Additonal Experiments with Nano Therm. vs. WTC Dust

reply to post by pteridine


#1:

He's not claiming "thermite"

#2:

He's not claiming energetic materials based solely on a DSC trace. There are several other supporting
experiments in the paper.

#3:

The sharp and narrow portion of the trace is what you need to be concerned about.

#4:
THere is ample evidence of a thermitic reaction
a) iron rich spheres
b) sharp and extreme energy release
c) red-ox (elemental iron, oxidized AL.)
d) high mag. images / back-scatter
e) spectrum of elements that are near exact to the compared known conventional thermite (post ignition)

Originally posted by Darkwing01
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?

Apparently, you don't read and can't seem to follow a discussion. Once again, I was responding to a post by Turbofan. The fact that you didn't read the exchange does not mean that it is a straw-man argument.
"All the evidence that this is thermite" is sparse to say the least. I have explained this repeatedly but since you either don't like or can't understand those explanations, you have resorted to calling me a liar. Amusingly, this is a common practice among those who are unable to respond in a coherent fashion and often a sign of desperation.
You don't need to keep score as it will only depress you, further. You may phone a friend if you have one.

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by pteridine

 

#1:

He's not claiming "thermite"

#2:

He's not claiming energetic materials based solely on a DSC trace. There are several other supporting
experiments in the paper.

#3:

The sharp and narrow portion of the trace is what you need to be concerned about.

#4:
THere is ample evidence of a thermitic reaction
a) iron rich spheres
b) sharp and extreme energy release
c) red-ox (elemental iron, oxidized AL.)
d) high mag. images / back-scatter
e) spectrum of elements that are near exact to the compared known conventional thermite (post ignition)

Have the Jones boys decided to visit ATS or are they are still thinking about it? I predict that they won't show as they have nothing to gain and everything to lose.

#1. The basic reaction is that of thermite. That is what he is claiming, even though he claims nano structured material in an organic matrix, it is still thermite.
#2. They are poorly done, also.
#3. So now you get to decide what part of the trace is important and what part should be ignored? Is that what the "truthers" promote; ignoring things that they don't like? Do you think that this is an example of good science?
#4 Look at figures 10c and 10e and tell me what they mean.

reply to post by pteridine

I have explained this repeatedly but since you either don't like or can't understand those explanations, you have resorted to calling me a liar.

Your explanations to that effect have no basis in reality.

You refuse to do experiments or show data that supports your beliefs, and yet you insist, in the face of real experimental and documentary falsification, to continue to expound them without even attempting to support them.

What would you call this behaviour?

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by pteridine

 

I have explained this repeatedly but since you either don't like or can't understand those explanations, you have resorted to calling me a liar.

Your explanations to that effect have no basis in reality.

You refuse to do experiments or show data that supports your beliefs, and yet you insist, in the face of real experimental and documentary falsification, to continue to expound them without even attempting to support them.

What would you call this behaviour?

If you don't understand the science, just say so.

It is not possible to analyze materials when they are unavailable. Jones seems to have the only supply and will not send them to a reputable lab for analysis. I agree that Jones is guilty of incompetence and bias, but I do not believe that he falsified data.

reply to post by pteridine

Jones seems to have the only supply and will not send them to a reputable lab for analysis.

No he doesn't.

Why do you think Jones is asking for a new, legally constituted investigation?

Do you really believe that ALL the evidence from 9/11 was scrapped, and if so does that raise no red flags for you?

Why the double standard, why are you opposing a proper and thorough investigation of official evidence then? We all know you will make up new ad hoc slanders no matter who Jones sends samples to, just sitting here I can think of several for you to use but I wouldn't want to stifle your creativity.

I frankly don't see the point of sending it to more people if you cannot even agree that ASSUMING THAT JONES' EXPERIMENTS ARE LEGIT, his conclusion would be valid and undeniable.

If you cannot admit that then what you need is not more experiments but a course in logic.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by pteridine

 

Jones seems to have the only supply and will not send them to a reputable lab for analysis.

No he doesn't.

Why do you think Jones is asking for a new, legally constituted investigation?

Do you really believe that ALL the evidence from 9/11 was scrapped, and if so does that raise no red flags for you?

Why the double standard, why are you opposing a proper and thorough investigation of official evidence then? We all know you will make up new ad hoc slanders no matter who Jones sends samples to, just sitting here I can think of several for you to use but I wouldn't want to stifle your creativity.

I frankly don't see the point of sending it to more people if you cannot even agree that ASSUMING THAT JONES' EXPERIMENTS ARE LEGIT, his conclusion would be valid and undeniable.

If you cannot admit that then what you need is not more experiments but a course in logic.

"We all know" that I would slander whomever Jones sends the samples to? What group do you speak for?

You, of course, know nothing of the sort. Jones won't send the samples to any legitimate analytical lab because he can't predetermine the results. Only cronies will get the samples. Jones wants to instigate a new investigation because he thinks he is important and wants to bask in the limelight.

To start a new investigation funded by the Federal government one must show cause and not just rant on blog sites. Jones' paper is so flawed it couldn't survive a peer review at a legitimate primary journal, which is why he had to have it published on Bentham. If he really believes he has something other than red paint, he should submit a sample to a known testing lab for analysis. These results could then be used as cause for a new investigation. Based on his Bentham publication, Jones' conclusions are not valid and are questionable.

What you need is to take a course in analytical chemistry before you misapply sophomore logic, once again.

Have the Jones boys decided to visit ATS or are they are still thinking about it? I predict that they won't show as they have nothing to gain and everything to lose.

Legge responded and he's not interested in debating a no-name that apparently doesn't understand the
paper. If you care to give your identity, I'm sure it would be more of an incentive for these busy professionals.
Nobody else has responded thus far.

#1. The basic reaction is that of thermite. That is what he is claiming, even though he claims nano structured material in an organic matrix, it is still thermite.

No, he is NOT claiming thermite. This is the prime reason you are not able to debate the paper because
you THINK the output should be a certain level of energy and nothing more. Jones/Harrit DO NOT claim
thermite, it's nowhere in the paper or conclusion. That is your biggest error.

It is a thermitic, energetic material.

#3. So now you get to decide what part of the trace is important and what part should be ignored? Is that what the "truthers" promote; ignoring things that they don't like? Do you think that this is an example of good science?

Are you kidding? I said the area of concern is the exotherm. you know, about the 400+ degree area?
This is the point that the material exhibited a reaction and the tell-tale characteristics of the reaction in
the slope of the trace, the duration of the reaction, the peak, and the temperature range.

What do you find so interesting outside of the peak range? Do tell!

As for the figures, the post ignition readouts show similar elements and similar ratios of elements between the
test sample and known thermite.

reply to post by pteridine

"We all know" that I would slander whomever Jones sends the samples to? What group do you speak for?

People with half a brain who can read, your motives and methods and jaw-droppingly transparent.

Your rhetorical technique is both good and original.

Unfortunately though the good bits are not original, and the original bits are not good.

Originally posted by turbofan

Have the Jones boys decided to visit ATS or are they are still thinking about it? I predict that they won't show as they have nothing to gain and everything to lose.

Legge responded and he's not interested in debating a no-name that apparently doesn't understand the
paper. If you care to give your identity, I'm sure it would be more of an incentive for these busy professionals.
Nobody else has responded thus far.

#1. The basic reaction is that of thermite. That is what he is claiming, even though he claims nano structured material in an organic matrix, it is still thermite.

No, he is NOT claiming thermite. This is the prime reason you are not able to debate the paper because
you THINK the output should be a certain level of energy and nothing more. Jones/Harrit DO NOT claim
thermite, it's nowhere in the paper or conclusion. That is your biggest error.

It is a thermitic, energetic material.

#3. So now you get to decide what part of the trace is important and what part should be ignored? Is that what the "truthers" promote; ignoring things that they don't like? Do you think that this is an example of good science?

Are you kidding? I said the area of concern is the exotherm. you know, about the 400+ degree area?
This is the point that the material exhibited a reaction and the tell-tale characteristics of the reaction in
the slope of the trace, the duration of the reaction, the peak, and the temperature range.

What do you find so interesting outside of the peak range? Do tell!

As for the figures, the post ignition readouts show similar elements and similar ratios of elements between the
test sample and known thermite.

I expected as much. They are not interested in discussion because they have nothing to gain. Pretending to be too busy with a crowded lecture schedule to respond to a "no-name" is a good ploy and will get them off the hook. If I come forward as a "name", they will think of something else. It is human nature to avoid confrontation and to fear the unknown. They have seen some plausible criticisms on these boards but don't know if they have seen them all. If they cannot respond to my arguments, they risk losing true believers and this is a chance that they will not take.

#1 I understand what Jones is claiming. Do you understand that there is no magic and without combustion, there is no way for the energy output to be where it is for the two most energetic chips? This means that NO energetic binder could provide the exotherm. The exotherm MUST have a combustion term and it is that combustion that calls his conclusion into question. Hence, the failure to run the DSC under nitrogen keeps Jones from claiming the possiblity of thermite/thermitic reaction, which, no matter how anyone twists and turns, is the basis of his claim.

#3 There are several exotherms shown in the DSC trace. You like the one that is dramatically steep because you believe that this is indicative of thermitic reaction. Proving such a claim is the difficult part. Note the actual super thermite trace. Note how it is different from the Jones trace in Fig 29. There seems to be an endotherm in the real trace or perhaps the instrument is unstable and shows some baseline drift. There is really nothing telling about the DSC but the implication is that many tons of the super material [more super than the Tillotson sample] were available and were painted on the structure at some point in the past. That they also didn't react is curious.

#4 If you look carefully at the figures 10c and 10e, you will note a marked similarity between them. See how the patterns can be overlaid? This suggests that there is little to no elemental Al and that Al and Si are bound as aluminosilicates. These are commonly clays and are used as fillers in paint. If this is the state of the Al, then there is no thermitic reaction possible. An XRD would be helpful.

How did the Jones crew find elemental Al? With the SEM. Could they have made an error? SEM stages [the place where the sample goes] are commonly made of aluminum and shine through is always a possibility. To look for Al, one must use a carbon stage in a separate experiment.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by pteridine

 

"We all know" that I would slander whomever Jones sends the samples to? What group do you speak for?

People with half a brain who can read, your motives and methods and jaw-droppingly transparent.

Your rhetorical technique is both good and original.

Unfortunately though the good bits are not original, and the original bits are not good.

So you claim to represent people with half a brain who can read. Sharing their characteristic traits makes you a good representative. Do you happen to have a list available?

reply to post by turbofan


Turbofan,

Sorry about this, but I can't figure out how to contact you any other way. I am being referred by a Mr. Tume&dmZ.. This is wicked important.

Please contact me at [email protected]

Thank you

reply to post by pteridine

So you claim to represent people with half a brain who can read. Sharing their characteristic traits makes you a good representative. Do you happen to have a list available?

Oh hardiharharr.

Group theory fail, again.

You do realize that the class of people with a half a brain includes as a lesser included subset people with a full brain, a hyper-functional brain, two brains or an oversize megabrain? All these people have half a brain.

If you have two apples, do you or do you not also have one apple?

Thanks for illustrating once again that your objections stem from a basic lack of understanding of fundamental concepts in logic.

reply to post by pteridine


Don't kid yourself PT. You're not as keen on this material as YOU think you are.

I'm sure either of these professionals will engage once you have an identity and some credit. They have
confronted Ryan Makcey, Bazant, NIST and a host of others.

Unfortunately for you, they have read this post and feel that you are well out of your league and not worthy of
their time. I strongly suggest that if you want to make an impact that you identity yourself and credit your
experience, otherwise you're just another anonymous keyboard commando.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by pteridine

 

So you claim to represent people with half a brain who can read. Sharing their characteristic traits makes you a good representative. Do you happen to have a list available?

Oh hardiharharr.

Group theory fail, again.

You do realize that the class of people with a half a brain includes as a lesser included subset people with a full brain, a hyper-functional brain, two brains or an oversize megabrain? All these people have half a brain.

If you have two apples, do you or do you not also have one apple?

Thanks for illustrating once again that your objections stem from a basic lack of understanding of fundamental concepts in logic.

Of course I realize that but your arrogant response deserved a little humor. Do you have anything of substance to say about the topic or do you just plan to play "Logic Czar" based on your sophomore logic course? Thanks for illustrating once again that your responses are based on a lack of understanding of basic concepts in science.

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by pteridine

 

Don't kid yourself PT. You're not as keen on this material as YOU think you are.

I'm sure either of these professionals will engage once you have an identity and some credit. They have
confronted Ryan Makcey, Bazant, NIST and a host of others.

Unfortunately for you, they have read this post and feel that you are well out of your league and not worthy of
their time. I strongly suggest that if you want to make an impact that you identity yourself and credit your
experience, otherwise you're just another anonymous keyboard commando.

Don't kid yourself, Turbo. They know that they can't respond to the criticisms and must pretend to be above it all. Unfortunately for them I am not "Ryan Mackey, Bazant, NIST" or a "host of others." If my criticisms were so easily dismissed, they would show up, win the argument and further cement their claims.
The Larry, Moe, and Curly analytical team is an embarrassment to themselves and scientsts everywhere.

reply to post by pteridine


pulllleeezzze man

You think they would pass up the chance to hit up NIST, Bazant and anyone else with credit and weight to waste
their time messing with some kid on the internet?

As if they had time to play with every anonymous joker on every web forum.

Have fun thinking that, and don't let your head hit that ego buster on the way out!

See that kids, you too can pretend to be more important than NIST and cry when real scientists don't want to
write you on internet forums!

I hope I've used enough emoticons to highlight the extreme nonesense in PT's logic!

reply to post by turbofan

Most humorous. If these bozos want an actual peer review of their paper, and a nice frameable rejection letter, have them submit their paper to the Journal of Materials Research www.mrs.org... Their discovery of a new binder that defies the laws of thermodynamics and their laughable misinterpretations of their own data will make for amusing reading by the reviewers. I certainly enjoyed it.

reply to post by pteridine

Do you have anything of substance to say about the topic or do you just plan to play "Logic Czar" based on your sophomore logic course?

I am not playing "Logic Czar", but kindergarten logic errors are deleterious to any attempt to do science.

There is no point in doing experiments if you are unable to evaluate them properly because you have failed to develop your faculty for basic reasoning.

The basic underlying concept in science IS logic, and your grasp of it sucks.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by pteridine

 

Do you have anything of substance to say about the topic or do you just plan to play "Logic Czar" based on your sophomore logic course?

I am not playing "Logic Czar", but kindergarten logic errors are deleterious to any attempt to do science.

There is no point in doing experiments if you are unable to evaluate them properly because you have failed to develop your faculty for basic reasoning.

The basic underlying concept in science IS logic, and your grasp of it sucks.

You are playing logic czar, and being quite open about it, hence your post above. Your lack of any scientific knowledge and your use of "fail" in a common fad form, leads me to conclude you are still in your teens and can be forgiven for not knowing what you don't know. Along those lines, you said something like "group theory fail" which I also find amusing as "Group Theory" is a common graduate level chemistry course which you would likely fail but it is probably not the group theory you have come to pretend to master.
It might be difficult for you to evaluate experiments using only a superficial knowledge of formal logic if you have failed to develop your faculty for basic science. In this case, one has to understand what is happening, chemically, to even know if the statements are valid.
Would you now like to comment on the logic of the thermodynamics of the red chips in the DSC experiment or use logic to explain why the chips self extinguished? Maybe a logical explanation of what the red chips would accomplish if any of them actually ignited would be a good start for you. Logic alone should be enough for you if it is, as you say, the "basic underlying concept in science."