Thermite Proven! Jones Science Proves Red Thematic Material not just Red Paint Chips

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Do you have anything to post regarding my OP.

Pineni resigned becuase she didn't want anything to do with Jones' rubbish report. It's her right. Deal with it.

Deal with it?

Your opinions are untrue, as the report make it very clear why she didn't review Jones paper.

Rubbish?

Everything is rubbish according to you.

I'm not sure what a few are sniveling about. From Jone's peer reviewed paper below. Under Spectrum and other analysis. Their is an organic material that causes high gas pressure. EXPLOSIVE. And the other material is highly organized in ratio and size, a perfect elemental match for some type of military nano thermite.

So unless they were painting the building with explosives and nano thermite by accident. This is cause for an independent investigation.

10. The carbon content of the red material indicates that an organic substance is present. This would be expected for super-thermite formulations in order to produce high gas pressures upon ignition and thus make them explosive. The nature of the organic material in these chips merits further exploration. We note that it is likely also an energetic material, in that the total energy release sometimes observed in DSC tests exceeds the theoretical maximum energy of the classic thermite reaction. Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.        

Doesn't anyone out there have another peer reviewed paper that dispute these facts? I want to believe their isn't a cover up.

reply to post by butcherguy


A candle or torch will get close to the melting point of iron so this is possible. But the small size of the chips wouldn't likely allow enough therms to be generated in such a short amount of time.

Besides. We Know that the materials and ratios for thermite are present in the material. So whether by accident or more likely design the materials will burn like thermite.

BS. I can melt steel with a match or Bic lighter. Not just can, have! The melted steel forms little spheres.

[edit on 13-8-2010 by Doctor Smith]

Originally posted by Doctor Smith

So unless they were painting the building with explosives and nano thermite by accident. This is cause for an independent investigation.

Doesn't anyone out there have another peer reviewed paper that dispute these facts? I want to believe their isn't a cover up.

You misunderstand Jones' examples. He provided examples of explosives in his tables of energy releases. He didn't say he found any of these explosives. He claimed thermite but shows no evidence for that either.

reply to post by pteridine

Yes, I am questioning you.

I asked you many questions and you compleatly ignored everyone of them. any ATS reader can see that.

Now you are DEMANDING that I respond to you, and your questions, WOW! I am simply amazed.

You who will not debate the technical merits of Jones paper.

That is compleatly untrue, it is you who will not debate Jones paper I have reponded to

every technical question that you twisted to distort Jones paper. In fact I proved

repeatatly you were making up lies about Jones paper.

You who make unsupported claims.

unsupported claims?

That is compleatly untrue and if you are refuring to Jones science it is you who has made

unsupported claims. You who will not show your work, your science, your sources. You are

the one making false claims that Jones never found thermite.

I am asking you to show where the data says "Iron spheres." Note that this is not "Iron

CONTAINING spheres, but Iron spheres.

In which report? Jones or USGS?

If you refuse to reply, that will be proof that your claims are unfounded.

Now you have painted yourself in a courner. If that is the case, then you have just proved

yourself wrong reapeatly by not replying to me. You have failed to show any proof against

Jones report.

I find this amusing, only you make the rules, however, they do not apply to you, how ironic.

[edit on 13-8-2010 by impressme]

reply to post by pteridine

I do not care to discuss your opinions. We are not here to support your unproven, and unscientific opinions.
Bring some sources to the table. show your science. other than that everything else is unfounded.

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by pteridine

 

I do not care to discuss your opinions. We are not here to support your unproven, and unscientific opinions.
Bring some sources to the table. show your science. other than that everything else is unfounded.

No offence, but you don't really care to discuss anything. every time you are provided with a critique of something Jones has written you brush it away with some sort of line about it being "only an opinion" or "not credible sciences". Either that or you make a simple appeal to authority each time, suggesting that since the responder isn't a scientist to your knowledge, anything he says is invalid.

I don't know if you're for real, and I don't want to be rude, but it seems to me that Jones' work has attained religious status for you. Any criticism of it must be wrong because it is unimpeachably right and true.

Also you ought to get to grips with the reason why there are few scientific critiques of Jones' work. The reason has nothing to do with its worth and everything to do with its irrelevance. It's an utterly marginal study that the rest of the world is pretty happy to ignore.



[edit on 13-8-2010 by TrickoftheShade]

reply to post by impressme

I refer to the USGS particle atlas that you posted a link to. There are no iron spheres shown that I can see.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by impressme

 

I refer to the USGS particle atlas that you posted a link to. There are no iron spheres shown that I can see.

Figure 24 Figure 25 of Jones Paper.

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade
Center Catastrophe
Niels H. Harrit*,1, Jeffrey Farrer2, Steven E. Jones*,3, Kevin R. Ryan4, Frank M. Legge5,
Daniel Farnsworth2, Gregg Roberts6, James R. Gourley7 and Bradley R. Larsen3
1Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
2Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, USA
3S&J Scientific Co., Provo, UT, 84606, USA
49/11 Working Group of Bloomington, Bloomington, IN 47401, USA
5Logical Systems Consulting, Perth, Western Australia
6Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Berkeley, CA 94704, USA
7International Center for 9/11 Studies, Dallas, TX 75231, USA

[edit on 13-8-2010 by Doctor Smith]

reply to post by pteridine



The far right column labeled "Image" must have not made sense to you. "IRON 3" and "IRON 4" both are described as spheres and all you have to do is click on the "yes" in the image column to see the pictures.

USGS Open-File Report 2005–1165: Table_1
pubs.usgs.gov...

Image of iron sphere 3
pubs.usgs.gov...

and

Image of iron sphere 4
pubs.usgs.gov...


*Mod Edit: Hold off on the personal attacks.

[edit on 14-8-2010 by alien]

reply to post by truthcounts


Ah, you beat me to it.
The photo is of iron spheres from the USGS report I asked pteridine if he thinks the USGS report is a lie, he still refuses to answer.

The USGS found iron spheres in their samples, which support Jones samples, now that is science, not an opinion.

reply to post by truthcounts


Thank you for proving me correct.

If you can read the table you will see that both are IRON CONTAINING spheres, as I said. Read from left to right and you will discover that #3 has iron and oxygen. #4 has iron, oxygen, mangnesium, aluminum, silicon, sulfur, calcium, titanium, and manganese. #3 is a simple oxide and #4 looks like a mineral.

Neither proves thermite.

reply to post by pteridine



Jones proved thermitic material and so far, you have not provided any credible evidence to the contrary.


*Mod Edit: No personal attacks.

[edit on 14-8-2010 by alien]

reply to post by pteridine


We will leave that up to the causal readers to decide, not you. The fact is the USGS proved they found iron spheres in the WTC dust. Now you can claim all the nonsense you want, but you cannot debunk their science.
You still never answered my question; do you believe the USGA science is a fraud to?

You demand that I answer your questions, then perhaps you can answer mine.
Enjoy your chess game, Dr Who.


[edit on 14-8-2010 by impressme]

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by pteridine

 

We will leave that up to the causal readers to decide, not you. The fact is the USGS proved they found iron spheres in the WTC dust. Now you can claim all the nonsense you want, but you cannot debunk their science.
You still never answered my question; do you believe the USGA science is a fraud to?

You demand that I answer your questions, then perhaps you can answer mine.
Enjoy your chess game, Dr Who.

Please read the table that you provided. The elements contained in the particles are listed left to right. There are no particles made only of iron, hence there are no "iron spheres."
What about USGA? Tiger Woods will make a comeback. If you meant USGS, no they are not frauds and are capable scientists. They have excellent analytical capabilities and are well equipped to identify particles, especially mineral matter.

reply to post by truthcounts


Can you or Impressme point out the ELEMENTAL IRON spheres part? I'm sorry but what i can see is that you two are having a hard time with reading and comprehending data from a graph.

Iron-3 Sphere: O Fe
Iron-4 Sphere: O Mg Al Si S Ca Ti Mn Fe

Now then please point to me from the above, the PURE ELEMENTAL IRON sphere. Either you or impressme. Although I know impressme has me on "ignore" so maybe you can answer my question. The two "spheres" have their composition shown above. Show me the sphere with the pure elemental composition of Iron: Fe.

Or for that matter, ANYONE, please show me from the above two spheres, which one is the elemental Iron sphere. Elemental meaning: purely iron sphere. Here for easy noticing, this is how an elemental iron sphere's composition looks like: Fe

Also: Iron-rich does not mean pure iron. Iron containing does not mean pure iron. Neither means elemental iron. Example:
a sample sphere has 56% Fe, 40% O, 3% Mg, 1% trace elements. Is this an elemental iron sphere? Is it a pure iron sphere?

[edit on 8/14/2010 by GenRadek]

reply to post by truthcounts


I used Jones' own paper to provide credible evidence that his conclusions are without grounds. Why don't you show why his DSC is valid. Show how the energies add up and explain why the super demolition material went out after it was ignited and didn't completely burn.
This shouldn't be a problem for you but your fellow Jones cheerleaders are having a tough time of it. Help them out.

Does anyone know the ratios of those other elements when compared to the Iron? Cause if you don't it isn't relevant.

reply to post by Doctor Smith


Yes it does matter. One cannot claim elemental iron spheres when I count 8 other elements in the sphere. Do you know or understand what is meant by "elemental iron sphere"? It means its PURE iron. The sphere should contain iron and only iron. Anything else in it no longer makes it a pure sample. Here are the spec for them:

pubs.usgs.gov...
pubs.usgs.gov...

There is more Oxygen than Iron here. So are you going to call these elemental oxygen spheres then? Jones claims they are elemental iron spheres. The specs show otherwise. Ergo these are NOT pure elemental spheres, they are iron-containing. But they contain more oxygen than iron. So no, NOT thermite made spheres.

reply to post by GenRadek


Yes your links demonstrate my point. Now I don't have to post them myself. They are both labeled Iron - Rich Particles. They are extremely similar to each other. Both have some impurities or other ingredients. The impurities or other ingredients are very slight. The known nano thermite seems to have a lower level of impurities so they didn't label them.

But of course they don't come from exactly the same type o nano thermite.

We could argue this all day. Unless you have a panel of real experts that support your claim and will just come up with that scientific peer reviewed paper, like the Jones paper it's just a doubt in your mind.

This published peer reviewed paper has not yet been challenged in the literature.

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 14-8-2010 by Doctor Smith]