Jones' Dust Analysis: Comparing Known Nano-Energetics ( A Response to "Pteridine" )

reply to post by micpsi


Once again, your opinions are not valid. Try to disprove the science with references. Nobody has to this day.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by turbofan

 

All Jones has to do is to run the DSC under argon. He said that he would do many other analyses in the Norwegian radio interview and still has not published. I guess that the truther crowd wouldn't like the headline "Professor Steven Jones proves Red Paint covered the WTC steel."

The materials Jones had set on fire would have still burned. Rust is really oxygenated iron, meaning that the fuel has its own oxygen supply. It's the reason why rocket engines still work in the vaccuum of space.

Where Jones failed horribly...outside of making up his own words to get people to think he found thermite without actually coming out and saying it, that is...is that he never showed why the substance he analyzed should not have belonged in the area it was found. The towers were steel skyscrapers, meaning there'd be plenty of rust regardless of how meticulous the engineers kept the building, and they were sheathed entirely in aluminum, which is what gave the towers their metallic luster. Jones claiming he found thermitic material is blatant dishonesty- he should have said he found what looks to be rust particles stuck to what looks like aluminum particles in the debris field of the towers. Even the most mindlessly hard core zealots among the conspiracy theorists here know why he didn't do that.

In the end, all his research actually says is that aluminum burns, which is as much of a, "Captain Obvious" moment as it gets.

reply to post by turbofan


Excellent post turbofan!

I see your debating the trolls still! It is unfortunate they haven't really offered up anything in the scientific sense to debate. So I will play devils advocate and think of the best question I can.

IF the substance found is NOT thermite, what other possible sources could it have come from?
I do not believe for one second that paint chips could react in the manner that your graphs portray.
as you said, they certainly wouldnt use it to paint steel beams in skyscrapers if it was capable of doing that.
So what is the second best legitimate source for this particulate?

Thanks again for the intriguing post!

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Exactly "goodoldave"!!!

I have said the same thing before... when an iron /steel/ aluminum building colapses from having its support columns sheared by a flying aluminum/ titanium / inconel/ magnesium axe.... why are people surprised when they find mixtures of iron oxide and aluminum in samples of dust?!

LOL

This OP and the author of this "paper" are seriously delusional... please... keep living without reason AND common sense... its hilarious showing stuff like this to my coworkers.

reply to post by Velocismo


Too bad there is no heat source available to start a thermitic reaction between any of those elements.

Once again, your opinion means nothing. You don't even understand that the temperature required to
produce the iron spheres falls short by about 1000'C!

Once you guys understand the science, it might help with your debate skills.

I admit... im lost... in one thread you guys claim that this stuff nearly auto ignites when argued that you need a magnesium fuse...

then in another thread you say there isnt anything hot enough present to ignite this stuff...

Ok dude... you win. im out.

Originally posted by Velocismo
I admit... im lost... in one thread you guys claim that this stuff nearly auto ignites when argued that you need a magnesium fuse...

then in another thread you say there isnt anything hot enough present to ignite this stuff...

Ok dude... you win. im out.

I don't believe you are quoting me when you say, "in another thread you say...".

You may be confusing the ignitoin temperatures with reaction temperatures and also mixing up the conventional
thermite properties with nano-thermite properties.

If you direct the quotes using links, we can talk it over.