Additonal Experiments with Nano Therm. vs. WTC Dust

reply to post by impressme


Very nicely put.

The primer paint used in the WTC was stable to at least 800 degrees Centigrade.

However, the nano-thermate was found to combust at 430 deg.

The jig is up.

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer

 

That's not what anybody said, Impressme.

Let's get on the same page here.

Originally posted by IvanKminek
Originally posted by impressme

No, we (we in JREF "paint thread") do not support OS of 911. OS does not care about paints, this is our job. Simply, a plain common sense tells us: red primer paints were provingly applied on WTC steel in large ammounts. Red chips found by Harrit et al (and also by Henryco and Mark Basile) looked like red primer paints (attached to oxidized steel), had a composition of two particular red primer paints and behaved like these paints. If you have some specific (and well-supported) objections against these findings, address them here.

No, we are on the same page.

I like how some of you debunkers “speculate” your opinions to what you believe is wrong with Jones science, yet none of you people can support your ridiculous claims with any real science. The reason why is because none of you have the dust samples that Professor Jones was given to run your own analysis and then do a peer review report that could prove Jones’ Journal is flawed.

Yes, Jones talked about red paint and he even suggested it may have been an application that was mix with the supper Nano-thermite.
Jones was able to separate all the particles in the dust samples and he does demonstrate that in his Journal. The one particle Jones’ discovered that was really important was the supper Nano- thermite.
Jones was able to conclude what type of thermite it was because of the small nano grains in the particles; however he couldn’t compare this type thermite to any known thermite used on the market today. That is why he said we are talking military science now. The Nano- thermite particles were the finest he had seen, it burned at a faster rate and at hotter temperatures than normal thermite.

Your opinions on this subject are not the facts, because you cannot validate any of it with real science.

edit on 17-10-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)

You are right in one respect, impressme: we cannot write any official scientific rebuttal of Bentham paper without analyses of real red chips which we do not possess. But we have enough indirect clues that support paint therory.

What do you mean by sentence "The one particle Jones’ discovered that was really important was the supper Nano- thermite."? Have you read the paper? If Jones suggested that the mix of some primer paint with supernanothermite was used, it is a sign that he could be already mentally ill. Do you understand the apparent and indisputable fact that several red primers paints were applied on steel during WTC constructions and particles of these paints must be present and found in the dust? How and why these paints could be mixed with some nanothermite in the beginning of seventies (when nanothermites did not exist)? And how could these paints be "mixed" with thermites later? Some groups of miniature evil conspirators secretly intruded to WTC steel constructions and applied nanothermite onto primer layers (covered with thick layers of thermal insulation, btw)? It is simply silly

Particles found in red chips were by no means the finest" Jones had seen, since real Tillotson's superthermite contained finer particles. Pigment (iron oxide and aluminosilicate) particles in red chips had sizes typical for high quality epoxide primers. Red chips burned at the rates and temperatures typical for the burning of epoxy binder in paints and released energy was also typical for burning of organics. I proved even experimentally on samples of Laclede primer paint imitation that its epoxy binder is very rapidly degraded at ca 400 degrees C.

(Your claim that red chips burned at "hotter temperatures than normal thermite" shows that you do not know what you are talking about; no temperature rise caused by burning is measured in differential scanning calorimetry, DSC. Instead, a flow of heat into or from sample is measured here).

Originally posted by beijingyank
reply to post by impressme

 

Very nicely put.

The primer paint used in the WTC was stable to at least 800 degrees Centigrade.

However, the nano-thermate was found to combust at 430 deg.

The jig is up.

Incorrect.

Tnemec primer paint with alkyd binder, applied on perimeter columns and closely investigated by NIST, was burned during heating, became brittle and formed flakes which could be easily removed from the steel.

Red chips (a) to (d) investigated by Harrit et al were particles of another primer, namely Laclede epoxy primer applied on floor trusses. According to XEDS measurements on burned red chips, performed by Harrit and also by Henryco, carbon almost completely disappeared during heating, whereas other elements (Si, Fe, O, Al) remained there. This is in full accordance with the paint: carbon (organic, polymer) binder of paint was simply burned out. Since it was an epoxy resin, the most of it burned out at temperatures ca 400 degrees C. Red chips remained red (iron oxide was not reacted) after heating, which means that no thermitic reaction occured. At most, some minute part of iron oxide was partially reduced by graphitized epoxy by so called carbothermic reaction.

It's time to post the video again.


How anybody can think this is thermite is beyond me.




This match is about a hundred times more impressive than the paint chip.

reply to post by IvanKminek

You are right in one respect, impressme: we cannot write any official scientific rebuttal of Bentham paper without analyses of real red chips which we do not possess. But we have enough indirect clues that support paint therory.

That was all I had to read in your post to stop reading any further.

Clues and your ”opinions” on paint theories do not cut the muster as proven facts.
Where is your evidence, your science? The fact is you have none.
How many times do we need to tell you we know RED PAINT was one of the particals in the dust samples? Stop ignoring the facts that Jones PROVED with his demonstrations that he did discover nano- thermite and proved it in his testings.

Red paint did not blow up the WTC, perhaps in your world but not in reality.

(Your claim that red chips burned at "hotter temperatures than normal thermite" shows that you do not know what you are talking about;

I never made any such claim you are now spreading lies to win your argument. I hope no one is taken in by the compost that you are spreading.
As far as what I know about thermite, my past threads speak for themselves.
BTW, I don’t have to tell lies to win my debate.

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by IvanKminek

 

You are right in one respect, impressme: we cannot write any official scientific rebuttal of Bentham paper without analyses of real red chips which we do not possess. But we have enough indirect clues that support paint therory.

That was all I had to read in your post to stop reading any further.

Clues and your ”opinions” on paint theories do not cut the muster as proven facts.
Where is your evidence, your science? The fact is you have none.
How many times do we need to tell you we know RED PAINT was one of the particals in the dust samples? Stop ignoring the facts that Jones PROVED with his demonstrations that he did discover nano- thermite and proved it in his testings.

Red paint did not blow up the WTC, perhaps in your world but not in reality.

edit on 18-10-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)

Once again: what do you mean by sentence that "red paint was one of the particles in the dust samples!"? If you mean that one so called "MEK chip" was a particle of Tnemec primer, you are right and I agree. Even Jones seems to admit this now (although very reluctantly).

Other chips (a) to (d) investigated in Bentham were apparently particles of different red paint, more specifically Laclede primer paint, since Harrit and Jones were so very "kind" and provided us with the perfect proof: XEDS spectra of these chips were in very good agreement with the composition of this particular paint. (This is one of the things which I consider as "indirect clue": it is indirect, but still very telling and convincing.) Read our thread, starting the post No 104, if you are able to understand some chemistry.

Look at the video of burning of so called "nanothermite chip" made Mark Basile and posted above by waypastvne: it is a typical (comparatively slow) burning of some paint. Here (for comparison) is my video of burning of Laclede paint imitation: bobule100.rajce.idnes.cz... . As you can see, this epoxy composite simply burns when ignited. Here you can see thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) curves of this paint imitation under air bobule100.rajce.idnes.cz...-air.jpg (third picture) and under nitrogen bobule100.rajce.idnes.cz...-N2.jpg (fourth picture, direct links do not work for unknown reason). As you can see, this composite (composition of which is very close to the that of real paint) is very rapidly degraded at temperatures slightly below 400 degrees C not only under air, but also under nitrogen. Such degradation is always accompanied with a strong exothernic effect. Consequently, a thermal behavior of this paint imitation is close to the behavior of chips (a) to (d).

Here you can find my microphoto of Laclede paint imitation (magnification 200x) heated up to 700 degrees C under air: bobule100.rajce.idnes.cz... . I think that this heated sample is quite similar to heated chips (a) to (d). Namely, samples are still red after heating under air, since iron oxide was not reacted by thermitic reaction in both cases and remained mostly red (darker parts are remains of graphitized epoxies; also, some round shiny objects are visible in some places, quite similar to that observed in burned red chips in Bentham paper) .

We have now much more of such clues that Bentham paper investigated two red primer paints and not thermite. But the reading of our thread in JREF is not really matter for laymen like you, that is the problem.









(Of course red paint did not blow up WTC I fully agree. Nothing was used to blow up WTC... as simple as that.)

Originally posted by impressme
Red paint did not blow up the WTC, perhaps in your world but not in reality.

(Your claim that red chips burned at "hotter temperatures than normal thermite" shows that you do not know what you are talking about;

I never made any such claim you are now spreading lies to win your argument.

Here, you claim that exact thing....

The Nano- thermite particles were the finest he had seen, it burned at a faster rate and at hotter temperatures than normal thermite.

Originally posted by impressme
As far as what I know about thermite, my past threads speak for themselves.
BTW, I don’t have to tell lies to win my debate.

Right, only appeals to authority and incredulity, along with accusations. Couple that with steadfast ignorance about the arguments presented by the other side, and you can't lose (in your own mind.)

PS: Just so this is absolutely clear: nobody is claiming that paint chips contributed to the collapse of the trade towers in any way. Maybe this repeated assertion on your part that we believe paint chips blew up the towers is your idea of a joke. If so, it's hard to tell. It just makes you appear confused.

reply to post by IvanKminek



It's not paint.

The psychopaths started their mass murder in NY on 911. Ten years later the body count has reached millions. They won't stop and it's just a matter of time before they visit violence on your family and friends.

It's time to take them out before they murder any more innocents. The jig is up. It's time for action.

reply to post by IvanKminek

We have now much more of such clues that Bentham paper investigated two red primer paints and not thermite. But the reading of our thread in JREF is not really matter for laymen like you, that is the problem.

It’s really interesting how you enjoy talking down to your adversary. I will certainly give you the same respect as you give me.
As far as you believing that JREF website is the holy grail of truth I will have to disagree. The fact is from reading from JREF are ego’s on an“opinion ” expedition. However, not you or any of your pales on JREF could bring any science accept pseudo-science all base on preconception “opinions” when trying your best to discrediting Jones and his Journal.

JREF website and most of the people who post on their forums believe that insulting and ridiculing the facts and twisting Jones’ science into hogwash to boost their bias egos, are very juvenile to say the least.

Once again: what do you mean by sentence that "red paint was one of the particles in the dust samples!"? If you mean that one so called "MEK chip" was a particle of Tnemec primer, you are right and I agree. Even Jones seems to admit this now (although very reluctantly).

No, Jones was eager in showing the facts in his paper and not reluctantly as you want the ATS readers to believe. Jones explains everything including the MEK testing results under the different heat test or flame tests and shows his step by step test results and what particles that were confirmed as paint particles and nano-thermite.

The nano-thermite tests results were not the same as the red paint results, the particles are completely different and the outcome from the test results were different and you should know that.
You are trying to convince people that the nano-thermite burned in the flash tests were the same temperatures as the paint tests, you are completely wrong and you know that.

Your claim is Jones did not find any thermite? To whom are you trying to appeal to, certainly not the logical thinkers who can dissect Jones’ science?

I have read most of the pseudo-science, twisted results, and opinions from people who make the false claims that Jones only discovered red paint in the dust samples, this is really old drivel and none of the pseudo-science holds water.
We are here to deny ignorance not to embrace falsehoods. We are here to learn the truth to research facts to open people’s minds, not to insult, talk down, and brag that we are some great expert and then copy and paste our knowledge from someone else unproven bias opinions from JREF website.

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer

I never made any such claim you are now spreading lies to win your argument.


Here, you claim that exact thing....
]The Nano- thermite particles were the finest he had seen, it burned at a faster rate and at hotter temperatures than normal thermite.

Again, stop twisting my words, I never made any such claims. Is telling fallacies what you have to do to win a debate?

reply to post by impressme


I quoted you directly, and provided a link to the comment from which I quoted. If I misinterpreted your words, you should explain exactly what you meant by them, instead of just calling me a liar.

Thanks in advance.

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer


The facts speak for themselves and I stand by my conviction.
The casual ATS readers will have no problem seeing who is lying in here.

Impressme, since your reply again contains some inexact, distorted and wrong formulations and claims, I am going to correct them.

You wrote: Jones explains everything including the MEK testing results under the different heat test or flame tests and shows his step by step test results and what particles that were confirmed as paint particles and nano-thermite.

No, Jones (et al) did not confirmed any particle from the WTC dust as paint particle. He (and his fellows) considered all found red chips as nanothermite particles. In the Bentham paper, he only compared solubility of one chip with the solubility of one real "ordinary paint", which is just silly, since hundreds of various paints are produced and their properties can be dramatically different. E.g., some of them stay soluble in common solvents like MEK, some others are insoluble in principle after curing, since their cured binder is three-dimensional polymeric network (e.g. cured alkyd resin, epoxies or some polyesters).
Later, Jones compared chips from the WTC dust with an authentic chip of Tnemec paint stripped off WCT perimeter steel used for some monument. (To our pleasure, he proved by this way that his "MEK chip" had the same composition as Tnemec paint, so he debunked himself here, see oystein-debate.blogspot.com...).

No, Jones did not show us any "different flame tests" in the paper. There is only one link in the paper to one extremely blurred video of the ignition of one chip by oxyacetylene torch. Such torch has an extremely hot flame and, therefore, no wonder that some sparks were formed in the extremely overheated chip of paint. It can be expected.

You wrote: The nano-thermite tests results were not the same as the red paint results, the particles are completely different and the outcome from the test results were different and you should know that.

I do not understand what are you trying to say here. If you mean "ordinary paint" used for comparison in the paper, see above. If you mean my own tests on Laclede paint imitation, its properties (e.g. thermal behavior) are apparently close to the properties of chips (a) to (d). My simple flame test was not performed for comparison with flame tests in the paper; I simply showed by this test that Laclede epoxy primer with 20 % of pigments (iron oxide and aluminosilicate) can vividly burn when ignited. My chips were much bigger than chips (a) to (d) and I used ordinary lighter for ignition, so no comparison with flame test(s) in the Bentham paper is possible.

You wrote: Your claim is Jones did not find any thermite?

Yes, this is exactly what we claim: Jones et al devoted almost two years of their lives (according to them) to the close investigation of two completely innocent and normal red WTC primer paints. Moreover, these people were not able to do some relevant basic search in the available scientific and technical papers. Therefore, their conclusions in the paper are based on completely wrong assumptions. Some of them are: 1) Nanosized pigments could not be used in paints in sixties; 2) All so called "ordinary paints" are soluble in MEK; 3) Organic/polymeric binder in paints cannot give similar exotherms during heating under air as observed for chips (a) to (d). 4) DSC curves of red chips under air can prove thermite. 5) Thermal behavior of the binder (which prevailed in the chips) is not important. Etc.

The rest of your text contains some childish insults and I am not going to react. I am trying to stay on purely factual positions.

reply to post by impressme


Now I think you post while stoned. You called me a liar. I backed up my claim with a direct quote from this thread. You called me a liar again. I asked you to explain the apparent confusion. So you callled me a liar a third time.

You're right. People will be able to tell the score:

Fixer: 3
Imp: 0

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer


Okay I reviewed your link. What imp said is that you can not back up your claims. That isnt the same as to accuse you of lying. Also you are just trolling now. You are acting like a truther who wants to give 911 deniers a bad name.

Komatsu-Dresser patented a device that uses a thermitic reaction for demolition purpouses, taking the noise and blasts out of demolition (or so they marketed it). Look who was involved with Dresser. I wonder how their product compares to what has been found at the wtc site.

reply to post by Cassius666


So you are calling poor Eugene a liar too? Looks like they are ganging up on you fixer in true twoofer fashion