Additonal Experiments with Nano Therm. vs. WTC Dust

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by pteridine

 

If we are to believe Jones, there should only be iron oxide, aluminum, silicon, and a carbonaceous binder.

Can we please have some evidence in support of your notion that just because you know what it is you should also know how to make it?

What an absolutely mind-bogglingly crazy concept. Is this what you have been reduced too. At this point aliens and HAARP beams really ARE a more plausible option.

At least those things are not necessarily false (there is just no reason to believe them to be true). What you are postulating is so far removed from reality that you'd need to be in a different dimension for it to start making sense.

Think about what you are claiming for a second. Are you simply unaware that is a logical absurdity?

If it is analyzed correctly, it can be reverse engineered. Many industries use this concept with competitors products. This material is a formulation, like paint for example, and when the components are known, it can be reproduced. I understand that your mind may be boggled by the concept but how is it a "logical absurdity?'

reply to post by impressme


Ryan's demo does not need to be debunked. He ran a viton-aluminum-iron oxide reaction as a demo for some reason or another. Of course it works; it was designed to work. He just can't link it to the WTC collapse so it is yet another "so what" demo of a known reaction.

reply to post by pteridine

If it is analyzed correctly, it can be reverse engineered. Many industries use this concept with competitors products. This material is a formulation, like paint for example, and when the components are known, it can be reproduced. I understand that your mind may be boggled by the concept but how is it a "logical absurdity?'

It is a logical absurdity because you demand it to be EXACTLY the same, rather than of the same type.

Your technique is to compare sample X to sample Y and then pick out a difference (any difference) and use that to claim that the tow things are of a different TYPE.

This is the classical logical positivist error and it is a logical absurdity.

Ryan's demo does not need to be debunked. He ran a viton-aluminum-iron oxide reaction as a demo for some reason or another. Of course it works; it was designed to work. He just can't link it to the WTC collapse so it is yet another "so what" demo of a known reaction.

As above, your conception of type-token relationships is seriously defective as a result of your logical positivism.

You forget that Ryan clearly states that he is reproducing a formulation from the literature, not attempting to replicate the formulation in the dust. An intellectually honest person would recognize the distinction and recall that one of his own arguments was that the material WAS NOT THERMITE, so here you have a known sample of thermite that you can reproduce and you still have no paint sample that behaves in the way you claim.

You also make further claims with no basis in physical reality: That ALL gels in sol-gels MUST contain viton and secondly that there would be no reaction WITHOUT Viton.

The intellectually honest person you go look up and get a feel for the sol-gel process and note that there is no need for fluorine containing gels, silicon will do too (see aerogel for example). Cross reference THAT with the XEDS in the Harrit paper and find Si.

Then one would admit that the claim that without Viton there would be no reaction is pure unsubstantiated speculation on your part, especially given that we KONW that Al+Fe2O3 will react thermitically.

This is what an intellectually honest person would do. But you are not intellectually honest are you?

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by pteridine

 

If it is analyzed correctly, it can be reverse engineered. Many industries use this concept with competitors products. This material is a formulation, like paint for example, and when the components are known, it can be reproduced. I understand that your mind may be boggled by the concept but how is it a "logical absurdity?'

It is a logical absurdity because you demand it to be EXACTLY the same, rather than of the same type.

Your technique is to compare sample X to sample Y and then pick out a difference (any difference) and use that to claim that the tow things are of a different TYPE.

This is the classical logical positivist error and it is a logical absurdity.

Ryan's demo does not need to be debunked. He ran a viton-aluminum-iron oxide reaction as a demo for some reason or another. Of course it works; it was designed to work. He just can't link it to the WTC collapse so it is yet another "so what" demo of a known reaction.

As above, your conception of type-token relationships is seriously defective as a result of your logical positivism.

You forget that Ryan clearly states that he is reproducing a formulation from the literature, not attempting to replicate the formulation in the dust. An intellectually honest person would recognize the distinction and recall that one of his own arguments was that the material WAS NOT THERMITE, so here you have a known sample of thermite that you can reproduce and you still have no paint sample that behaves in the way you claim.

You also make further claims with no basis in physical reality: That ALL gels in sol-gels MUST contain viton and secondly that there would be no reaction WITHOUT Viton.

The intellectually honest person you go look up and get a feel for the sol-gel process and note that there is no need for fluorine containing gels, silicon will do too (see aerogel for example). Cross reference THAT with the XEDS in the Harrit paper and find Si.

Then one would admit that the claim that without Viton there would be no reaction is pure unsubstantiated speculation on your part, especially given that we KONW that Al+Fe2O3 will react thermitically.

This is what an intellectually honest person would do. But you are not intellectually honest are you?

What a wonderful sophomoric rant. Of course, you completely missed the point in your boggled state. I am a disinterested party who keeps the Jones' of the world honest and allows people like you to see what the so-called scientists are doing.
The Ryan demo serves no purpose other than attempting to tie the red chips to thermite. Anyone can make what Ryan made, even you. The question is why he made it. It appears to me that the entire goal of this exercise was to show a red residue after ignition because that is what Jones had after the DSC. One of the questions I have posed, unanswered by any Jones acolyte, is why there is iron oxide present after reaction. Given the EDAX analyses done by the Jones team, the reactive species were supposed to be iron oxide and aluminum, hence the claims of thermite. The thermite was claimed to be 'highly engineered," yet iron oxide was found in the residue, unreacted. Either the nano-thermite was "lowly engineered" or it was not thermite. Given the experimental results, one must also conclude that simple combustion of the binder was a significant source of the exotherm. Foolishly, Jones was ran the DSC in a 55mL/min air stream, completely invalidating his conclusion that thermite was present and bringing into question the source of the exotherm.
Ryan, a fellow traveller and a Jones sycophant may think he is coming to the rescue by showing his known aluminum-iron thermite reacting and leaving an iron oxide residue. What he doesn't tell you is that the Viton 'binder' also reacts with aluminum. He either doesn't understand stoichiometry or he purposely added the Viton to produce iron oxide containing residue. He would get the same result if he added excess iron oxide so his residue after combustion would be nice and red, just like Jones'. Does he believe that this will stifle questions about unreacted iron oxide or does he just lack basic knowledge of chemistry?
As to the "same type" argument, if it were the same type, it would have a simple carbonaceous binder that did not react with any elemental aluminum that may be present.

reply to post by pteridine

Anyone can make what Ryan made, even you.

Isn't that the point of reproducibility in science?

Look Pteridene you seem as confused about this as the rest of the OS'ers. Simply saying that my rant is sophomoric does not deflect from the reality that you are applying a widely discredit 60 year old philosophy of science to the problem.

Here is how it should work:

If you are putting forward the hypothesis that this something other than thermite you need to demonstrate that your hypothesis can be falsified somehow. You have failed to do so.

If you are claiming that you can falsify the hypothesis that this is thermite you must actually do something that falsifies it. Nothing you have said falsifies the hypothesis. Falsify does not mean that you show the theory could conceivably be wrong. It means that you can do some experiment that shows that it cannot be thermite.

The distinction betwenn CAN NOT and MAY NOT is not an idle one, it is one that goes right to the heart of the scientific method.

EVERY theory or experiment raises more question than it does answers, no scientific theory ever proves anything beyond doubt.

Your repeated demonstration of inability to grasp this crucial fact is the only thing that is sophomoric here. Logical-positivism has always been a sophomoric approach to science.

www.youtube.com...

(watch specifically the section at 4:00)

"...it did impress the younger people..."

later:

"...nearly all of it was false..."

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by turbofan

 

As I remember, you were at a loss to explain the combustion energies, the lack of experimental data showing thermite, the residue containing iron oxide which didn't react, and the lack of effect of a paint-thin layer of thermite on steel beams.

edit on 7/26/2011 by pteridine because: (no reason given)

As I recall, you had it all wrong thinking Jones claimed 'thermite' when in fact he did not (proven by quoting
the paragraph in the conclusion).

All you do is run your mouth on here, but you're too afraid to confront Jones when I asked you to debate him.
You even declined knowing there was money on the table.

Come on PT, you're so smart you could be the ATS and 9./11 Hero! You against Jones and you would be
the only one to take him down.

What are you waiting for?! I'll set it up, what do you say?

We'll do it right here on ATS if you wish? I'm sure there are more than a handful of people that would love
to follow the exchange.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by pteridine

 

Anyone can make what Ryan made, even you.

Isn't that the point of reproducibility in science?

Look Pteridene you seem as confused about this as the rest of the OS'ers. Simply saying that my rant is sophomoric does not deflect from the reality that you are applying a widely discredit 60 year old philosophy of science to the problem.

Here is how it should work:

If you are putting forward the hypothesis that this something other than thermite you need to demonstrate that your hypothesis can be falsified somehow. You have failed to do so.

If you are claiming that you can falsify the hypothesis that this is thermite you must actually do something that falsifies it. Nothing you have said falsifies the hypothesis. Falsify does not mean that you show the theory could conceivably be wrong. It means that you can do some experiment that shows that it cannot be thermite.

The distinction betwenn CAN NOT and MAY NOT is not an idle one, it is one that goes right to the heart of the scientific method.

EVERY theory or experiment raises more question than it does answers, no scientific theory ever proves anything beyond doubt.

Your repeated demonstration of inability to grasp this crucial fact is the only thing that is sophomoric here. Logical-positivism has always been a sophomoric approach to science.

www.youtube.com...

(watch specifically the section at 4:00)

"...it did impress the younger people..."

later:

"...nearly all of it was false..."

You have still failed to grasp the argument.

I am not claiming that Ryan's thermite isn't thermite. What I am saying is that he changed the stoichiometry by using a binder that also reacted with the aluminum in a thermite reaction. By using a mix of iron oxide and aluminum and then having an additional reactant, the thermite residua contained large amounts of unreacted iron oxide, much like the red chips after the DSC. What is desired is that the casual reader makes a connection that isn't there. Thermite doesn't leave large amounts of unreacted iron oxide unless there is excess iron oxide. By using Viton as a binder, there was effectively a large excess of iron oxide. This is the plan to try and convince folks like you that Jones' red chips were thermite and blunt any criticism based on unreacted iron oxide. Red paint, after burning off the binder, would also leave large amounts of unreacted iron oxide.

Originally posted by turbofan
As I recall, you had it all wrong thinking Jones claimed 'thermite' when in fact he did not (proven by quoting
the paragraph in the conclusion).

All you do is run your mouth on here, but you're too afraid to confront Jones when I asked you to debate him.
You even declined knowing there was money on the table.

Come on PT, you're so smart you could be the ATS and 9./11 Hero! You against Jones and you would be
the only one to take him down.

What are you waiting for?! I'll set it up, what do you say?

We'll do it right here on ATS if you wish? I'm sure there are more than a handful of people that would love
to follow the exchange.

I only explain the shortcomings of Jones' experiments to help folks like you, Turbo. I have no desire to be any sort of hero but will gladly discuss the technical details of Jones' paper with anyone on this forum. I doubt that you will get Jones, himself, to debate as he has nothing to gain and everything to lose. His best play is to stand pat and let others carry the water for him. I expect that anyone who shows up as "Jones" will not be Jones but a proxy.
I objected to the concept of debate for money. That is not my concept of ATS. As I remember, I chose not to debate Jones because of the debate forum rules and not because he is Jones.

reply to post by pteridine

Thermite doesn't leave large amounts of unreacted iron oxide unless there is excess iron oxide.

This is completely made a completely made up factoid.

Utter [if I said what it is I would be banned from this forum] with no connection to reality.

There is no such thing as an explosive that doesn't leave any unreacted residue. There are MANY examples in the literature of high and low explosive compounds not reacting completely and why that should be so:

www2.fbi.gov...

NIcon made a list of sources for gunpowder: www.abovetopsecret.com...

And even (and this should have been obvious) a HIGHLY energetic explosion will not use up all the reactants that are in the bomb:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

You have shown NO support for your idea that thermite would leave no residue, none whatsoever. The only thing I hope, for your sake, is that at least you realize that this is nothing but trolling. Please tell me that YOU realize that this is just a made-up idea with no connection to reality.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by pteridine

 

Thermite doesn't leave large amounts of unreacted iron oxide unless there is excess iron oxide.

This is completely made a completely made up factoid.

You have shown NO support for your idea that thermite would leave no residue, none whatsoever. The only thing I hope, for your sake, is that at least you realize that this is nothing but trolling. Please tell me that YOU realize that this is just a made-up idea with no connection to reality.

Do you claim that thermite will leave large amounts of unreacted iron oxide? Did I state somewhere that "thermite would leave no residue?"
There is still time to sign up for Chem 101 and Remedial Reading before the fall term so you can keep up during your next summer vacation.

reply to post by pteridine

He would get the same result if he added excess iron oxide so his residue after combustion would be nice and red, just like Jones'.

Could you explain what exactly you mean by an "excess of iron oxide"?

reply to post by NIcon


He means that if there is too much of one reagent the other there will be some of that substance left after the reaction.

Yes, that is ONE source of unreacted material after the reaction has taken place. But it is not the only source except in your imagination.

Please do read the FBI study I cited.

reply to post by Darkwing01


Thanks Darkwing, but I'm really interested to hear from Pteridine his exact interpretation. As we have discussed his "highly engineered/lowly engineered" argument in the past and he's never offered any proof whatsoever for his side. I showed sources about unreacted material specifically about thermite but still nothing on his side. I also showed sources that even if it were a perfect mix of thermite why it still may not all react. But still no sources from him. I'm surprised he's still using this dumb argument, but this "excess of iron oxide" argument is a new twist, so I figured I ought to ask his exact meaning, first.

I don't get this. He has the WTC dust and chips, but instead of experimenting on those, he decides to create a material with a very different composition than those chips as if it has any meaning. Why doesn't he get those chips tested in a commercial lab? I can understand why Jones won't do that. But what is stopping him.

reply to post by NIcon


By having a second reactant in the Viton, he changes the stoichiometry of the reaction without mentioning that the Viton reacts with the Aluminum. As we do not know the weight of Viton he used or what iron chloride was used, we do not know if the equation was balanced. My problem is with this bit of misdirection and his innuendo show, implying that thermite was the reason that the fires could not be extinguished and showing all the red residue from the thermite reaction, leading the gullible to believe that this was somehow linked to the paint chips.

As PLB mentioned, he has the real stuff. Where is the IR? Where is the XRD? Both he and Jones are holding out and not sending these samples to analytical chemists. If they had what they claim, they would welcome a complete analysis by a legitimate lab to prove their claims. That they have not speaks volumes.

reply to post by pteridine


I'm not concerned with your Viton argument as I partly agree with you on that point. I'm not sure the purpose of this video beyond what he says, so I prefer to stay truly disinterested and not try to guess his motivation for it, nor am I concerned with enlightening the gullible.

What I was concerned about is your mischaracterization in the following statement that a "highly engineered" thermite would not contain iron oxide after it burned :

"The thermite was claimed to be 'highly engineered," yet iron oxide was found in the residue, unreacted. Either the nano-thermite was "lowly engineered" or it was not thermite."

reply to post by NIcon


The amount of iron oxide relative to several iron-rich microspheres in Jones post combustion DSC sample is problematic. Having unreacted iron oxide is to be expected; having disproportionate amounts means that the reaction was not as claimed.

reply to post by pteridine

Please expand upon this "disproportionate amount." What constitutes for you a "disproportionate" amount and why? What amount of iron oxide was found alongside the iron-rich spheres? And how does this "disproportionate" amount show that the claimed reaction is wrong?

Edited to add the last question

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by turbofan

 

I saw this too and linked it in another thread.

Even though it is readily apparent that this stuff is not reacting with atmospheric oxygen he should really do one in a vacuum or something just to shut our friends the debunkers up once and for all.

Having said that I have no doubt that they will conjure up another excuse.

Its about believe. You might as well try to shut up religious people with science.

reply to post by pteridine


There is another HUGE problem with your claim Pteredine, and it has to do with your observation that imperfect ratios will leave residue.

How sure are you, and on what basis do you conclude, that a highly engineered substance must necessarily have a perfect ratio to begin with?

It is easily conceivable that a highly engineered substance will have excess FexOx if that makes the substance work better.

Neither you nor I, nor Ryan, has access to the original material or process. So how do YOU know that that isn't the case there as well. After all, Ryan is using a recipe from the scientific literature that apparently (although even this hasn't been established yet if you think about it) HAS extra iron.

How many tests have you done/studies have you read, that indicate that excess iron is not desirable in this reaction for some reason?