Additonal Experiments with Nano Therm. vs. WTC Dust

Originally posted by pteridine

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.

Ahhh, forget all of that.

If I get Jones to come here will you engage in a debate, or will you make excuses and run?

You seem to be jumping all over these thermite threads like you know something, so let's do this! I'll invite
him on your go ahead.

As for proxy, no need to worry about that. I receive personal e-mails from Jones and will ensure he is the
real thing.

Waiting eagerly for your reply.

reply to post by turbofan


Sure. I recommend a thread limited to the Bentham paper to begin with as that is the basis of what we have been discussing.

reply to post by pteridine


I'm impressed that you accepted the debate. Now we'll see if Jones, or a suitable rep. from that paper will
have the time to join us here.

So what shall I tell them with respect to your position? From what I gather, your two biggest arguements are:

- too much energy release from what you believe is a classic thermite mixture

- the experiment should have been tested in an inert atmosphere to exclude energy from combustable elements

If these two points are the case(s), then I must ask again:

- do you understand that Jones is not claiming thermite, but rather an energetic thermitic material which may
have a higher energy release than the classic thermite mix?

- do you understand that an inert environment is not needed due to the fact that iron oxide was reduced and aluminum was oxidized by a thermitic reaction?

This aluminothermic reaction was proven by the quick spike shown in the DSC (faster release when compared to a known
sample of nanothermite ) which indicates that combustion did not produce the quick transistion as combustion
would take a longer period of time.

Combustion;Self-Propagating High-Temperature Reaction;Thermite;Iron Oxide;Aluminothermic Reduction
Abstract
The self-sustained thermite reaction between iron oxide (Fe2O3) and aluminum is a classical source of energy. In this work the radial combustion propagation on thin circular samples of stoichiometric and over aluminized Fe2O3/Al thermite mixtures is studied. The radial geometry allows an easy detection of sample heterogeneities and the observation of the combustion behavior in their vicinity. The influence of factors like reactant mixtures stoichiometry, samples green density and system geometry on the rate of propagation of the combustion front is analyzed. The radial combustion front profiles are registered by digital video-crono-photography. Combustion thermograms are obtained for two sample radii. Theoretical calculations, based on the impurity levels reported by the reactants manufacturers and on the thermite reaction stoichiometry, were used to define the stoichiometric mixture with unitary equivalence ratio (E. R.). However, it was found from the experimental results that the excess of aluminum only starts for E. R. values between 1.12 and 1.27. This was explained by the further oxidation of aluminum during storage and/or by the reaction incompleteness.

Please confirm, or revise so that I can forward your points to Jones for review.

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by pteridine

 

- do you understand that Jones is not claiming thermite, but rather an energetic thermitic material which may
have a higher energy release than the classic thermite mix?

- do you understand that an inert environment is not needed due to the fact that iron oxide was reduced and aluminum was oxidized by a thermitic reaction?

This aluminothermic reaction was proven by the quick spike shown in the DSC (faster release when compared to a known
sample of nanothermite ) which indicates that combustion did not produce the quick transistion as combustion
would take a longer period of time.

Please confirm, or revise so that I can forward your points to Jones for review.

I understand what Jones is claiming. The inert atmosphere only matters when discriminating between combustion and other reactions in the DSC. Eliminating air eliminates the uncertainty of the source of the exotherm. Because of this uncertainty, "thermitic material" cannot be claimed. The shape of the exotherm curve is an extrinsic property based on instrumental conditions. Claims based on peak shape are always questionable and running the DSC in a 55mL/min stream of air would certainly affect the peak shape during a combustion.
He may imagine a higher energy per unit mass but any combination of thermite and the high explosives he listed would produce less energy than two of the chips he tested. The EDAX analysis doesn't show nitrogen or fluorine so there is no Viton or HMX hidden in the red chips. Combustion is definitely occurring and would mask any other reaction.
I have other less technical points also. A paint-thin layer of any material would not affect the structure of the building and would dissipate the energy rather than concentrate it in key joints. Ten to 100 tons of unreacted material imply that it didn't work very well and that there must have been much more that did work but with little visual evidence. Thermite demolitions cannot be timed for effect so the only mechanism for demolition would be to destroy a key point and let gravity do the rest. That means that what was seen was the effects of gravity after the initial start high in the building. As soon as this is realized, one can then ask how a thermite initiation and a non-thermite initiation can be discriminated.
There are also many questions regarding analytical protocols but I suspect that the answer is that they used the instruments that were available to them. An XRD would go a long way to disproving that the Al occurred as an aluminosilicate, which is what the elemental maps indicated. One of the analyses was bereft of reason, the comparison of conductivities, and the use of MEK vice CH2Cl2 or DMSO/DMF to dissolve cured paint was just ignorance.
It is my opinion that they will not discuss their paper on ATS just as they have not yet reported the results of the DSC under inert atmosphere, something that Jones said that they should do.

You do realize Jones setup the DSC machine to replicate the environment of Tillotson's nanothermite experiment
and therefore could monitor the results/performance of the chips against a known benchmark, yes?

Anyway, I'll forward the request and let you all know the response.

Originally posted by turbofan
You do realize Jones setup the DSC machine to replicate the environment of Tillotson's nanothermite experiment
and therefore could monitor the results/performance of the chips against a known benchmark, yes?

Anyway, I'll forward the request and let you all know the response.

Yes I realize that. That was a rookie error that should have been caught but Jones chem team missed it...and a lot of other stuff. Tillotson knew what he had and was trying to measure output. Jones didn't know what he had and had to determine what it was.

reply to post by pteridine

Jones didn't know what he had and had to determine what it was.

That's just silly, you can't distinguish what material it is from the DSC output anyway. The DSC trace is not one of the identifying factors, it is a descriptive factor.

Its like if I had decided that something is a banana and then tested to see what color it is to see if it is ripe or not. If I find it is yellow you will come back and say it is yellow you would come back to me and say it isn't a banana because custard is also yellow?

No! It is is a banana, it is not custard, this has already been established by other means, we are only checking color to indicate ripeness!

Read the conclusion again: Jones DOES NOT identify it as thermite on the basis of the DSC trace, he identifies the energy output by it. Now the energy output may well be wrong, but a green banana is still a banana.
____________________________________________________________________________________________

The only rookie error here is being made by you, because your logic is atrocious.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by pteridine

 

Jones didn't know what he had and had to determine what it was.

That's just silly, you can't distinguish what material it is from the DSC output anyway. The DSC trace is not one of the identifying factors, it is a descriptive factor.

Its like if I had decided that something is a banana and then tested to see what color it is to see if it is ripe or not. If I find it is yellow you will come back and say it is yellow you would come back to me and say it isn't a banana because custard is also yellow?

No! It is is a banana, it is not custard, this has already been established by other means, we are only checking color to indicate ripeness!

Read the conclusion again: Jones DOES NOT identify it as thermite on the basis of the DSC trace, he identifies the energy output by it. Now the energy output may well be wrong, but a green banana is still a banana.
____________________________________________________________________________________________

The only rookie error here is being made by you, because your logic is atrocious.

In this case, two of the chips produced far more energy than any combination of thermite and the explosives shown in the chart. Therefore combustion must have been the result of some or all of the energy released.
The energy can be as the result of combustion or reaction. The way to discriminate between combustion and a reaction that is not combustion is to run the DSC under an inert atmosphere. The thermite reaction does not need air. Combustion does.
I hope that this was logical enough for you.

reply to post by pteridine

In this case, two of the chips produced far more energy than any combination of thermite and the explosives shown in the chart. Therefore combustion must have been the result of some or all of the energy released.

If there was a thermitic reaction AND combustion it is not logical to conclude that there was not a thermitic reaction.

Basic logic conjunction elimination is young paduan.

The residue after the reaction proves that there must have been a thermitic reaction, since the same cannot be produced by combustion in an open atmosphere. The fact that there may or may not have been combustion is interesting but irrelevant to the question of whether there was a thermitic reaction after it has been established that there must have been a thermitic reaction.

Really, it is just elementary logic.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
The residue after the reaction proves that there must have been a thermitic reaction, since the same cannot be produced by combustion in an open atmosphere. The fact that there may or may not have been combustion is interesting but irrelevant to the question of whether there was a thermitic reaction after it has been established that there must have been a thermitic reaction.

And when someone tried to reproduced this he observed:

Some chips already carry light gray deposits with spherical metal particles they can expel when heated.

These chips dont react even when heated up to 900°C: remain red, burn most of their carbon but other elements remain in the same proportion. Photos, spectra and analyses

Followed by photos similar to Jones "reacted thermite" photos. And this was done by a truther who believes (or believed) that thermite was used.


But then again, you do not believe that reproduction of experiments is of any relevance in science.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by pteridine

 

In this case, two of the chips produced far more energy than any combination of thermite and the explosives shown in the chart. Therefore combustion must have been the result of some or all of the energy released.

If there was a thermitic reaction AND combustion it is not logical to conclude that there was not a thermitic reaction.

Basic logic conjunction elimination is young paduan.

The residue after the reaction proves that there must have been a thermitic reaction, since the same cannot be produced by combustion in an open atmosphere. The fact that there may or may not have been combustion is interesting but irrelevant to the question of whether there was a thermitic reaction after it has been established that there must have been a thermitic reaction.

Really, it is just elementary logic.

What is concluded is that a thermitic reaction cannot be claimed to be the source of the exotherm. If it is a combination of reactions it must be deconvoluted to determine the relative amount of combustion, which we are certain occurred, to any other reaction, which we are not sure occurred. The source of the "iron-rich spheres" is also questionable. [See PLB's post above]

Really, it is just elementary logic.

reply to post by pteridine

What is concluded is that a thermitic reaction cannot be claimed to be the source of the exotherm.

It isn't.

The reaction of the chip is claimed to be the source of the exotherm.

The reaction of the chip has been separately determined to be at least partially involve a thermitic reaction.

If PLB is right and that single experiment falsifies the claim of thermite that THAT would falsify the claim of thermite, but there is no logical to use the exotherm to do so unless you can show the exotherm EXCLUDES thermite, not that is as the ONLY source of the exotherm.

Now the only thing is whether there are other lines of evidence to indicate a thermitic reaction is taking place (which there is) and whether that ONE experiment is sufficient in and of itself to overturn the other experimental results which suggest this is thermite.

In my opinion it is not. In your opinion it may be.

So you ARE justified in saying "in my opinion the results of the single study is enough to overturn the other evidence, so I believe it is not thermite". You are NOT justified in saying "this is not thermite", and you are completely not justified to claim it is not thermite on the basis of the exotherm either alone or in conjunction with anything else.

Simple logic actually involves, you know, logic.

The source of the "iron-rich spheres" is also questionable.

That is your only relevant point.

We know these spheres are formed by thermitic reaction, this is what the video posted here demonstrates.

Against this we have your unsubstantiated claims of fly-ash and contamination. But both these are just that: Unsubstantiated.

It is a glorious piece of thumb-sucking.

There is a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong-standing request for you to support these claims with physical evidence of ANY sort which you have consistently dodged.

So on the one side I have a plausible mechanism with a known result which is verifiably of the type we are looking at, on the other side we have "well, uh, I suppose it could be something else". Well forgive me not being blown away by your reasoning.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
but there is no logical to use the exotherm to do so unless you can show the exotherm EXCLUDES thermite

Nobody is claiming that the DSC results is proof there was no thermite reaction. You are making that up.

ONE experiment is sufficient in and of itself to overturn the other experimental results which suggest this is thermite

What happened to the idea that a single experiment can falsify a hypothesis? So now you require several independent experiments to falsify a single very dependent experiment, and until then you will believe the single experiment that supports the hypothesis. You are science in reverse. You just believe it because you want it to be true.

Against this we have your unsubstantiated claims of fly-ash and contamination. But both these are just that: Unsubstantiated.

Even if fly-ash and contamination is unsubstantiated, the claim it comes from a thermite reaction is also that: unsubstantiated. The only reason you do accept that explanation is because you want it to be true.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by pteridine

 

What is concluded is that a thermitic reaction cannot be claimed to be the source of the exotherm.

It isn't.

The reaction of the chip is claimed to be the source of the exotherm.

The reaction of the chip has been separately determined to be at least partially involve a thermitic reaction.

If PLB is right and that single experiment falsifies the claim of thermite that THAT would falsify the claim of thermite, but there is no logical to use the exotherm to do so unless you can show the exotherm EXCLUDES thermite, not that is as the ONLY source of the exotherm.

Now the only thing is whether there are other lines of evidence to indicate a thermitic reaction is taking place (which there is) and whether that ONE experiment is sufficient in and of itself to overturn the other experimental results which suggest this is thermite.

In my opinion it is not. In your opinion it may be.

So you ARE justified in saying "in my opinion the results of the single study is enough to overturn the other evidence, so I believe it is not thermite". You are NOT justified in saying "this is not thermite", and you are completely not justified to claim it is not thermite on the basis of the exotherm either alone or in conjunction with anything else.

Simple logic actually involves, you know, logic.

Where has the "reaction of the chip been separately determined to be at least partially involve [sic] a thermitic reaction?"
Determination of a thermitic reaction from an unknown substance is a multistep process. Given the limitations of Jones' instrumentation, the experiments should follow a logical path. One must first eliminate combustion, which Jones has failed to do, so no claim of thermite can be made at this point. The exotherm data say combustion is certainly occurring but we are not certain of any other reaction. One key experiment is to remove combustion air and look for reaction. If there is no reaction, there is no thermite. If there is reaction, it might be thermitic in nature. One then has to design experiments to determine what the reaction is. Careful analyses can narrow the field of possibilities.
If it does turn out to be a thermitic reaction in part, one still cannot claim that the buildings were demolished by thermite, as one would have to show how such paint-on thermite would affect the building structure and if it even could be ignited while in contact with the steel.
We also have the additional estimate, made by Jones, that there are 10-100 tons of the unreacted red chips in the dust. Think about that. Ten to 100 tons of red chips that didn't react found in the dust as a paint-thin film after collapse of a structure that was covered in red primer paint. Henryco was really annoyed when his red chips failed to react and thought that his samples had been sabotaged.
There is a long way to go between what Jones wrote and "the WTC collapse was CD." You are letting your personal desire for a conspiracy cloud your reasoning. Remember that "Simple logic actually involves, you know, logic."

So we're supposed to compare chips that have "shiny gray areas before heating!" with chips that don't have these "shiny gray areas" before heating?

Why does this French scientist all ready see "spherical metal particles" before heating and they are readily apparent in all his photographs, while the red/gray chips only show them after heating?

Why could this guy "not fracturate or select a clean area" so we could actually get a spectra of a fresh, uncontaminated red layer, rather than showing only spectra with all the surface contamination?

Why could this guy "not fracturate" his chips to see if there were microspheres in the red layer rather than just "microspheres from the surface"? Shouldn't this guy fracture his chips to see if these microspheres are actually in the red layer?

reply to post by NIcon


I'd say write a similar list of critique to Jones and ask him to do additional experiments to eliminate any other explanation. Or just take his result on faith and never question them, your choice.

reply to post by -PLB-

Are you really dropping this French scientist's results so easily from your argument? You don't care to get into specifics?

These were serious questions about his work, because if he did do his tests on the same thing Harrit did his tests on, there is a problem. Just because this French scientist says he has red chips, doesn't mean he has the same thing as Harrit. Especially since he only points out differences, i.e. they have no gray layer, they have microspheres all ready attached, etc. In my world, pointing out differences does not establish a correspondence of identity. Maybe it does in your world.

And just to let you know, I don't believe the Harrit report. I honestly would like to see more work done to figure these chips out. Unlike you I'm not biased, and would rather not speculate without evidence. So, sorry PBL, "I suspect the spheres were already in the samples" (from here) won't convince me. Neither will dumb arguments like "It should have all burned" or "It was published in a Vanity Journal" or "Jones studied Christ in America, he's whacked out."

So my only critique so far is there hasn't been any evidence any new work is being done for awhile. So I am sort of losing patience with them. Until Mark Basile(?) was presented in another thread, which I find interesting, but you conveniently like to ignore, e.g. "No Thanks" (from here).

So if you would seriously like to talk about this French scientist's experiments great. But it seems to me you're just interested in playing disingenuous, biased internet forum games. I hope you have fun.

Originally posted by NIcon
Are you really dropping this French scientist's results so easily from your argument? You don't care to get into specifics?

These were serious questions about his work, because if he did do his tests on the same thing Harrit did his tests on, there is a problem. Just because this French scientist says he has red chips, doesn't mean he has the same thing as Harrit. Especially since he only points out differences, i.e. they have no gray layer, they have microspheres all ready attached, etc. In my world, pointing out differences does not establish a of identity. Maybe it does in your world.

I see this more as a problem for J/H than for the French scientist (well, not sure what his qualifications are):

-Not even one chip of the same kind in the 7g of dust from our four samples (instead of dozens expected according to the authors of the publi).
-Instead, dozens of chips showing the same red aspect on both faces, aspect and chemical composition difficult to distinguish from the one found in the red layer of the red/gray chips.

First problem, there are hardly any chips in the dust similar to the ones reported by Jones. Second problem, the other chips have a similar chemical composition as Jones chips. But they didn't show any thermite reaction. Conclusion, chemical composition says nothing about the thermitic properties.

And just to let you know, I don't believe the Harrit report. I honestly would like to see more work done to figure these chips out. Unlike you I'm not biased, and would rather not speculate without evidence. So, sorry PBL, "I suspect the spheres were already in the samples" (from here) won't convince me. Neither will dumb arguments like "It should have all burned" or "It was published in a Vanity Journal" or "Jones studied Christ in America, he's whacked out."

I agree I am biased, but I think anyone is to a certain degree (we are humans after all). I am biased because I think Jones is an incompetent nut job. That puts me in a position where I do not take his claims seriously. But I have good reason to think he is an incompetent nut job. He claim he broke the law of conservation of energy by being totally incompetent with measuring a voltage and a current (and I know this because I have a master degree in electrical engineering, and am fully aware of the pitfalls that come with measuring a current and a voltage). Note that this is another one of Jones projects.

But for not taking Jones work on faith.

So my only critique so far is there hasn't been any evidence any new work is being done for awhile. So I am sort of losing patience with them. Until Mark Basile(?) was presented in another thread, which I find interesting, but you conveniently like to ignore, e.g. "No Thanks" (from here).

So if you would seriously like to talk about this French scientist's experiments great. But it seems to me you're just interested in playing disingenuous, biased internet forum games. I hope you have fun.

To be honest, I don't care that much about the French guy's work. In my opinion it is up to Jones to do the right experiments. And when he comes with convincing work, only then it is up to others to confirm it.

reply to post by -PLB-

Thanks for being honest. So it seems to me you are just here to push your biased opinion around. So you and I really have nothing to discuss.

reply to post by NIcon


I think it is just dishonest if you claim that you are not biased, that is basically what I am saying. What we must try to do is not let a bias have to upper hand in forming our opinion. The bias I have towards Jones makes me very skeptical about his claims, but I don't just discard anything he says without a reason. I do not see why that kind of bias would be a major issue in discussing his work. I am just more skeptical than the average truther and require more convincing evidence.