is shown in the photomicrograph and SEM image in
Fig. (23). Once again, the formation of iron-rich semispherical
shapes shows that the residue had been melted,
enabling surface tension of the liquid to pull it into spherical
shapes. However, the evidence obtained in the DSC analyses
is more compelling that a thermitic reaction actually occurs
as in that case ignition is observed when the red material is
heated to no more than 430 °C.

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

reply to post by impressme


It is all true unless you doubt Jones' data. As you are his #1 fan, perhaps you have inside access and can ask him when he intends to publish a second paper and correct his many mistakes.
He has not shown a thermitic reaction and even he knows what experiment he must do. So far, he has misinterpreted and misled to arrive at a predetermined conclusion. That is absolutely not science. I suspect that he will not publish a second paper because to print the facts would eliminate his fringe celebrity status and remove him from the public stage that he feeds on.

reply to post by pteridine

It is all true unless you doubt Jones' data. As you are his #1 fan,

I love it! I shoved the evidences right in your face and you just ignored it. To call me Jones # fan? I could say You are Gorge Bush and Dick Cheney # one fan right? Or I could say, you are the # one fan of the OS of 911 right?

perhaps you have inside access and can ask him when he intends to publish a second paper and correct his many mistakes.

There are no mistakes. Had there been any “mistakes” our government would been all over it.

He has not shown a thermitic reaction and even he knows what experiment he must do.

That is not true, and you know it. When are you going to back up your claims eh?

So far, he has misinterpreted and misled to arrive at a predetermined conclusion.

Really, prove to me Jones has misinterpreted, make me a believer?
prove to me that Steven Jones misled everyone?

Show me this evidence this science?

That is absolutely not science. I suspect that he will not publish a second paper because to print the facts would eliminate his fringe celebrity status and remove him from the public stage that he feeds on.

His “fringe celebrity” status? Wow! We all are still waiting for your evidence.

[edit on 2-6-2010 by impressme]

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by pteridine

 

perhaps you have inside access and can ask him when he intends to publish a second paper and correct his many mistakes.

There are no mistakes. Had there been any “mistakes” our government would been all over it.

Explaining this to you was becoming tedious but then you brightened my day with your wonderful quote that "had there been any “mistakes” our government would been all over it."

Are you saying that the Government would have bothered to read Jones' paper and the fact that they weren't "all over it" means that there were no mistakes?
They didn't get "all over" a bunch of other theories either, so we should look at some of those mistake free claims. Judy Woods and DEW. No Planes. Atomic demolitions.
All of these must be true because the government wasn't "all over" any of these, either.

Maybe the government was so astounded at the quality of Jones paper that they were left speechless. When I read it the first time, I knew that I was reading a paper that would get some attention.

You are a never ending source of entertainment.

reply to post by pteridine

You are a never ending source of entertainment.

Why thank you, so are you.

Maybe the government was so astounded at the quality of Jones paper that they were left speechless.

I bet they were when Jones discovered a chemical residue that should not have been in the WTC dust to begin with. Yeah, they were speechless all right; The cat was out of the bag. The government (Bush adminastration) had to act fast, and tried to silence Jones by having him removed from his teaching career. I am sure this wasn't the work of the board of directors many of us believe if Jones was not removed their funding would have been cut, including government funding, because Jones had aroused suspicion that had the Bush administration in a corner, a corner where they could not answer any questions to the scientific finding that could prove 911 was an inside job.

Perhaps you feel many years from now when people read these threads even on Google “under the right search words” this thread will come up. I assume you are hoping you have put forth a very convincing argument against Steven Jones report by only given your opinions on this subject, perhaps many people are still gullible and do not know the differents between an opinion and presenting credible sources, evidence, or sciences to back one’s claims. I have seen many smear campaigns run on Steven Jones by only OS believers on ATS. People looking for the truths do not have to stoop to such levels do they. Why would they?
Perhaps, trying to discrediting Steven Jones work, works well for some in trying to push the OS agenda. The only problem here is no one has discredited Steven Jones including you. You have been asked repeatedly to present scientific evidence, and science to counter Jones work, yet you fail to do both. It’s ok to have an opinion but we all know opinions are not facts are they? Opinions do not solve fraudulent science if that were the case, then why bother having science in the first place. On the other hand, do you think opinions out weight science?

[edit on 2-6-2010 by impressme]

reply to post by impressme


I have worked to have all readers understand what Jones must do to prove thermite. Your mind is closed and your beliefs will not be changed by any amount of explanation and logical reasoning. It is not uncommon for someone to find a hero who espouses his or her deeply held beliefs and will defend the hero against all opposition.
Jones knows his paper was lacking, which is why he promised another paper a year ago. Jones knows that the heat was caused by combustion and says so in his paper. He is aware that some of his analyses [conductivity!] had absolutely no analytical basis.
Jones has not shown a reaction in the absence of air, much less a thermite reaction. He has several steps to go before he proves his theory. I have outlined them for you in previous posts on several threads, so I will not restate them here.
I notice that you didn't address the other theories that the Government let stand because they can't prove them wrong. You quickly morphed your claim into the Government having Jones removed from the faculty. Previously, the Jones supporters always claimed that he retired or resigned. Everyone knows that the reason Jones was canned is Jones himself and the reason was bad science in many areas. His Jesus paper apparently struck a nerve but the bad science hit the school where it hurt; in the scientific reputation.
I predict that Jones will not publish a second paper because he cannot get the results he wants and isn't enough of a scientist to publish what he finds rather than what he, and a few others, want to believe.

reply to post by pteridine

I have worked to have all readers understand what Jones must do to prove thermite. Your mind is closed and your beliefs will not be changed by any amount of explanation and logical reasoning.

You are sadly mistaken; in fact, one must keep an open mind when searching for the truth.
Keeping a close mind in 911 will only allow you to be an OS believer, which everyone knows I am not.

People who believe in the OS are ignorant to the facts or just in denial and some lack logical reasoning.

It is not uncommon for someone to find a hero who espouses his or her deeply held beliefs and will defend the hero against all opposition.

I agree with you that some do, however not everyone does, your assumptions of me are wrong.
Perhaps, you hold George Bush and Dick Cheney as your hero; perhaps defending these criminals who lied to the American people and stonewalled the 911 investigation is something you believe in defending. Perhaps, you feel you are being patriotic who knows

Jones knows his paper was lacking, which is why he promised another paper a year ago.

You are not a mind reader you do not know what Jones think. You do not know what his second paper will consist of, you are only speculating nothing more. Your above quote is your opinions not a fact.

Jones knows that the heat was caused by combustion and says so in his paper. He is aware that some of his analyses [conductivity!] had absolutely no analytical basis.

This is untrue and you have not proved this. This is your opinion nothing more.
You and I can go around on this topic until the moon turn blue, with your opinions and character assignation against Steven Jones. You should not be making up garbage with out being able to back your claims.

Jones has not shown a reaction in the absence of air, much less a thermite reaction. He has several steps to go before he proves his theory.

Jones has proven his theory “with peer reviewed sciences.”

I have outlined them for you in previous posts on several threads, so I will not restate them here.

This is untrue, and I have out line in several previous posts on several threads where you are wrong.

I notice that you didn't address the other theories that the Government let stand because they can't prove them wrong.

Because, this thread is about WTC 7 obliteration and nothing else. This thread topic is not about all the other 911 theories.

Previously, the Jones supporters always claimed that he retired or resigned. Everyone knows that the reason Jones was canned is Jones himself and the reason was bad science in many areas.

This is untrue, perhaps you should stop given your opinions on information that you no nothing about.

[color=gold]BYU and Prof. Steven Jones revisited


1. BYU put me on administrative leave on Sept. 6, 2006, for my research on 9/11 -- but while clearly stating that "The university doesn't have an opinion regarding the theory."

Quote:
www.heraldextra.com...
“Jones was placed on administrative leave for publishing a theory that explosives
were involved in the towers' collapse through channels university officials deemed inappropriate,"
BYU spokesperson Carri Jenkins said.
"[color=gold]The university doesn't have an opinion regarding the theory," she said.
This was an important distinction -- BYU was specifically NOT denigrating my "theory" that explosives were involved in the World Trade Center towers' collapse, as you see from the statement to the press by the BYU spokesperson.

It was never clear to me why the channels I chose were "inappropriate" (one was the Utah Academy of Arts and Sciences, April 2006 which was reviewed and approved by a fellow BYU Physics Professor), but the point is that BYU did NOT take a position on my 9/11 work and they made that point very clear.


2. BYU allowed me to continue my research on 9/11 after I was placed on admin leave, particularly regarding the dust generated during the collapse of the Towers, and even encouraged that research. It was important to the work that I was allowed to use the electron microscopes at BYU for this research. Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, director of the Transmission Electron Microscopy Laboratory at BYU was (and still is) permitted to work with me. 


3. Based on that research at BYU, a group of scientists wrote the paper now published in the Open Chemical Physics Journal, "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe," April 2009. [color=gold]BYU reviewed the paper prior to publication and found it to represent sound science, and [color=gold]approved it for publication in the Open Chemical Physics Journal. Specifically the chair of the BYU Department of Physics and [color=gold]Astronomy approved publication and told me personally this was sound scientific research and that he was now persuaded that explosives/pyrotechnics were involved in the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11.
4. There were two authors from BYU listed on that paper, Dr. Farrer (as second author) and Daniel Farnsworth. Their affiliation with the BYU Department of Physics and Astronomy was listed in the paper, with the approval of BYU.
www.bentham-open.org.../2009/00000002/000000...
Deseret News article on the paper:
www.deseretnews.com...
5. About the same time as this paper was published, I was made an Emeritus Professor of Physics at BYU.
6. [color=gold]BYU explained that they had been under considerable pressure to let me go, which is to their credit to admit this. We know from press releases that Dick Cheney's office contacted BYU; and this resulted in Cheney's coming to BYU to give a commencement address just three months after my "early retirement" from BYU. BYU -- also to its credit -- allowed TWO on-campus demonstrations against the policies of Dick Cheney. I understand that outside of Utah, it was these on-campus protests against Cheney that received favorable attention. (How many protests has BYU allowed through the years? Very few!)
7. BYU provided a nice (not large) pension as I accepted their offer of early retirement, gave me a (shared) office that I still use. They allowed me to keep my research web page, which links to three formally-published peer-reviewed papers regarding 9/11 in technical journals, here: www.physics.byu.edu...

In view of these contributions to 9/11 research, my friend and fellow 9/11-researcher Kevin Ryan said "Hurray for BYU!" And I have to agree.

911blogger.com...

I predict that Jones will not publish a second paper because he cannot get the results he wants and isn't enough of a scientist to publish what he finds rather than what he, and a few others, want to believe.

So, you see into the future as well, and assumed what others believe.

[edit on 2-6-2010 by impressme]

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by pteridine

 

Jones knows that the heat was caused by combustion and says so in his paper. He is aware that some of his analyses [conductivity!] had absolutely no analytical basis.

This is untrue and you have not proved this. This is your opinion nothing more.
You and I can go around on this topic until the moon turn blue, with your opinions and character assignation against Steven Jones. You should not be making up garbage with out being able to back your claims.

Jones has not shown a reaction in the absence of air, much less a thermite reaction. He has several steps to go before he proves his theory.

Jones has proven his theory “with peer reviewed sciences.”

Page 27: "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." I guess Jones shares my "opinion."

This paper was not "peer reviewed science." Jones has proven nothing, as I stated earlier.

reply to post by pteridine


It doesn't matter if some of the energy came from combustion. Tests for known nano-thermite are performed IN AIR.

Are they not?

The main point of the paper, which is portrayed quite clearly, is that elemental iron spheres were formed after a high temperature exotherm occurred when the chips were ignited. These are spheres that were not present pre-ignition. This is written into the paper and I have posted the excerpt for you to review.

If you are disputing this statement I will assume that you believe Steven Jones is a liar, in which case, there is no reason for us to communicate any longer.

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

reply to post by pteridine

I guess Jones shares my "opinion."

No, Jones does not support the OS that you believe in, and no he does not support your “theories” Jones only supports science.

This paper was not "peer reviewed science."

Jones paper was peer reviewed. it is in an open journal for the world to examine and no top scientist has disputed his scientific findings.

[color=gold]Publication in a Peer-reviewed Civil Engineering Journal!

Finally! After submitting a half-dozen papers to established peer-reviewed technical journals over a period of nearly a year, we have two papers which have passed peer-review and have been accepted for publication. One of these was published TODAY! In science, we say that we have “published in the literature,” a major step in a nascent line of scientific inquiry.
And many thanks to the editors for their courage and adherence to science in allowing us to follow the evidence and publish in their journal. (Indeed, expressions of thanks along these lines to the editors will be appreciated, as they will probably get a few letters chastising them… )
The paper is here:
www.bentham.org... (our paper is listed on top at the moment, the most recently entered paper); or go here:
www.bentham.org...
(Click on “year 2008” then scroll down to the paper and click on it.)

911blogger.com...

[color=gold]Another Peer Reviewed Paper Published in Scientific Journal Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust

www.911truth.org...

I know you do not see the sources I just posted, but the rest of the world does.

[edit on 2-6-2010 by impressme]

Since it was decided that building should be put down coz it was on the same ground base of the twin towers (that i remember) ,what bugs me the most about the so called terrorist attack is that they pulled out all debris on a barge and put away and no one was allowed aroud the resting debris.