Top Expert comes forth: 9/11 Bldg 7 downed with explosives

I look back on thread now and then and just laugh...

we have a few people online who are not published and not formally educated in Chemistry and Engineering claiming they know more than the people running the experiments, using proper technique, proper equipment, publishing in peer-reviewed journals, and spending decades in the field teaching.

I choose to believe the experts no matter how logical you think your line-by-line arguments are.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
I look back on thread now and then and just laugh...

we have a few people online who are not published and not formally educated in Chemistry and Engineering claiming they know more than the people running the experiments, using proper technique, proper equipment, publishing in peer-reviewed journals, and spending decades in the field teaching.

I choose to believe the experts no matter how logical you think your line-by-line arguments are.

As you are not published nor formally educated in chemistry, you don't know if the perpetrators of the Bentham paper used the proper techniques or proper equipment. I have explained why their conclusions were not valid based on their experiments. The 'super thermite' extinguished itself after it was ignited in the DSC and that has not been explained by any Jones sycophant, you included.
If you would like to defend Jones' paper, we can start the discussion any time.

reply to post by pteridine


ah... but I am published* and know well how to read the Methods section of a journal or publication.

making a claim against someone's publication, as you well know, requires like scientific levels of validity, which you've yet to even address.

* not in Chemistry

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by pteridine

 

ah... but I am published and know well how to read the Methods section of a journal or publication.

making a claim against someone's publication, as you well know, requires like scientific levels of validity, which you've yet to even address.

I have reviewed Jones' paper and used his own data to show his errors and and faulty conclusions. If you wish to defend his paper, you can start by explaining why the 'super thermite' ignited in a DSC oven and then self-extinguished. Then we can discuss why the DSC data is inconsistent with the conclusions.

reply to post by pteridine


I really don't want to get back into all this... been discussed way too many times already, but, since I brought it up...

This is from memory

The purpose of the DSC oven was to ignite the nanothermite. The samples found proved to ignite at a low temperature, roughly 400 degrees F, which started the overall thermitic detonation/explosion (whatever word you prefer there). The resultant "explosion" burned out quickly leaving iron nano-spheres [pictured in the vary journal you're disputing].

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by pteridine

 

I really don't want to get back into all this... been discussed way too many times already, but, since I brought it up...

This is from memory

The purpose of the DSC oven was to ignite the nanothermite. The samples found proved to ignite at a low temperature, roughly 400 degrees F, which started the overall thermitic detonation/explosion (whatever word you prefer there). The resultant "explosion" burned out quickly leaving iron nano-spheres [pictured in the vary journal you're disputing].

The purpose of the DSC analysis was to determine the reaction temperature and heat output of the red chips. The samples ignited at a lower temperature than known nanothermite and provided energies in excess of the thermodynamic limits of thermite because of combustion. Because Jones is a poor chemist, he didn't realize that running the DSC in air allowed for combustion that made his conclusions of thermite invalid. The major products of the reaction in the partially burnt chips were iron containing aluminosilicate spheres which could have formed during combustion of the organic binder. Because he used a magnetic separation method to begin with, he cannot exclude contamination of his samples by other sources. The entire premise of paint on thermite that looks exactly like the red paint covering the steel and would, if it was thermite, do nothing to the structure is in keeping with the 'truther' level of conspiracy theories.
Jones is a sloppy, publicity hound of a scientist but doesn't care as his con is succeeding. You bit on it. The chips are red paint.

reply to post by pteridine


red paint that magically jumps to what... 2700 F ? after the initial 400 degree plateau is reached.

You can "paint" that however you like with as much fancy language as you like... red paint does not burn at 2000+ F and leave behind perfect iron sphericles with flowing molten iron in the basement.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by pteridine

 

red paint that magically jumps to what... 2700 F ? after the initial 400 degree plateau is reached.

You can "paint" that however you like with as much fancy language as you like... red paint does not burn at 2000+ F and leave behind perfect iron sphericles with flowing molten iron in the basement.

I see we suddenly went from the Jones paper to 2000+ F degrees and flowing molten iron in the basement. Of course, you have evidence that it was the red paint that did it. You have evidence of flowing molten iron. You have evidence that there were 'perfect iron sphericles' and that their source was the red paint. You have shown that the underground fires which burned for weeks were the result of paint on thermite and not combustion of the contents of the towers.

reply to post by pteridine


I haven't shown or even implied anything of the sort...

In my use of "red paint" I was being facetious because most people in the world recognize that red paint doesn't behave that way....

reply to post by Thermo Klein


One of the most important aspects of science if confirmation of experimental result. Results can be wrong because of errors, bias or scams. (of the last, here is an interesting example).

Currently a couple of people on JREF are busy reproducing the results of Jones and his team. Some additional experiments are done to determine whether the substance contains thermite or not. (even though Jones results already strongly indicate that there is no thermite, still their results are inconclusive).

But to get back at the importance of confirmation of results, it is very telling that a request to get a sample of the material Kevin Ryan, one of the people in Jones team, claims to be thermitic, was declined. Kevin Ryan does not want the material to be tested by any independent party. Of course he claims the party to be biased and deceptive, but has nothing whatsoever to back that accusation up.

Do you think it is good science when testing and confirmation of results by others is denied when requested?

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by pteridine

 

I haven't shown or even implied anything of the sort...

In my use of "red paint" I was being facetious because most people in the world recognize that red paint doesn't behave that way....

So you don't have evidence that it was the red paint that did it or evidence of flowing molten iron or evidence that there were 'perfect iron sphericles' and that their source was the red paint. You haven't shown that the underground fires which burned for weeks were the result of 'paint-on thermite' and not combustion of the contents of the towers.
Until you [or Jones, et al.] can do this, it would seem that it was red paint. Henryco at darksideofgravity.com was convinced that his samples of red chips were sabotaged because they wouldn't ignite. The reluctance of those who profit by thermite conspiracy to provide samples is telling.