Additonal Experiments with Nano Therm. vs. WTC Dust

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by pteridine

 

One "iron-rich-sphere" is hardly diagnostic of thermite.

How else do you think it got onto that chip?

More important, provide proof of your theory.

What "onto" are you referring to? An easy proof would be to rerun the DSC under Ar after a little better sample prep. If there is no reaction, there is no thermite present. If there is a reaction, it might be thermite.
Jones hasn't done it even after admitting his error and saying that he would write another paper two years ago. Maybe he did rerun the DSC and decided not to publish results for some reason or another.

I see you are avoiding uncomfortable questions regarding how a paint-on thermite would work and why so much of it was unreacted. This should be an easy task for one skilled in logic.

A conventional quantitative analysis routine was used to estimate the elemental contents. In the case of this iron-rich spheroid, the iron content exceeds the oxygen content by approximately a factor of two, so substantial elemental iron must be present. This result was repeated in other iron-rich spheroids in the post-DSC sample as well as in spots in the residue which did not form into spheres. Spheroids were observed with Fe:O ratios up to approximately 4:1. Other iron-rich spheres were found in the post-DSC residue which contained iron along with aluminum and oxygen (see Discussion section).

From the Discussion section mentioned above:

In the product collected after DSC ignition, we found spheres which were not initially present. Many of these spheres were iron rich and elemental iron was found in the post-ignition debris.

It's easy to believe this paper is bunk when one doesn't read the paper or consider the underlined parts in the quotes above to be "ONE."

I read the paper. We see the EDAX of one sphere and the claim that there are others that give similar results. We see photos of the unreacted red chips with globules attached to them. Anything shiny is called "metallic" without any analysis. Looking at figure 10, we see aluminosilicates [clay] in the elemental map. Where is the elemental aluminum? Was a carbon stage used when the aluminum metal was discovered or was it a standard aluminum SEM stage? When the exotherms are compared wth thermite, we see much more energy output than is possible for thermite and know combustion is occurring. We see unreacted deadly material that somehow went out after it ignited. The super deadly stuff won't even stay lit. No one has explained how a thin layer of thermite will do anything to a building structure even if it can be shown to be thermite. No one can explain what ten to 100 tons of unreacted deadly material are doing in the dust. When it is suggested that this is the red paint that covered the building, demands for proof of paint are made. What about proof of thermite? A simple XRD would show the mineral content and any aluminum that might be present. None was done.

I agree that "it's easy to believe this paper is bunk."
As you seem to be interested, why don't you take on the task of explaining how such a thin layer could have an effect on a steel building?

That's another interesting stance.

If we modify it slightly, we can say we only see one set of models for the twin towers. NIST claims they ran their models with lesser damage and less severe fires and they claimed they didn't collapse, yet we don't see them. NIST claims they had to modify their software to make the models collapse, but they don't reveal what the specific changes were. (Plus numerous other instances which I won't go into here)

So perhaps full disclosure of ALL experimental data should be required before accepting any argument.

Also, a person who thoroughly read the paper would notice that they show XEDS from two spheres.

Also a person who read the paper would realize that answering the question of how a thin layer of this stuff would affect the towers is unnecessary at this point, as the paper concludes:

We cannot determine at this time, however, whether the thinness of the chips resulted from the application method or the manner of reaction.

Originally posted by NIcon
That's another interesting stance.

Also, a person who thoroughly read the paper would notice that they show XEDS from two spheres.

Also a person who read the paper would realize that answering the question of how a thin layer of this stuff would affect the towers is unnecessary at this point, as the paper concludes:

We cannot determine at this time, however, whether the thinness of the chips resulted from the application method or the manner of reaction.

TWO spheres. Wow. It must be thermite even if the experiment is fatally flawed.

The conclusion of the paper is Jones saying that he has no clue how this stuff would do anything even if it was thermite, but that he's happy to stir the pot by publishing a paper that started with the thermite conclusion in mind. When shown that it would barely warm the steel if it was thermite, he immediately suggested that it was material from electric matches used in demolitions. What demolitions? With 10 to 100 tons of unburnt matches, how many tons of unexploded demolitions might be in the rubble? No one saw it because the entire cleanup crew was part of the big plot.
Certainly, you consider it unnecessary to know that this stuff, if really thermite, would do absolutely nothing to damage the building. That is the elephant in the room that all the true believers don't want to notice and hand wave away when confronted with it. Of course, the fact that it appears to be the red primer paint that covered the steel and that there are many tons of it in the dust is also overlooked. Red paint is far too mundane and if the experiments are appropriately manipulated, the gullible will buy into thermite.

If a person had actually read the paper they would realize that their suggestion the material may be from electric matches did not come after the critics pointed out "it would barely warm the steel."

If a person actually read the paper that person would have realized that suggestion was all ready in the paper as follows:

“Super-thermite electric matches” have been developed at Los Alamos National Laboratory for which “applications include triggering explosives for ... demolition” [30]. It is indeed possible that such matches, which are designed to be ignited by a simple electric pulse, could contain material similar to the red material we have found in the WTC dust.

If a person actually read the above they would realize the suggestion of the possiblity they were from "electric matches" was formed before critiques of it's "warming" properties.

A person can see all of this if a person just chooses to read the paper, rather than just relying on their distrust and preconceived notions.

Another interesting question is, if the red chips are not the paint, then... where did all the paint go

Originally posted by NIcon
If a person had actually read the paper they would realize that their suggestion the material may be from electric matches did not come after the critics pointed out "it would barely warm the steel."

If a person actually read the paper that person would have realized that suggestion was all ready in the paper as follows:

“Super-thermite electric matches” have been developed at Los Alamos National Laboratory for which “applications include triggering explosives for ... demolition” [30]. It is indeed possible that such matches, which are designed to be ignited by a simple electric pulse, could contain material similar to the red material we have found in the WTC dust.

If a person actually read the above they would realize the suggestion of the possiblity they were from "electric matches" was formed before critiques of it's "warming" properties.

A person can see all of this if a person just chooses to read the paper, rather than just relying on their distrust and preconceived notions.

The paper is built on preconceived notions.

"It is indeed possible that such matches, which are designed to be ignited by a simple electric pulse, could contain material similar to the red material we have found in the WTC dust." It is also possible that they could not.
How is the electric match material related to the WTC? Is the implication that demolitions were present fuzed with electric match material and that 10 to 100 tons of electric match material was left over after the demolition? How much electric match material was actually used and was it used in matches? Does any true believer ever consider any of this or just dismiss it with the erroneous statement that "Jones found thermite" and ignore the rest?

A person who has, after two years, finally read the quote "It is indeed possible that such matches, which are designed to be ignited by a simple electric pulse, could contain material similar to the red material we have found in the WTC dust." would be correct stating that it also may not be.

When a person puts forward a thesis with evidence that the chips are from "electric matches," then it would be worthwhile to examine such evidence and discuss it. Until that time it's pure speculation the chips are from "electric matches."

reply to post by NIcon


The reference to the electric matches came after Jones was made aware of the lack of effect of paint-on thermite. That it was written into this paper is because of criticism Jones received earlier.

You still have not explained how the many tons of unburned electric match material could have had anything to do with the collapse of the WTC.

reply to post by pteridine

I'm not aware of any criticisms of the paint-on theory before the paper appeared, so please post your source for this. Perhaps you are correct.

However, I believe I am aware of when the thought of these chips being detonators first crossed Jones' mind. So if you post your source we can compare them to see which is more likely why he included it in his paper; if it was because of his critics or if it was because it entered his mind before.

As to your second point, if you would have read my post just seven posts up, you may understand my position. EDITED TO ADD: Also refer to the post right before yours.

And if you would have paid attention to what I was writing, rather than avoiding my questions, when we discussed this on April 4th, 2010, or if you paid attention in the discussion we were both involved in on August 18, 2010 you would know my exact position. But perhaps you passed over the later one as it wasn't direct to you specifically, so I'll quote here again what I wrote way back then:

"The question of how these were used, if in fact they were used, are very good ones. I've said it before I think this paper is still a long way from proving demolition. If they were in the building, were they a factor in bringing down the towers? To me, that would be a whole other proof needed to be worked on. I really am trying to stay as skeptical with Jones as I am with NIST, FEMA or any other investigative body."

reply to post by NIcon


Thanks for clarifying your position.

reply to post by pteridine


This is one reason why the Viton thermite experiment is enlightening. Here we see similar particles in a substance that was not painted on.

If Jones was wrong about painting on thermite it would strengthen his position that thermite was used. I wouldn't be surprised if the method demonstrated by Cole was the actual one used, but there is no reason to suppose that someone couldn't have thought painting it on would help for some reason and it didn't, in addition to some other application.

It could have been painted on whether or not painting it on had any real impact on the demolition, but there is no real reason to suppose that it was ever painted on in the first place. If you distrust Jones in everything else, why suddenly take his word on what he would almost certainly readily admit was little more than idle musing?

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by pteridine

 

This is one reason why the Viton thermite experiment is enlightening. Here we see similar particles in a substance that was not painted on.

If Jones was wrong about painting on thermite it would strengthen his position that thermite was used. I wouldn't be surprised if the method demonstrated by Cole was the actual one used, but there is no reason to suppose that someone couldn't have thought painting it on would help for some reason and it didn't, in addition to some other application.

It could have been painted on whether or not painting it on had any real impact on the demolition, but there is no real reason to suppose that it was ever painted on in the first place. If you distrust Jones in everything else, why suddenly take his word on what he would almost certainly readily admit was little more than idle musing.

What are you trying to say? Do you have a theory on how paint-on thermite might be used? It does nothing much as a thin layer. Your statement "...there is no reason to suppose that someone couldn't have thought painting it on would help for some reason and it didn't..." is pretty weak. Do you believe that a complex scheme to bring down the towers, expertly done by stealthy demolition experts and completely covered up, has idiots involved that can't calculate energy/area for paint-on thermite?

The clever way to do it is to let some disgruntled jihadists crash airplanes into the towers. Nothing to hide, minimal conspirators to kill off, and towers ruined, for whatever NWO reason you'd like to claim.

Consider the elemental maps in the paper, figs. 10c and 10e. Note how Al and Si overlay. Aluminosilicate clay is a common filler in paint. Do you think Jones samples just might be the red paint that covered all the structural steel?

reply to post by pteridine


I'm waiting for a reply from the experts, but until then:

Pteridine, please explain what caused the high peak, and narrow exotherm in the DSC which was more explosive
and more energetic than nano-thermite.

You continue to claim that "paint" caused this through combustion, however I'm baffled by how anyone could
believe that combusiton can produce a more narrow trace than a known explosive mixture under the same conditions.

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by pteridine

 

I'm waiting for a reply from the experts, but until then:

Pteridine, please explain what caused the high peak, and narrow exotherm in the DSC which was more explosive
and more energetic than nano-thermite.

You continue to claim that "paint" caused this through combustion, however I'm baffled by how anyone could
believe that combusiton can produce a more narrow trace than a known explosive mixture under the same conditions.

The trace of a DSC is not an intrinsic property of the analyte. That means that the shape and amplitude can be changed by experimental conditions, such as heat rate, sweep gas, total pressure, container material, and so on. Note also that the Jones exotherm is multi-modal, showing an initial rise at about 220C, a peak about 280C, small peaks at ~400 and 410C and the large peak at around 430C. One can speculate as to the causes of such but the peaks are generally not definitive in themselves when dealing with an unknown. Some transitions are well known such as endothermic loss of sorbed water starting at 100C, but one cannot claim proof of thermite based on the comparison of DSC traces.

reply to post by pteridine

The trace of a DSC is not an intrinsic property of the analyte. That means that the shape and amplitude can be changed by experimental conditions, such as heat rate, sweep gas, total pressure, container material, and so on. Note also that the Jones exotherm is multi-modal, showing an initial rise at about 220C, a peak about 280C, small peaks at ~400 and 410C and the large peak at around 430C. One can speculate as to the causes of such but the peaks are generally not definitive in themselves when dealing with an unknown. Some transitions are well known such as endothermic loss of sorbed water starting at 100C, but one cannot claim proof of thermite based on the comparison of DSC traces.

I love this post.

Let's read that again:

The trace of a DSC is not an intrinsic property of the analyte

And this bit:

One can speculate as to the causes of such but the peaks are generally not definitive in themselves when dealing with an unknown.

So where does your argument that this is NOT thermite because of the DSC traces fit in here?

Jones didn't claim to have identified this as thermite on the basis of the DSC trace, and yet you continue to claim that he did and then using the fact that such a claim, if it had been made, would have been inconclusive. Then you turn it around to argue that the fact that THAT claim would have been inconclusive that the claim that it was thermite was inconclusive.

Jones never argued that it was thermite because of the DSC trace to my knowledge, so the the fact that the trace cannot find conclusively that something is or is not thermite is completely irrelevant to your position.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by pteridine

 

I love this post.

Let's read that again:

The trace of a DSC is not an intrinsic property of the analyte

And this bit:

One can speculate as to the causes of such but the peaks are generally not definitive in themselves when dealing with an unknown.

So where does your argument that this is NOT thermite because of the DSC traces fit in here?

I was responding to Turbofan's question. See posts immediately above that you did not bother to read before posting.
I am happy that you loved my post. I never argued that "this is NOT thermite because of the DSC traces." The argument is that the DSC traces don't prove thermite.
The exotherm calculations based on the DSC data show that combustion is occurring. If combustion is definitely occurring, the exotherm can't be solely ascribed to thermite. In fact, we have no evidence that thermite reactions are occurring at all. Rather than speculate about what and what not can happen in a DSC, the experiment that should be done is the DSC under inert gas. It would also be useful to run an XRD to show that the form of the Al is a metal and not an aluminosilicate clay, but the elemental maps in figure 10 say that it probably is clay.

reply to post by turbofan


Could you ask prof. S.Jones, whether J.Farrer will publish his TEM results?

reply to post by pteridine

I am happy that you loved my post. I never argued that "this is NOT thermite because of the DSC traces." The argument is that the DSC traces don't prove thermite.

When you argue against a position that no one took up it is called straw-manning.

No one argued that the DSC traces prove thermite to my knowledge.

So score one for you I suppose?

The exotherm calculations based on the DSC data show that combustion is occurring. If combustion is definitely occurring, the exotherm can't be solely ascribed to thermite.

Again.

And?

You want a point for that too?

In fact, we have no evidence that thermite reactions are occurring at all.

If you ignore all the evidence that this is thermite you are indeed correct.

I'm not sure how to score that. In your own personal little fantasy universe that would be an argument winner, in the real world a default loss because it is such a bald-faced lie.

Real world or your fantasy? Can I phone a friend?