Thermite Cutting Steel Experimentally Demonstrated

reply to post by pteridine


My, what a massive waste of time typing all those words, but posting no links to source your claim:

Originally posted by pteridine
The binder in paint DOES give off more energy than thermite or explosives in a DSC under the conditions Jones used.

I read only far enough into your post to see you claim that this information can be found in a chemistry handbook. Then why can't you find the same information online? Because you're still lying.

When you make statements about paint in a DSC "under the conditions Jones used," it leads one to believe that you actually came across such data. Apparently not.

Still waiting for you to source your claims with something besides insults and pompousness. It is getting tiresome, you're right.

reply to post by bsbray11


I can see your lack of education requires you to have online sources for every thought that you may have. I posted the CRC source because that is what I used. It is a book. If you know what a library looks like, you can stop in on your way to your McJob and look things up.
Hydrocarbons under the conditions of Jones DSC [air] will combust. Under conditions of a DSC run in Argon they will not. ANother Jones error.

reply to post by pteridine


Give me the name of the book and the page number that the DSC for paint is shown in your chemistry book.

reply to post by bsbray11


For someone claiming to have the only perfect High School history SOL scores in his class, you sure don't read well. The CRC Handbook doesn't have DSC traces in it. Many DSC traces are not published because clients pay for analyses and own their results. It has standard heats of formation tables in it because the point is about thermodynamics and not the instrument used to measure them.
Stick to High School history, BS. You're much better at it than science or engineering.

Originally posted by pteridine
The CRC Handbook doesn't have DSC traces in it.

You're the one with reading problems. It's flattering to know you follow so many of my posts though. I've never returned you the favor so what does that tell you?

Can you read your own quote?

Originally posted by pteridine
The binder in paint DOES give off more energy than thermite or explosives in a DSC under the conditions Jones used.

Where the hell is your source for this claim? Or admit you don't have one! It's that simple! But it's too much for you isn't it?


Don't make claims you can't back up. Then on top of that, don't try to lie and obfuscate when you're cornered on it!

An interesting case
Must search more to find out Who are the Jews

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by pteridine
The CRC Handbook doesn't have DSC traces in it.

You're the one with reading problems. It's flattering to know you follow so many of my posts though. I've never returned you the favor so what does that tell you?

Can you read your own quote?

Originally posted by pteridine
The binder in paint DOES give off more energy than thermite or explosives in a DSC under the conditions Jones used.

Where the hell is your source for this claim? Or admit you don't have one! It's that simple! But it's too much for you isn't it?


Don't make claims you can't back up. Then on top of that, don't try to lie and obfuscate when you're cornered on it!

1. Binder in paint is a hydrocarbon.
2. Combusting hydrocarbons have more energy than thermite, as shown previously.
3. What is your problem with this? It is just simple thermodynamics.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by pteridine
The CRC Handbook doesn't have DSC traces in it.

You're the one with reading problems. It's flattering to know you follow so many of my posts though. I've never returned you the favor so what does that tell you?

Can you read your own quote?

Originally posted by pteridine
The binder in paint DOES give off more energy than thermite or explosives in a DSC under the conditions Jones used.

Where the hell is your source for this claim? Or admit you don't have one! It's that simple! But it's too much for you isn't it?


Don't make claims you can't back up. Then on top of that, don't try to lie and obfuscate when you're cornered on it!

edit on 9-4-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)

I think he said it here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

and what part of "hydrocarbon based paint binder" don't you understand?

Originally posted by pteridine
1. Binder in paint is a hydrocarbon.
2. Combusting hydrocarbons have more energy than thermite, as shown previously.
3. What is your problem with this? It is just simple thermodynamics.

The problem is that you claim to already know what a DSC would show for paint, without ever having seen such data.

The DSC doesn't just show the total amount of energy given off (that isn't all that's relevant and you already know that), and neither was it shown that the sample was undergoing hydrocarbon combustion. The iron spheres indicate otherwise.

Originally posted by pteridine
The binder in paint DOES give off more energy than thermite or explosives in a DSC under the conditions Jones used.

Where is the DSC data for paint under the same conditions Jones used?

You can't pretend to know what it would show without ever having actually seen that data.


Don't give me another rant.

Give me the DSC for paint or admit you don't know what it would show. You like to claim you know this stuff was paint but frankly you're talking out of your ass much more than Jones ever has. At least Jones made comparisons to real samples of thermite. You refuse to even try to compare the substance to known samples of paint. I wonder why.

Originally posted by GenRadek
and what part of "hydrocarbon based paint binder" don't you understand?

The part where he claims to know what a DSC of either paint or paint binder would show, without ever actually having seen a DSC for either of them.

I understand it. It's called making stuff up, and being arrogant and catering to pre-conceived bias.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by pteridine
1. Binder in paint is a hydrocarbon.
2. Combusting hydrocarbons have more energy than thermite, as shown previously.
3. What is your problem with this? It is just simple thermodynamics.

The problem is that you claim to already know what a DSC would show for paint, without ever having seen such data.

The DSC doesn't just show the total amount of energy given off (that isn't all that's relevant and you already know that), and neither was it shown that the sample was undergoing hydrocarbon combustion. The iron spheres indicate otherwise.

Originally posted by pteridine
The binder in paint DOES give off more energy than thermite or explosives in a DSC under the conditions Jones used.

Where is the DSC data for paint under the same conditions Jones used?

You can't pretend to know what it would show without ever having actually seen that data.


Don't give me another rant.

Give me the DSC for paint or admit you don't know what it would show. You like to claim you know this stuff was paint but frankly you're talking out of your ass much more than Jones ever has. At least Jones made comparisons to real samples of thermite. You refuse to even try to compare the substance to known samples of paint. I wonder why.

The energy is important, not the DSC trace. I explained this to you in detail but you must have been studying History for your high school class at the time and missed it. I hope you do well on the exam.

I also explained the caveat "under the conditions Jones used" which was in a stream of air. This allows for combustion which completely masks any other reactions that might occur. That is why Jones DSC experiments are not definitive.
The incomplete combustion of the deadly material coupled with energy in excess of what thermite could provide finishes the "Jones found thermite" nonsense that you have been supporting.

Your continued posturing as an intellectual and self appointed arbiter is noted with great amusement. I think your rising Kundalini is distracting you again.

Originally posted by pteridine
The energy is important, not the DSC trace.

Of course now it's not important, because you don't have one for paint, or any other form of proof that it's actually paint. You're just making stuff up as usual.

If it's not important then why did you mention a DSC for paint in the first place?


Btw, unlike yourself, I graduated from high school years ago. I realize my SOL scores disturb you, but all the personal attacks in the world aren't going to make you look any more clever or mature. Just saying.

reply to post by pteridine

I also explained the caveat "under the conditions Jones used" which was in a stream of air. This allows for combustion which completely masks any other reactions that might occur. That is why Jones DSC experiments are not definitive.

Your “opinion,” nothing more. Fact is you have not proved anything against Jones peer reviewed accepted Journal.

The incomplete combustion of the deadly material coupled with energy in excess of what thermite could provide finishes the "Jones found thermite" nonsense that you have been supporting.

Nonsense!
Again this is your “opinion” and you have not showed any science to support your nonsense. Fact is Jones did show in his Journal how he discovered thermite under the flash heat testing and by separating all the particles he discovered in the WTC dust samples. And if you say he did not then you “will be lying.”

Your continued posturing as an intellectual and self appointed arbiter is noted with great amusement. I think your rising Kundalini is distracting you again.

No, the fact is it is you that is posturing as an intellectual and self appointed authority based on absolutely nothing but your imagination and no scientific evidence to back your opinions.
When are you going to show the ATS readers your science against Jones’ Journal?

reply to post by bsbray11


You have shown your superiority at finding excuses to avoid discussing anything that would display your technical failings. Keep working at it and you may even convince a few people of your humble, but inquisitive, open-mindedness.

reply to post by pteridine


Great. So where's a DSC for paint or any proof at all that Jones was looking at paint? You've made the claim several times now but always refuse to back it up with anything but long-winded rants that diverge onto countless other topics and prove nothing.

reply to post by pteridine

You have shown your superiority at finding excuses to avoid discussing anything that would display your technical failings.

Interesting how you accuse people of doing what you do all the time.

I have asked you repeatedly to back up your opinions with anything credible.
Take this assumption that you stated against Jones Journal:

The incomplete combustion of the deadly material coupled with energy in excess of what thermite could provide finishes the "Jones found thermite" nonsense that you have been supporting.

What are you trying to say here, that you have Jones dust samples and you ran your own analyses and can show us by using your scientific process what this highly energetic deadly material is?
Anyone can make claims, but can you back up your claims. The fact is you haven’t so far.

reply to post by impressme


Answer me this, please. Has any person at all been able to replicate Jones' results? I'm not talking about the paper which checked his math. I mean has even a single documented person gotten the same reaction Jones did? Without it, his paper lacks the main principle of science, repeatability.

reply to post by Varemia


Has anyone else even tried? Not that I'm aware of.

If not, whose fault is that?

Jones was not the only scientist who authored that paper, either.

reply to post by Varemia

Answer me this, please. Has any person at all been able to replicate Jones' results? I'm not talking about the paper which checked his math. I mean has even a single documented person gotten the same reaction Jones did? Without it, his paper lacks the main principle of science, repeatability.

Yes, FEMA did their examination and suggest explosive evidence.

Forensic Metallurgy
Metallurgical Examination of WTC Steel Suggests Explosives

A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes.

911research.wtc7.net...

FEMA did not have any dust samples to run tests, only Professor Steven Jones received these samples, no one else that I am a where of.

reply to post by impressme


I can see how that might be convincing at first glance, but it's not enough for me. I looked at the sources that article noted, and the first one suggests a number of alternative methods by which sulfur could have become present, while the second makes no indication of thermite at all, just indicating an oxidation and presence of sulfur as well. From what I can tell, the only ones explaining it from one conclusion are the people on the 9-11 Research website, saying that it is most likely to be thermite, though Jones is the only person to have tested the dust and gotten his highly combustible results.

Just did some more reading on the site, and if their information about Jones is correct, then he's not just a Thermite pusher, but also a pusher of multiple misconceptions and twisting of events to fit one side when clearly the arguing even on this site shows that both sides have equally logical (sometimes debatable) ideas on the matter. One that I noted was that interview noted here:

911research.wtc7.net...

Jones probably rolled that clip of WTC 7 that left out the first visible 8 seconds of collapse and made it look like the building suddenly fell symmetrically without any precursor events. I can't be certain, but that is the most likely situation, considering that I tend to see almost every 9/11 Truther using that clip.

Here's a different analysis of the dust done by a group attempting to determine the health hazards that the dust posed:
projects.nfstc.org...

I don't like the way this paper appears to assume that all the material in the WTCs was turned to dust, but their analysis seems to be legitimate. Afraid they didn't set it on fire in their tests, but what reason would they have to do that? The one thing that I notice right up front is that they did not find iron/aluminum (at least, in that form). They have paint chips, perlite, mica, dolomite, etc.