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

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
Can you provide a source for your claim that simple combustion can produce the temperatures required for iron to be melted and form tiny spheres? Because those were produced by the reaction, unless you must resort to calling the authors of the paper outright liars as to what they observed.


Reacting under an inert gas would be redundant and irrelevant information given that (1) the reaction produces the iron spheres and (2) there is oxygen at the WTC so that this reaction could occur exactly as it did in the lab.

Ginny,
As I have explained many times, no iron spheres were formed. Iron containing spheres were formed. Their temperature of formation is not known.
Reaction under an inert gas is necessary to show the possibility of thermite. No reaction: No possibility of thermite. Reaction: May be thermite
This will allow differentiation between the combustion that we know is occurring and other reactions that don't need oxygen, such as thermite.

Originally posted by SteveR
Well, since you have now decided you aren't supporting 'chips are thermite' assertion.

I never made the statement that the chips were thermite, just because I know the semantic games and the standards used to define "thermite" -- extremely narrow and apparently limited to traditional coarse-grained aluminum and iron oxide. Face it, any time anyone even mentions another form of thermite you start throwing "super duper" around instantly being a smart-aleck like such a thing can't possibly exist. It's not honest and I don't even feel like dealing with that level of maturity.

If it is a military grade of thermite, how are you going to compare them to get the match anyway? You're not. Email the DoD and ask for a sample? If you think they'd ever actually send you the match then I have a bridge in Antarctica... Comparing this stuff to conventional thermite is an easy straw-man for the lazy and irrelevant insofar as no one is arguing that here.


If you're not here to promote the "paint chips" BS, and you're not interested in explaining how the chips could have been formed from human remains or food, are we actually going to be able to agree that the substance is yet to be positively identified and will be subject to further investigation?

Originally posted by Doctor Smith
So I guess it's thermite (military nano thermate)? Anyone have any other ideas?

So far no one has any other valid hypothesis of what else it could be.

The scientists that wrote that paper are incompetent. The chips they found were just paint chips from the heat-resistant primer coating the support beams.

According to NIST the primer paint contains large amounts of chromium, magnesium and zinc [9] but only trace amounts of chromium and zinc are sometimes found in the red/gray chips. Such primers are designed to be highly heat resistant. The red/gray chips ignite at 430C. According to NIST the primer paint does not ignite even at 800 C. Such primers are designed to be heat resistant not explosive.

www.opednews.com...


Unless "butcher" wants to carry on his thoughts of the chips being being materials and human remains then apparently no, no one else is ready to present a positive identification that matches all data.

At the same time we have no military thermite samples to compare to, though by DoD publications we know they exist.

reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain

Unless "butcher" wants to carry on his thoughts of the chips being being materials and human remains then apparently no, no one else is ready to present a positive identification that matches all data.

It was actually suggested by debunkers that the explosive chips were paint primer. And we all know that turned out to be a big fat bag of dung.

So why should I believe anything else they fabricate?

reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain


Comparing the red chips to nano-particulate thermite is possble using references 19-25 in the Jones paper. The nanostructured aerogels are completely different than the red chips.

reply to post by Doctor Smith


The best match is red paint until Jones does the key experiment. After that, the best match will likely still be red paint.

Originally posted by pteridine


Ginny,
As I have explained many times, no iron spheres were formed. Iron containing spheres were formed. Their temperature of formation is not known.
Reaction under an inert gas is necessary to show the possibility of thermite. No reaction: No possibility of thermite. Reaction: May be thermite
This will allow differentiation between the combustion that we know is occurring and other reactions that don't need oxygen, such as thermite.

Pteridine,

The moderators wrote back and declined the thread in the debate forum
because it doesn't meet their criteria. We would need a system that
discusses "pros and cons" of a certain topic.

Since that forum doesn't fit our theme, would you agree to starting a
new thread in this forum and asking our fellow researchers to refrain
from posting within?

We will discuss our differences as stated, and ignore any outside posts.
Shall I start the thread?

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
are we actually going to be able to agree that the substance is yet to be positively identified and will be subject to further investigation?

Indeed. The only issue under dispute here is the fraudulent assertion that the chips are thermitic material. The assertion cannot be made at this point. Nor do I believe it will ever be a legitimate conclusion. The self-extinguishing nanothermite theory requires the same level of wild speculation as the no-plane theory, neither can be fully debunked in the eyes of the believers because both are defended ad nauseum with implacable "what ifs". It is a desperate attempt to unite the movement with a smoking gun, underpinned by a flawed paper written by a flawed scientist who had a flawed agenda from the outset. It is also a red herring that diverts the movement from the real causes of the collapse. Unless the Jonesians and the thermite theory is nipped in the bud, along with the death ray folk and the no-planers, the truthers are always going to be discredited, frustrated and self-defeated.

reply to post by turbofan


Sure. What is the proposed title?

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
If you were really interested in the truth, REALLY interested, you would NOT come onto these forums to waste your time arguing with people like me. You would JOIN people like me in confronting confused people like yourself who think these official investigations were case closed. They weren't. You should at least know THAT much by now. I am not going to do a better investigation for you. Not unless you want to give me a few million dollars, subpoena power, and access to whatever evidence I desire to see. And good luck getting anyone that kind of access outside of the feds' exclusive circles. You can take their defense too if you want to accept their burden but you already know it would be an uphill battle defending that garbage.

See, this is where I totally disagree with you. As far as I'm concerned the Truth Movement actually harms the chances of a proper investigation into the failures in the run-up to 9/11 because so many of its ideas are so self-evidently ludicrous.

You're all looking in the wrong place - coincidentally in the one that is most exciting and makes you feel cleverest - and allowing TPTB to characterise any opposition to their narrative as hokum.

reply to post by pteridine

The best match is red paint until Jones does the key experiment. After that, the best match will likely still be red paint.

Your best match is your “opinion”. Jones proved what was paint and what was thermite.
Your opinions have been proven wrong.

[edit on 25-8-2010 by impressme]

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
See, this is where I totally disagree with you. As far as I'm concerned the Truth Movement actually harms the chances of a proper investigation into the failures in the run-up to 9/11 because so many of its ideas are so self-evidently ludicrous.

And this is another example of us mirroring the same feelings towards each other.

I'm actually glad that people no more effective than yourself come here to defend the official story, for the same reason: you do more harm than good.

People who are in such a condition as to deny the obvious consistently just to fit their own pre-conceptions, are beyond amateur help anyway. It's a well-studied psychological issue and it's one of those things where it's either you or me, and I understand your position already. You're like the intellectual equivalent of an utterly immovable rock, and you like it that way, so everyone who is on the fence so to speak is given a clear example of what kind of "reasoning" is required to maintain belief in the truly ludicrous. Some people will go to their graves believing al Qaeda was solely responsible for 9/11, no different than thousands of people went to their graves believing the Sun revolved around the Earth even after Copernicus was ridiculed and scorned by you status-quo "skeptics." Those people can't be helped. For everyone else, there's the Fed Gubm'nt, Shady Trick & Co. You are all doing a wonderful job of inciting further outcry though I suspect you would deny that too, despite the rise of various organizations and their memberships. Those don't really exist either, of course.

You're all looking in the wrong place - coincidentally in the one that is most exciting and makes you feel cleverest

More projection.

Was that you saying this website is like a study in human psychology? If so at least we agree on one thing.

[edit on 25-8-2010 by VirginiaRisesYetAgain]

reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain


Interesting that to you this stuff is "obvious".

Even though in this very thread you've had to backtrack and admit that it's not quite as "obvious" as you first thought that this was thermite.

And for the record I don't "defend the OS". You know this. I've pointed it out to you several times, and yet you continue to pretend it's so because it suits your preconceptions. In other words you're ignoring something obvious because it allows you to continue with a world view that you find comforting. A bit like those pre-Copernicans.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by turbofan

 

Sure. What is the proposed title?

I have to apologize, I did not see this reply. I'm in the midst of writing up
a summary based on some research from the DOE.

Once I get that completed, I'll contact you via U2U or an active thread.