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

The composition of the spheres IS known!. Look at the graphs!

They are mostly Iron; a very large percentage of Iron (Fe).

Once again you ignore my request.

Do you accept the 1 on 1 debate:

YES, or NO?

Originally posted by turbofan
The composition of the spheres IS known!. Look at the graphs!

They are mostly Iron; a very large percentage of Iron (Fe).

Once again you ignore my request.

Do you accept the 1 on 1 debate:

YES, or NO?

The elemental composition may be estimated from the EDAX. The molecular composition is not known using the EDAX. The molecular composition is what the melting point depends on, not your estimate of "mostly iron."
Do you understand the DSC trace yet? Do you understand that the furnace temperature may be 420 degrees C but that the flame temperature can be much higher? Do you understand that the exotherm lasted about 10 minutes? Do you understand why the DSC under inert is a critical test? Do you understand why the energies are wrong?

[edit on 8/21/2010 by pteridine]

The molten metal leaking out of the South Tower shortly before it collapsed was not steel but lead from the lead batteries stored by Fuji Bank on the 81st floor, the floor directly above the one from which the material poured. This fact about the bank's Uninterruptible Power Supply (since confirmed in the NIST report) was reported by an ex-employee of the bank who communicated the information to journalist Christopher Bollyn, who contacted Jones about it in the Spring of 2006:
www.bollyn.com...
www.bollyn.com...
Steven Jones ignored this because it made his thermate theory superfluous - the office fires alone were hot enough to melt the tons of lead that were stored in the area where Flight 175 ended up. Instead of following this to its logical conclusion, which he did not want to do because he knew that it undermined his friend Jones' theory about themite/thermate being used in the towers to weak them before their collapse, Bollyn made the absurd suggestion that the batteries had been secretly filled with thermite (see last link).

Jones grabs whatever straws he can find to keep his theory afloat. People wanting to believe him don't like to be told that he cherry-picks his evidence and that there is no need for it anyway!

reply to post by micpsi


I didn't know there were batteries inside the DSC chamber during the test!

reply to post by pteridine



Accept the 1 on 1 debate: Yes, or No?

reply to post by turbofan


You are already debating him here (and repeatedly failing to make a point). How are you going to do any better in a second thread?

reply to post by turbofan


Sure, but I prefer a simple thread rather than an official "debate" event. My business requires me to be many different places and some are not internet friendly. The debate time limits are restrictive as are post limitations.
What I would propose is a thread where our discussions could take place and we would ignore comments directed toward us by other posters. Any kibitzing and arguing amongst them is fine. The rules would be posted at the start of the thread.
A good way to do this would be to go through the paper, front to back, and point by point. Some discussions will be fast and some will take a while. After a few cycles of disagreement on a point, we would note any differences and move on. What should be the upper limit on posts on a specific aspect? I suggest three posts each, max. At the end, the discrepancies, if any, could be posted. This doesn't end with any sort of score. That would be pointless and confrontational.
In any case, you should answer my questions before any sort of debate. If you are going to insist on "iron containing" meaning "iron" and using the MP of iron in your arguments or you believe that thermite doesn't react in the absence of air, you are wasting time.

None of you read the article I posted on the last page I guess. If anyone did, they had nothing to say about it...

Here's yet another one:

Many "debunkers" maintain the erroneous belief that the April paper by Harrit et al. has been debunked. This paper of course is entitled "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe" and was published in the The Open Chemical Physics Journal on April 3, 2009. I will itemize the specious "proofs" below in order of comical absurdity along with their refutation:

www.opednews.com...



Come on, you guys "debate" this to death EVERY DAY on here!

And then when it comes to, "Why hasn't anyone else published another peer-reviewed paper to "debunk" Jones academically?"

It's because, "Oh, well you see, nobody REALLY cares about him..." Even though hundreds of you spend hours every day arguing over his work? And not one of you can write a simple refutation and have it published in the same journal?



Show me how much he doesn't matter and how little you care, by arguing about his work every day for a few more years. Yeah, that'll show me.

[edit on 21-8-2010 by VirginiaRisesYetAgain]

reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain


I read the OpEd piece. It selects arguments that are a series of strawmen that allow the author easy refutation.
He does not address any of the technical errors in the paper, either because he doesn't understand them or doesn't want to bring up why the paper was published in a vanity journal.

reply to post by pteridine


So if these are all "straw men" then you agree they weren't valid arguments in the first place, and the real arguments were missed.

So you acknowledge the following are invalid arguments:

-- The chips all came from common building materials.
-- The paper is bunk because the journal sucks.
-- The paper is bunk because the chief editor of this suck-journal didn't see it first.
-- Ad hominem on the authors.


I agree these are all horrible arguments.

However in your exact same post you call the journal a "vanity journal" again even though this is one of the things that the article I posted refutes.

You didn't really even look at the article, of course, because you already know it's wrong without having to read it. And in explaining this use one of the arguments you yourself just finished calling a "straw man" in your blanket-dismissal of the source.

Come on pterry, that journal has INFINITELY more credibility than YOU do! You have to do better than not even reading what I post! You put on like I actually take you seriously you know, while never creasing to give me reasons not to!

[edit on 21-8-2010 by VirginiaRisesYetAgain]

reply to post by turbofan


Turbo, did you notice something about flame temps? Isnt 450C a little "cool" for any sort of thermite? I mean really? Doesnt thermite need a much hotter ignition? Like a magnesium burn? I heard it needs up to 900C minimum to light.

Also what type of flame was Jones using? Cause most flame used in a lab are much hotter than 450C. In fact how hot was the flame being used? Was it a bunsen burner? Oxyacetylene torch? Candle? Hydrogen torch? Lighter? Propane torch? What did he use? Usually the "average" flame is between 1200C to 2500C. Oxyacetylene goes as high as 3300C. Oh wait wait! Jones used an oxyacetylene torch! WOW! That means the temp of the flame was about 3000C! I'm pretty sure if I were to place one of those torches next to anything flammable, I'm sure it too will burn and look like it explodes, especially if it was aluminum and had iron oxide. But alas, too bad Jones didnt do it under argon. We'll never know if it was a thermite reactions, or plane ol combustion!

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
So if these are all "straw men"

The article does not even BEGIN to address the legitimate issues, yet you keep pushing it. You're either trolling or have no understanding of why the Jones paper is deeply flawed.

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
reply to post by pteridine

 

So if these are all "straw men" then you agree they weren't valid arguments in the first place, and the real arguments were missed.

So you acknowledge the following are invalid arguments:

-- The chips all came from common building materials.
-- The paper is bunk because the journal sucks.
-- The paper is bunk because the chief editor of this suck-journal didn't see it first.
-- Ad hominem on the authors.


I agree these are all horrible arguments.

However in your exact same post you call the journal a "vanity journal" again even though this is one of the things that the article I posted refutes.

You didn't really even look at the article, of course, because you already know it's wrong without having to read it. And in explaining this use one of the arguments you yourself just finished calling a "straw man" in your blanket-dismissal of the source.

Come on pterry, that journal has INFINITELY more credibility than YOU do! You have to do better than not even reading what I post! You put on like I actually take you seriously you know, while never creasing to give me reasons not to!

As I remember, the discussion centered around the words "peer reviewed" as though this were a mainstream journal. This was to give credence to the work and of course it is wrong unless Jones peers are non-scientists. I merely pointed out that oft repeated untruth. I also admit to saying that the peer review consisted of the editor peering into the evelope to review the amount on the check.

That said, my comments were directed at the technical aspects of the paper not that the editor resigned. The chips are certainly paint, a common building material, but Jones attempted to prove otherwise. I questioned Jones skills and reasoning and was attacked by several true believers. Their reasoning was generally based on fallacious arguments from authority. Jones was a physics professor so he must be correct; a position of desperation. While the other statements may be true, they do not prove that the paper is bunk by addressing the technical issues in the paper. I did that.
"The paper is bunk, the journal published it, so the journal sucks" would be a more correct rendering of your words.
You do not have the knowledge or experience to know what has more credibility. You also assumed that I had not read the article and guessed at strawmen. I guessed at what the article would be before I read it and I was not surprised, simply because the truther ranks are generally populated with technical lightweights.
As to taking me seriously, that is your choice. I notice taht you take these discussions seriously enough to reply. I take you as seriously as you deserve. Perhaps in your fantasy world, Bentham has "infinitely more credibility" than I do, but then again you are probably a success in that world.
Did I just give you another reason?

Originally posted by SteveR
The article does not even BEGIN to address the legitimate issues, yet you keep pushing it. You're either trolling or have no understanding of why the Jones paper is deeply flawed.

If I'm trolling then what are you doing right now?

You didn't offer a single instance of corrective information. You just told me I don't understand why Jones is flawed and left it at that.

You're right, I don't, and you just did absolutely nothing to help that. Congratulations.

Maybe you should try next time.

reply to post by pteridine


Here you are back to the big-man race already, blowing off everything I just said.

I'm going to give you some time to grow out of this, pterry, by not feeding your trolling, at the risk of also not responding to your rant about why you have a problem with the journal Jones was published in. It's still better than the journal his refutation was published in (none of them).

Take a break from this picture box in front of you for a change.

reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain


I only blew off what should be blown off Ginny. I stick with the technical details of the paper. I am not about to spend $800 to publish a refutation in a Bentham journal when I can do it here and reach more of Jones audience than anywhere else.
Jones is a charlatan deceiving those who do not understand chemistry or science and he should be exposed for what he is.

reply to post by pteridine


You said yourself debate is good for you.

Take Turbo's challenge. Your excuse of not having enough time is debunked by your massive presence every day on these forums.

Then we'll see who is the charlatan.


Until then, some good tunes:






TO THE FLAG!!



Oh, almost forgot this:

Originally posted by pteridine
I am not about to spend $800 to publish a refutation in a Bentham journal when I can do it here and reach more of Jones audience than anywhere else.

Am I smelling traces of Delusions of Grandeur here too?

I'd say you are "reaching" much less than 1% of Jones' entire "audience" here. What you're really reaching is a lot of very different, independently-minded people, the vast majority of whom believe you are thoroughly mistaken, and you reach them with insulting generalizations. So even then you're only reaching people to push them further away from you.

You call people plenty of names in all kinds of flowery language, but you still refrain from a 1 on 1 debate despite spending every day here. I wonder why. I guess because you realize that insults aren't how you actually win debates, this isn't pedo-defending JREF, and you know better. And any time you're asked for credentials you just start condescending to people as if that's going to reflect well on you. You think you've made a better impression on me now? Probably.

[edit on 22-8-2010 by VirginiaRisesYetAgain]

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
If I'm trolling then what are you doing right now?

Questioning why you are pushing an article that does not even attempt to address the issues. I thought that was clear from my post.

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
You didn't offer a single instance of corrective information. You just told me I don't understand why Jones is flawed and left it at that. You're right, I don't, and you just did absolutely nothing to help that. Congratulations.

Strange response. I stand by what Pteridine and Radek have written. It has been explained time and again why the paper is flawed and inconclusive. What do you need "help" with? Reading comprehension?

Originally posted by SteveR

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
If I'm trolling then what are you doing right now?

Questioning why you are pushing an article that does not even attempt to address the issues. I thought that was clear from my post.

Just saying "You're wrong!" is about as clear as mud.

I'm still waiting for an elaboration here. Do you have any actual substance to your whining?

Strange response. I stand by what Pteridine and Radek have written.

Oh, I see. So you're a cheerleader, and have nothing to add yourself. Well then I'll have to remember to ignore you from now on.

It has been explained time and again why the paper is flawed and inconclusive.

So you say, but then again you can't even tell me why, you just direct me to other people. Yeah, you definitely know what you're talking about.

reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain


I have taken up Turbo's challenge, just not the way he expected it. Your taste in military music is abysmal. I didn't listen to Dixie and never liked it, even though it was written by an Ohioan. No wonder the South lost with a song like that.
Try "March of the Cameron Men" on youtube. Lt. Colonel "Mad Jack" Churchill piped his men ashore with it during WW2 amphibious assaults. He is also the only person known to have killed a German soldier with an English longbow and regularly carried a broadsword into battle.