Additonal Experiments with Nano Therm. vs. WTC Dust

reply to post by pteridine

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."

I'm sorry, weren't you one of the one that claimed that proclaimed that highly energetic materials never fail to react completely?

The basic concept of science is conforming your beliefs to the available experimental evidence and confining your arguments to logic.

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.

I also use turns of phrases I picked up from elderly Chinese ladies. Does that make me an elderly Chinese lady?

Again, your basic inability to understand logic betrays you.

I don't care if you did fifty undergrad courses in logic, math or chemistry if you have not internalized the principles successfully. Logic is about more than knowing which box to tick on a third year term paper.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by pteridine

 

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."

I'm sorry, weren't you one of the one that claimed that proclaimed that highly energetic materials never fail to react completely?

The basic concept of science is conforming your beliefs to the available experimental evidence and confining your arguments to logic.

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.

I also use turns of phrases I picked up from elderly Chinese ladies. Does that make me an elderly Chinese lady?

Again, your basic inability to understand logic betrays you.

I don't care if you did fifty undergrad courses in logic, math or chemistry if you have not internalized the principles successfully. Logic is about more than knowing which box to tick on a third year term paper.

You seem to be unable to address any of the technical discussion points. I understand your inability to do so. You also continue to have trouble reading and tend to misrepresent what is stated.
Blind application of your newly minted logic skills is what is causing you problems. The syllogisms that you know and love assume that the premises are valid. In many real-world cases, those premises are in question. They may be valid and they may not. As you can see, this would certainly complicate things. It does so in the Jones paper.

reply to post by pteridine

You seem to be unable to address any of the technical discussion points. I understand your inability to do so. You also continue to have trouble reading and tend to misrepresent what is stated. Blind application of your newly minted logic skills is what is causing you problems. The syllogisms that you know and love assume that the premises are valid. In many real-world cases, those premises are in question. They may be valid and they may not. As you can see, this would certainly complicate things. It does so in the Jones paper.

There are no technical matters to discuss, the only thing at issue is how you construct the argument.

If I were to grant you all your premises that are not outright falsified experimentally and grant you your conclusion that the DSC trace cannot prove thermite, and I don't have a problem with granting these, the conclusion that Jones did not conclusively find thermite does not follow.

This is not a technical question of chemistry, this is a question of your ultimate conclusion not following from your premises. It a question of logic only.

If you think I have missed something in in your argument you can break it down into a formal derivation or even used Venn diagrams if it pleases you. But I will need you to support your premises either empirically or in the literature and actually drop premises that are not supported or outright falsified. Okay?

reply to post by Darkwing01


It is a technical question of chemistry. The syllogisms cannot be written if the premises are in question. If the premises are in question, formal logic cannot be applied.

As an example, you said that they have shown thermite because of finding iron rich spheres and that consequently, my points about combustion, while valid, do not disprove that the thermite reaction was also occurring. My point was that the thermite reaction cannot be claimed as having occurred, based on the experimental data. A few such spheres do not prove thermite because such spheres are common in the environment from which the dust was collected and the method of separation, retaining those particles attracted to a magnet, preferentially selects for such spheres. No details were provided that shows how such microscopic particles were excluded from the samples before analysis so unless a large number of such spheres are found after reaction with concomitant loss of starting material, the origin of such spheres is in question. Note that the photos of the spheres you saw aren't necessarily 'iron rich' and they are still attached to unreacted material of the same morphology as the starting material, meaning that the material self-extinguished after it started burning. [Note the difference between that behavior and the behavior of the super-thermite in the OP video.] With the origin of the spheres in question, the thermodynamic evidence that combustion was definitely occurring is the only certainty and thermite cannot be claimed.

reply to post by pteridine

It is a technical question of chemistry. The syllogisms cannot be written if the premises are in question. If the premises are in question, formal logic cannot be applied.

Formal logic can always be applied, if the premises are in the conclusion it is a formal fallacy, that's all.

Can you show that the conclusion that this is thermite is found in the premises?

As an example, you said that they have shown thermite because of finding iron rich spheres and that consequently, my points about combustion, while valid, do not disprove that the thermite reaction was also occurring. My point was that the thermite reaction cannot be claimed as having occurred, based on the experimental data. A few such spheres do not prove thermite because such spheres are common in the environment from which the dust was collected and the method of separation, retaining those particles attracted to a magnet, preferentially selects for such spheres. No details were provided that shows how such microscopic particles were excluded from the samples before analysis so unless a large number of such spheres are found after reaction with concomitant loss of starting material, the origin of such spheres is in question.

That statement is experimentally unsupported. You have failed to show that such sphere exist in the environment. Even the idea of it being from fly was falsified by looking at actual particles in fly-ash and finding that the particles are not similar in isolation.

There is no reason to believe that there is any validity whatsoever to the idea that these spheres attached to chips exist in nature.

Note that the photos of the spheres you saw aren't necessarily 'iron rich' and they are still attached to unreacted material of the same morphology as the starting material, meaning that the material self-extinguished after it started burning.

Which I have shown to be a common feature of highly energetic materials.

If you have an argument here it is with the scientific literature, not with me or Jones for that matter. You can see Ryan did an experiment here with Viton thermite that produced similar partially reacted chips, so why do you still still claim that that is significant?

[Note the difference between that behavior and the behavior of the super-thermite in the OP video.]

What difference? The behaviour and end products are very similar, down to the spehere attached to partially reacted chips.

Please clarify your statement.

With the origin of the spheres in question, the thermodynamic evidence that combustion was definitely occurring is the only certainty and thermite cannot be claimed.

The first part of the sentence is trivially true, but you have failed to demonstrate the second. It certainly does not in any way follow from the first and you have no physical evidence to support your ideas.

Your entire argument is a non-sequitur in the bits that are not unsound.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by pteridine

 

With the origin of the spheres in question, the thermodynamic evidence that combustion was definitely occurring is the only certainty and thermite cannot be claimed.

The first part of the sentence is trivially true, but you have failed to demonstrate the second. It certainly does not in any way follow from the first and you have no physical evidence to support your ideas.

Your entire argument is a non-sequitur in the bits that are not unsound.

First part and second part are non specific. Lets see if I understand your position. You believe that the spheres are from thermite. You believe that this highly energetic material starts burning and then stops for no apparent reason, even when held in an oven above its ignition point. You don't believe that the thermodynamics show that combustion is definitely occurring and masking other reactions, which may or may not be thermite. You assume that a combustible binder in a stream of air cannot get hot enough to produce or release the spheres from the gray iron oxide layer. You assume that because the spheres look like other iron oxide containing spheres that they come from the same source. You look at the elemental map where the aluminum and silicon occur in the same regions and don't think that common aluminosilicate clays can account for it. You truly believe that a thin layer of paint will do more than warm the steel it is painted on. You like the idea of ten to 100 tons of unburned material in the dust because it shows that someone was serious about conspiracies. You find that magnetism is a fine way to separate the components of the dust and know that anything of import will be magnetic so that the remaining dust may be ignored. You know that the environment in a steel building contains many such iron-rich spheres from cutting and grinding during construction and have no problem with the fact that they could easily be incorporated into the paint-on thermite and released when combusted. You can accept that the red chips look amazingly like the red paint that covered the entire building structure but are convinced that they really part of a gigantic plot. You understand how thermite is used and ignited. You think that Jones and crew were disinterested scientists that just happened to discover this conspiracy and did not start with a conclusion. You believe that the lack of sample custody chain and collection protocol have no bearing on the experiment.

Did I get it all or did I miss something? Let me know and we will work on the formal logic together to see what comes of it. The chemistry part of the paper is certainly unpublishable in an archival journal, but logic may prevail and show what a fine piece of work it is. It may happen that after application of logic, and nothing else, indictments wll soon follow.

reply to post by pteridine

You believe that the spheres are from thermite.

Yes, there is evidence for this position and no evidence for the converse.

You believe that this highly energetic material starts burning and then stops for no apparent reason, even when held in an oven above its ignition point.

Yes.

When the volume to surface area ratio too small and the mix not consistent enough for that size of particle even highly energetic materials will fail too react, even if the average temperature is is above the ignition point where a large volume would react.

I believe that the literature is unequivocal on this matter and that you have failed to present any evidence to contradict the literature in this regard.

Simply asking a question is not evidence.

You don't believe that the thermodynamics show that combustion is definitely occurring and masking other reactions, which may or may not be thermite.

It may possibly mask it in terms of the DSC, although you have not presented any evidence that this is in fact the case.

But other evidence cannot be masked by this effect.

You assume that a combustible binder in a stream of air cannot get hot enough to produce or release the spheres from the gray iron oxide layer.

Yes, there is good reason to believe that this is in fact the case and you presented no evidence that it may not be the case other than asking the question.

You assume that because the spheres look like other iron oxide containing spheres that they come from the same source.

Yes.

They look like spheres found in a similar source and do not look like the sphere found in any other source.

In terms of Occam's razor one should not try to invent a "mystery" source when you have to make no new assumptions in order to assume that it comes from the source which is known and can experimentally reproduce this phenomenon in controlled environments.

You look at the elemental map where the aluminum and silicon occur in the same regions and don't think that common aluminosilicate clays can account for it.

It may, but I have seen no evidence that it would.

If you can show me evidence then I will consider it, otherwise the most reasonable assumption is that it would not.

You truly believe that a thin layer of paint will do more than warm the steel it is painted on.

No I don't, that's why I think Cole's method is far more likely and that the thermite "paint" idea is likely wrong, though it is understandable that it may be a plausible hypothesis to at least consider.

You like the idea of ten to 100 tons of unburned material in the dust because it shows that someone was serious about conspiracies.

I am not sure how much of this material there actually was or that Jones' extrapolation was correct.

If it was there in whatever quantity then it was there in that quantity, I don't care about conspiracies one way or another top be perfectly honest.

You find that magnetism is a fine way to separate the components of the dust and know that anything of import will be magnetic so that the remaining dust may be ignored.

If you suspected thermite then there is nothing wrong with using a method that will find thermite if it is present and not find thermite if it is not.

You know that the environment in a steel building contains many such iron-rich spheres from cutting and grinding during construction and have no problem with the fact that they could easily be incorporated into the paint-on thermite and released when combusted.

The sphere's were attached to the chips, so your idea is wrong.

It has not been demonstrated that the iron-rich sphere's from cutting or grinding is similar to these in any way shape or form and no plausible mechanism for the incorporation has been suggested, especially given the sphere's were actually attached.

It is an interesting suggestion, but entirely unsupported.

You can accept that the red chips look amazingly like the red paint that covered the entire building structure but are convinced that they really part of a gigantic plot.

Water looks amazingly like methanol. Would you on that basis drink a cup of methanol?

Steel looks a lot like lead, would you use lead teaspoons?

Bovril looks a amazingly similar to grease, would you use Bovril in your car or eat grease (okay wait, maybe don't answer that one...)

You understand how thermite is used and ignited.

Yes.

You think that Jones and crew were disinterested scientists that just happened to discover this conspiracy and did not start with a conclusion.

You should start with the most likely assumption.

The most likely assumption, in pure physical terms, is that the buildings did not come down from fire alone. Therefore it is proper to start the investigation assuming that there was something there, thermite is the best candidate matching the requirements.

It not only proper, but a positive requirement of the scientific method to look for accelerants and not try to justify the LEAST likely scenario, which is fire assisted collapse.

You believe that the lack of sample custody chain and collection protocol have no bearing on the experiment.

It has no bearing on the appropriateness of the drawing the conclusion from the given evidence, which is what is in question here.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

So let me get this straight.

You are saying that if a properly constituted government body were do experiments with the same results on material with a better sourcing you would accept the results?

So why talk about chemistry at all then?

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by pteridine

 

So let me get this straight.

You are saying that if a properly constituted government body were do experiments with the same results on material with a better sourcing you would accept the results?

So why talk about chemistry at all then?

Of course I would accept results of an unbiased analysis. Why talk chemistry? Because it is poor analytical technique and a strong desire to find evidence of demolition that has resulted in the biased Bentham paper. As to your take on the scientific method, "looking for accelerants" is not correct. That would bias the work and "accelerants" are likely not what you mean. Determining the cause of collapse is correct. One does not start to prove that the earth is round, one starts to determine the shape of the earth.
You said: "The most likely assumption, in pure physical terms, is that the buildings did not come down from fire alone. Therefore it is proper to start the investigation assuming that there was something there, thermite is the best candidate matching the requirements. It not only proper, but a positive requirement of the scientific method to look for accelerants and not try to justify the LEAST likely scenario, which is fire assisted collapse."
You show your bias by starting with the conclusion that there must have been a demolition because you do not understand how aircraft impact and fire could bring down the buildings. Amusingly, you even call that the least likely scenario, even less likely than some others that are far more unrealistic. Seeking evidence to justify your conclusion, you are limited to youtube videos and the Jones paper; not much of a choice. As it stands, the Jones paper seems to be the only game in town for the desperate and must be propped up at all costs. In fact, thermite could initiate the collapse by destruction of structural elements on the floors of impact. Because the effects cannot be timed, after initiation it all has to be gravity. Given that, how does one tell the difference between thermite and thermal structural failure as collapse initiation?
When I asked if you believed if a thin layer of such material would do anything more than warm the steel it was painted on you said “No I don't, that's why I think Cole's method is far more likely and that the thermite "paint" idea is likely wrong, though it is understandable that it may be a plausible hypothesis to at least consider.” The only evidence you claim is “thermite paint” and show no evidence for anything like Cole’s material. The paint you are arguing for will have no effect so there is, in fact, no evidence for demolition regardless of the outcome of additional experiments. How do you logically, or illogically, connect the do-nothing red chips with a demolition?

Now for other evidence. Reproducibility is important and someone did try to replicate Jones’ work. Consider the results of henryco at www.darksideofgravity.com/marseille_gb.pdf
“The nanothermitic hypothesis remained to be confirmed by the ignition crucial test : the chips must react at less than 500°C. We had to heat other identical chips (the previously analyzed chip could not be recovered for an ignition test) but... great surprise!:
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 publication).
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.
Some chips already carry light gray deposits with spherical metal particles they can expel when heated.
These chips don’t 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: www.darksideofgravity.com/redreds.pdf”

I think you mentioned Occam’s razor. How would you apply it to the red chips?

reply to post by pteridine

One does not start to prove that the earth is round, one starts to determine the shape of the earth.

I hope you just being ironic and that you actually do realize that this turn the whole scientific method on its head.

Science is about HYPOTHESIS TESTING.

Where do you think that hypothesis comes from? From looking at the data and determining what the most likely assumption is on the basis of that data. That gives you your HYPOTHESIS, not your conclusion.

The conclusion is reached by failing to falsify this hypothesis through experiment.

I hate to link Feynman again:


Man, if science was done the way you think we would still be in the dark ages. In fact, that was exactly why the dark ages were dark.

I think you mentioned Occam’s razor. How would you apply it to the red chips?

Occam's razor is composed of two parts:
1) Use the simplest explanation
2) that explains all the facts at hand.

Step 1: So if you look at the towers, the simplest explanation (pancaking or crush down models), fail to successfully explain the event in such a way that it can be experimentally reproduced.

Step 2: Therefore we need to make a further explanation that does explain the facts at hand.

Step3: Demolition CAN demonstrably account for all the physical facts observed.

Step 4: So in terms of Occam's razor the most reasonable starting hypothesis is that there was some assistance.

Step 5: Attempt to falsify the hypothesis that there was some energetic material by looking in the dust for various types of residues.

Step 6: Find a residue that appears out of place because of its structure or appearance.

Step 7: Do some testing, find the material has the components of thermite.

Step 8: Assume the hypothesis that the material is thermite and test the consequences of that assumption to try and falsify it. (If it is thermite there will be elemental iron residue, if it is thermite it will not react like paint to paint thinner, if it is thermite it will react vigorously).

Step 8A: Test the counter-hypothesis that this is not energetic because it fails to react completely. Counter-hypothesis is decisively falsified by scientific literature.

Step 9: Assume the contrary hypothesis, i.e. assume that it was paint. A) The hypothesis may be unfalsifiable because it is conceivable that someone could have made thermite paint B) Insofar as it is falsifiable it is falsified since the known paint on WTC does not have the same makeup.

Step 10: Same for the spheres: Either it is not falsifiable because it is from some unspecified source and all proposed sources have been falsified.

So, in terms of Occam's razor: Thermite is the simplest explanation since we have no need to invoke any mysterious violation of the second law of thermodynamics to produce them, we don't need to assume any mysterious paints, we have no need to imagine some source for the iron spheres for which there no real real evidence at present.

And thermite explains all the events observed from Jones tests to the actual collapses themselves completely without any need to invoke further physical processes or imagine any mysterious mechanisms.

It is only once you move your consideration outside the physical and into the socio-political sphere that thermite even remotely seems unlikely, but then we are having a different discussion.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by pteridine

 

One does not start to prove that the earth is round, one starts to determine the shape of the earth.

I hope you just being ironic and that you actually do realize that this turn the whole scientific method on its head.

Science is about HYPOTHESIS TESTING.

Where do you think that hypothesis comes from? From looking at the data and determining what the most likely assumption is on the basis of that data. That gives you your HYPOTHESIS, not your conclusion.

The conclusion is reached by failing to falsify this hypothesis through experiment.

Man, if science was done the way you think we would still be in the dark ages. In fact, that was exactly why the dark ages were dark.

I think you mentioned Occam’s razor. How would you apply it to the red chips?

Occam's razor is composed of two parts:
1) Use the simplest explanation
2) that explains all the facts at hand.

Step 1: So if you look at the towers, the simplest explanation (pancaking or crush down models), fail to successfully explain the event in such a way that it can be experimentally reproduced.

Step 2: Therefore we need to make a further explanation that does explain the facts at hand.

Step3: Demolition CAN demonstrably account for all the physical facts observed.

Step 4: So in terms of Occam's razor the most reasonable starting hypothesis is that there was some assistance.

Step 5: Attempt to falsify the hypothesis that there was some energetic material by looking in the dust for various types of residues.

Step 6: Find a residue that appears out of place because of its structure or appearance.

Step 7: Do some testing, find the material has the components of thermite.

Step 8: Assume the hypothesis that the material is thermite and test the consequences of that assumption to try and falsify it. (If it is thermite there will be elemental iron residue, if it is thermite it will not react like paint to paint thinner, if it is thermite it will react vigorously).

Step 8A: Test the counter-hypothesis that this is not energetic because it fails to react completely. Counter-hypothesis is decisively falsified by scientific literature.

Step 9: Assume the contrary hypothesis, i.e. assume that it was paint. A) The hypothesis may be unfalsifiable because it is conceivable that someone could have made thermite paint B) Insofar as it is falsifiable it is falsified since the known paint on WTC does not have the same makeup.

Step 10: Same for the spheres: Either it is not falsifiable because it is from some unspecified source and all proposed sources have been falsified.

So, in terms of Occam's razor: Thermite is the simplest explanation since we have no need to invoke any mysterious violation of the second law of thermodynamics to produce them, we don't need to assume any mysterious paints, we have no need to imagine some source for the iron spheres for which there no real real evidence at present.

And thermite explains all the events observed from Jones tests to the actual collapses themselves completely without any need to invoke further physical processes or imagine any mysterious mechanisms.

It is only once you move your consideration outside the physical and into the socio-political sphere that thermite even remotely seems unlikely, but then we are having a different discussion.

I see you ignored henryco completely. His evidence said that there was no thermite reaction even at 900 C and said that the gray material, on heating, ejected the spheres that you think were generated by thermite. This casts doubt on the claims of Jones' paper.

As to your points:
1. Experimental reproduction of the collapse is difficult.
4. There is no compelling reason to assume demolition. No explosives were seen during collapse. Why not search for socket wrenches or hacksaws. Quiet, efficient, untraceable and only the floors at impact need be sabotaged.
5. Why would one use magnetic separation to look for explosive residue? One would probably extract the dust with various solvents, concentrate those solutions and then use GC-MSD for such.
6. The idea that chips consisting of a red film on a gray oxide coat were out of place is a stretch.
7. This was not really shown. In fact, having components of thermite and reacting like thermite are not the same thing.
8. There is a difference between a paint thinner and a solvent that would dissolve cured paint, as Jones discovered. Use of a better solvent than MEK was called for but the team lacked the rudimentary knowledge to use one.
8A. "Failing to react completely" is hardly quantitative. This could mean 1% or 99% unreacted.
9. Nowhere have I found a comparison of cured paint from the WTC structure to this material.
10. See henryco's results.

Occam's razor says that damage by airplanes and fires caused the collapse until compelling evidence for another mechanism is found. You assumed that demolition occurred in step 1 and rationalized from there. Augustine would be proud of you.

Now that you have assumed that demolition occurred and that thermite best fits the bill because that is what Jones says he found, how do you connect bulk thermite to the red chips? There is no evidence for bulk thermite and the red chips would be ineffectual even if shown to be thermite. Are the unreacted red chips merely overspray of the bulk paint-on thermite? You said previously that you understood themite. Where would bulk thermite have been placed and used to bring the buildings down?

Thermite seems highly unlikely. High explosives, directed energy weapons, basement nukes and missiles are just more unlikely.

reply to post by pteridine

Occam's razor says that damage by airplanes and fires caused the collapse until compelling evidence for another mechanism is found. You assumed that demolition occurred in step 1 and rationalized from there. Augustine would be proud of you.

Maybe it helps you if we turn the requirements around:

Occam's razor tells you TO ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION THAT EXPLAINS ALL THE FACTS.

But because there may be several explanation that explain all the facts it tells you that among all the explanations that explain all the facts you select the one that asks you to accept the fewest new entities.

Airplanes and fire does not explain all the facts, so it fails at step one.

Everything you do after that is the attempted rationalization of inventing new and more and more outlandish entities ("thermal expansion", "glowing organic material in molten metal", "crush-down", "mysterious paints", "mysterious metal sphere which oddly can never actually be found")...

There is no need to invent any mysterious entity for the thermite hypothesis to work.

It explains everything and does not fail to explain anything. So one person did an experiment once that failed to reproduce. Big whoop, have you ever been to a high-school physics class? So every time a teacher mucks up a simple experiment the law of gravity needs to be overturned?

Even in the socio-political sphere all that is required is to accept that the U.S. committed an atrocity publicly and visibly, even committing atrocities on U.S. soil is hardly asking you to accept anything new. That isn't even such a huge leap.

Now that you have assumed that demolition occurred and that thermite best fits the bill because that is what

Do you not understand that you make an assumption either way?

The distinction in science is that you assume WHAT IS MORE LIKELY, i.e. you assume the simpler explanation that explains all the facts.

You don't start from what you would like to be true and then invent new entities to make that assumption satisfy all the questions.

If we don't assume that explosives were used we are assuming that no explosives were used. But the only reason we have to assume that is because Bush said so...

Jones says he found, how do you connect bulk thermite to the red chips? There is no evidence for bulk thermite and the red chips would be ineffectual even if shown to be thermite. Are the unreacted red chips merely overspray of the bulk paint-on thermite? You said previously that you understood themite. Where would bulk thermite have been placed and used to bring the buildings down?

Wow!

I have repeatedly said that I don't find the spray on method plausible but that some version of the Cole method is far more likely.

We can observe that the Viton thermite produces chips when used in bulk just like that observed in the dust.

Why do we need to speculate where the chips came from? The exact application is not really at issue here, the fact that there was thermite is enough.

reply to post by Darkwing01


“Airplanes and fire does not explain all the facts, so it fails at step one.”
Your assumption that airplanes and fire do not explain all the facts is what fails at step one. You have no evidence of any other cause for the collapse and no reason to say that the collapse was not airplanes and fire. This is a key fault in your illogic. “Glowing organic material…?” Where do you get this stuff?


“So one person did an experiment once that failed to reproduce. Big whoop, have you ever been to a high-school physics class?”
Do you see the foolishness of this statement? Jones is claiming the conspiracy of the modern age and does such a poor job of analysis that when someone tries to check his work they can’t. Jones paper and all his claims are in question. You casually write it off because you want to believe the demolition conspiracy. You are selectively basing your arguments on that which you want to believe and arbitrarily rejecting that which you don't like. This after all your pomposity and righteousness about logic and science.

“I have repeatedly said that I don't find the spray on method plausible but that some version of the Cole method is far more likely.”
Alas, there is no evidence for the “Cole method.” Thermate has elements that were not found in the chips. Cole’s experiment was a fun day at the pyromania lab and was pointless. Cole didn’t do anything but demonstrate a known method of cutting steel. It would have been just as incisive a demo to use a hacksaw but not nearly as much fun.

“We can observe that the Viton thermite produces chips when used in bulk just like that observed in the dust.”
We can't observe any such thing. Maybe this eluded you but the viton thermite 1]does not make chips like those found in the dust and 2]the chips in the dust are claimed to be the reactants, not the products. For logicians who eschew science, the chips in the dust are the before, not the after. There is no evidence for Viton in the chips.

“Why do we need to speculate where the chips came from? The exact application is not really at issue here, the fact that there was thermite is enough.”
The application is at issue. How were the red chips used? How do the red chips logically transform into some other thermite for which there is no evidence?
Further, thermite could only initiate the collapse. After initiation, the rest of the collapse had to be gravity. If the rest of the collapse was gravity, and your basis for assuming demolition is everything after initiation, then you have no case. Additionally, there is also no evidence for thermite initiation. Occam says it had to be planes and fire that brought the buildings down.

“You don't start from what you would like to be true and then invent new entities to make that assumption satisfy all the questions.”
Good advice but you seem to be ignoring it.

reply to post by pteridine

You have no evidence of any other cause for the collapse and no reason to say that the collapse was not airplanes and fire.

Except for the fact that there is no model of airplanes and fire causing the collapse which doesn't invoke mysterious entities.

Round and round it goes.

Enough.

You don't have evidence for your claims, you won't produce any and that which you have produced have failed even cursory examination. Without your unsupported claims the theory of airplanes + fires have no basis in reality.

Either you support your claims or drop your assumptions.

“We can observe that the Viton thermite produces chips when used in bulk just like that observed in the dust.” We can't observe any such thing. Maybe this eluded you but the viton thermite 1]does not make chips like those found in the dust and 2]the chips in the dust are claimed to be the reactants, not the products. For logicians who eschew science, the chips in the dust are the before, not the after. There is no evidence for Viton in the chips.

You are not an honest broker.

You willfully lie and have shown yourself more than happy to make up new lies to support an argument you cannot win and cannot bear to lose.

Eouugh.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by pteridine

 

You have no evidence of any other cause for the collapse and no reason to say that the collapse was not airplanes and fire.

Except for the fact that there is no model of airplanes and fire causing the collapse which doesn't invoke mysterious entities.

Round and round it goes.

Enough.

You don't have evidence for your claims, you won't produce any and that which you have produced have failed even cursory examination. Without your unsupported claims the theory of airplanes + fires have no basis in reality.

Either you support your claims or drop your assumptions.

“We can observe that the Viton thermite produces chips when used in bulk just like that observed in the dust.” We can't observe any such thing. Maybe this eluded you but the viton thermite 1]does not make chips like those found in the dust and 2]the chips in the dust are claimed to be the reactants, not the products. For logicians who eschew science, the chips in the dust are the before, not the after. There is no evidence for Viton in the chips.

You are not an honest broker.

You willfully lie and have shown yourself more than happy to make up new lies to support an argument you cannot win and cannot bear to lose.

Eouugh.

Fires and airplanes are the only theory with a basis in reality as there is no evidence for any other mechanism. The fact that you want a conspiracy is the only reason you won't accept it. It happened twice while the world watched and you say there is "no model." You say that thermite did the demolition but you admit that the paint-on variety won't do the job. You use the shaky paper of Jones to say thermite was present but that it must have been some other thermite, like the thermate that Cole demonstrated for which there is no evidence. You reject any evidence that goes counter to your desire for a conspiracy and accept the Jones paper as gospel. Can you explain how your vaunted logic is at work here?

You are unable to explain how thermite could have been used. I told you that thermite could only initiate the collapse and that once the collapse started, gravity did the rest. You cannot explain how thermite came to be at the impact floors, why hours were needed before the thermite was triggered, and how you can discriminate between thermite initiation and thermal weakening of the structure for initiation. Your conclusion that demolition took place is the start of all of your arguments. Logic at work again?

You completely misunderstand the science and have resorted to calling me a liar. This is telling in that I have noticed that when a "truther" finds themselves in a self-made corner and can't escape, the tactic is to immediately take umbrage and stalk off, pseudo-incensed, while calling "liar" as often as possible. You are predictable and transparent. You state I am not an "honest broker" after the paragraph on the viton thermite. What part of it is not correct? What part of it is "lies?" What part of your response is a fabrication to extract you from the argument? It may be just desperation or your lack of any technical acumen.

I must say that your acting ability is just as amateurish as all the others using this tactic but it will improve with practice. Given your weak argumentative skills, you'll probably get a lot of practice.

reply to post by pteridine

Fires and airplanes are the only theory with a basis in reality as there is no evidence for any other mechanism

That is completely untrue and you know that.
The fact is there is no science that supports your fires and airplanes theory.
There is science that supports demolition and nothing else and you know that.
www.ae911truth.org...

The fact that you want a conspiracy is the only reason you won't accept it

The fact is you want the OS lies to be your truth, how does that work for you?

reply to post by pteridine

I told you that thermite could only initiate the collapse and that once the collapse started, gravity did the rest.

"I told you" is the justification of the religious.

Scientifically minded people like myself tend to be more impressed by "I have devised a set of reproducible physical experiments that, using sound logic, falsifies the negation of my hypothesis, therefore (pending further evidence) the most reasonable assumption is that...".

But I don't expect you to understand the distinction. For you, reality is just that which you imagine to be true.

I have not dug myself a hole, because I confine myself to what the physical and experimental evidence will support.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by pteridine

 

I told you that thermite could only initiate the collapse and that once the collapse started, gravity did the rest.

"I told you" is the justification of the religious.

Scientifically minded people like myself tend to be more impressed by "I have devised a set of reproducible physical experiments that, using sound logic, falsifies the negation of my hypothesis, therefore (pending further evidence) the most reasonable assumption is that...".

But I don't expect you to understand the distinction. For you, reality is just that which you imagine to be true.

I have not dug myself a hole, because I confine myself to what the physical and experimental evidence will support.

This is a truly flaccid response. You seem desperate and unable to answer any of the points I made in www.abovetopsecret.com... See if your "scientific mind" can come up with anything to get you out of the hole you dug. You might still be able to wiggle out by reinterpreting your statements.

I did tell you about thermite because even though you said that you understood thermite, you obviously don't and someone has to educate you. The effects of thermite cannot be timed for demolition. We could start a collapse with thermite but after that it would all be gravity-driven. This is because we need very accurate timing of effect [cutting] to control the sequence of collapse for a controlled demolition. Because of the speed of reaction and time required for heat transfer, it would take thermite far too long to cut things in a quiet version of commercial demolitions. For those we have to use use cutter charges that act quickly. All the energy has to come out very quickly and drive a jet of molten metal, usually copper, through the target material. A lot of energy out over a short time means that you will hear a series of sharp cracks [and not deep booms, because the charges are relatively small] accompanied by bright flashes of light. None of this was seen or heard before or during the collapse. This means that if thermite was used, it was used to initiate the collapse and everything after that was due to gravity. Because thermite demolitions wouldn't have any effect on the collapse after initiation, basing a theory of thermite CD based on the collapse sequence is silly, at best.

The paragraph starting with "scientifically minded" is really amusing. I have written and peer reviewed scientific and engineering papers for many years and have never seen anything like the statement you wrote that you claimed would tend to impress you. Only a pompous blowhard would ever write anything like that and every editor and peer reviewer I know would make sure that it never saw print, if only to save a rookie scientist from embarrasing him- or herself. Maybe its a logician turn of phrase.

The last part must be due to your sense of irony. Do you speak of the evidence you arbitrarily selected or the imaginary evidence that somehow links Jones' purported red thermite to thermate like Cole made?
This must be Logic at its best.
It is difficult to refute logical arguments like these.

reply to post by pteridine

The effects of thermite cannot be timed for demolition.

On the basis on what evidence?

Have you done experiments to this effect?

What type of thermite did you use?

What was the ignition source in your experiment?

Did you attempt to ignite it more than once?

Did you use different ignition sources with with different types/grade/volumes of thermite and plot the ignition times?

Was the experiment recorded?

Is it replicable?

Do you have a list of materials you used and an analysis of the details of the reaction?

Can you provide additional external sources and at least attempt explain why thermite has such a natural limit which cannot be mitigated by chemical or structural means (i.e. using nano-particles)?

You make an interesting argument on why YOU THINK thermite cannot be used in demolition, but I don't see a link to the experiments you have conducted in this regard so I can't comment on the real world validity. The only experiment in this regard I know of is the Cole experiment, before you comment, please read the next section on your criticism of the Cole experiment....

Do you speak of the evidence you arbitrarily selected or the imaginary evidence that somehow links Jones' purported red thermite to thermate like Cole made?

What experiments did you do to test the hypothesis that nano-thermites react substantially differently to thermate in this specific regard?

Which brands, types did you test and what was the experimental protocol?

Did you simply do a lab test or an in situ experiment as Cole did?

Did you make a video, or do you have photographic records of your experiment?

Did you use the same types of devices that Cole demonstrated or did you try different ones?

If yes then why and what effect did it have on the outcome in relation to the action of thermate vs. thermite?

Please provide a literature list and discuss some points of view in this regard as they are presented in the standard literature.


Returning to your earlier claim of controlling ignition times, if you have not done an experiment I will have to reserve judgment on your ideas an refer to industry and scientific literature in this regard:
www.lanl.gov...

The industry demands simple, relatively inexpensive initiators that use economical and easy-to-use firing sets as energy sources to achieve precisely timed firework displays. Current electric match technologies can be improved significantly to decrease the inherent risk in using pyrotechnics while exceeding industry expectation...

...LANL Super-Thermite technology offers many improvements to existing pyrotechnologies and can be applied to a multitude of related products –anywhere
there is a need for sophisticated and accurate ignition control with lower risk of
misfire at lower cost.

As far as the scientific literature goes the effect of using nano-particles is to increase burn rates and make initiation easier. This has been confirmed over the years in my own experiments. Thermite is inherently stable, and it is quite straightforward to protect a charge from a plane impact in any event (think of an airline black box, which houses far more sensitive equipment).

Please provide EXPERIMENTAL DATA on why you believe these common sense, literature supported and experimentally verified data should be discarded because "you already told me".

reply to post by pteridine

The effects of thermite cannot be timed for demolition.

That is your opinion! Now can you prove your opinion true? I didn’t think so.

We could start a collapse with thermite but after that it would all be gravity-driven.

Scientist proved that more than thermite was used to bring down the WTC.

This is because we need very accurate timing of effect [cutting] to control the sequence of collapse for a controlled demolition.

Apparently you believe our military or demolitions companies are not capable of blowing up buildings.
You are not using common logic, the 911 News video’s proved demolition was used when everyone can clearly see heavy steel beams blasting over 500 feet in every direction. Scientist are not idiots, support beams being blasted over 500 feet do not fit the classic collapse theory.

Because of the speed of reaction and time required for heat transfer, it would take thermite far too long to cut things in a quiet version of commercial demolitions

Again, you are arguing that your opinions are the facts. The fact is “you” are not an expert in thermite or demolition, you do not know what our military uses to cut steel in bringing down buildings and bridges.

All the energy has to come out very quickly and drive a jet of molten metal, usually copper, through the target material.

And you don’t think other types of explosives were used beside thermite?

A lot of energy out over a short time means that you will hear a series of sharp cracks [and not deep booms, because the charges are relatively small] accompanied by bright flashes of light.

Credible people did hear and see all the above and went on public record with their accounts.

Eyewitness Accounts
Eyewitnesses Recalled Explosions, No Alarms or Sprinklers

911research.wtc7.net...

The FBI went out of their way to hide these accounts from public view because the eyewitness accounts do not support the government lie or the NIST story.
New York Times had to sue the Government of NYC under the FOIA to get them to release these records.

The Sept. 11 Records
A rich vein of city records from Sept. 11, including more than 12,000 pages of oral histories rendered in the voices of 503 firefighters, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians, were made public on Aug. 12. The New York Times has published all of them.

The oral histories of dispatch transmissions are transcribed verbatim. They have have not been edited to omit coarse language.

graphics8.nytimes.com...

None of this was seen or heard before or during the collapse.

That is completely untrue and you know that! You just threw your credibility out the window. You just demonstrated that you will engage in creating fallacies to win your argument in supporting the government lies.

The paragraph starting with "scientifically minded" is really amusing. I have written and peer reviewed scientific and engineering papers for many years and have never seen anything like the statement you wrote that you claimed would tend to impress you.

I do not believe you have peered reviewed anything considering the fact that you have demonstrated and have been caught making up fallacies to support the OS lies.
Your argument holds no water. I don’t know the going rate for paid trolls, but from my understanding they are not paid very well.

AMA: I was a paid Internet troll

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Perhaps you might want to consider another career, because you are not doing a good job defending the OS of the demise of the WTC and the use of Thermite found in the WTC dust samples.

reply to post by impressme


Just out of curiosity, have you ever seen thermite used in real life? I have, it is blinding. So where was all the blinding light from the initiation of tons of thermite?