It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by pteridine
Termites and hacksaws were not tested for, nor were Smurf droppings.
Originally posted by Kester
It doesn't appear to have been a quiet event. Multiple circuits detonating in very quick succession creates a roar to our ears rather than the series of bangs heard in many conventional demolitions.
The detonation sequence began both above and below the impact zone. The video evidence shows the upper parts of the buildings blowing away upwards but of course simultaneously falling into the rapidly growing dust cloud.
The light signature of explosives is visible in some demolitions and not visible in others depending on the placement of the explosives.
I freely admit to ignorance regarding the technical details of detonation, particularly sequential detonation.
I haven't mentioned the former BYU professor nor will I. It seems inappropriate that you should attempt to use him to make some point about my words.
I readily agree that incompetence amongst officials is rife and I believe this should be seen by the young as a strong motive to enter politics and help clear this mess up.
I do not "wish to search for plotters". I seek answers for the questions that presented themselves to me when I innocently began looking for more details on the WTC disaster.
Originally posted by pteridine
I was indicatng to you that thermite was not discovered in the dust
Originally posted by snowcrash911
Originally posted by pteridine
I was indicatng to you that thermite was not discovered in the dust
A material which, if ignited, undergoes an exothermic reaction producing previously molten spheres of mostly elemental iron, is thermitic. Your only option is to accuse Steven Jones et al. of fabricating their research data, which could be, but not that the data as presented does not support active thermitic material.
Read the above carefully before you respond.
Originally posted by pteridine
Henryco at Darksideofgravity tried to replicate Jones' results and couldn't.
The thermite claim is unsupported.
Originally posted by pteridine
If you look carefully, you will see that none of the debris moves upwards. It moves outward and down.
They want the material under 1/4 inch containing much of the missing human remains moved to a respectful place as they were told was going to happen, before it was suddenly bulldozed over the rest of the building remains. Again the words used give a false impression. Unrecovered human remains. Whats unrecovered about a pile of fine debris? It was recovered then disposed of like garbage. That's the issue that led to the creation of wtcfamiliesforproperburial.
So bring it, and be ready to defend it and also to have it "pulled" out from under you like this video of "explosiveless" demo from France:
Originally posted by pteridine
Jones, et al., misinterpreted their data to see what they wanted to see. Running the DSC in a stream of air was one of their biggest blunders.
Originally posted by pteridine
The energy output was greater than any combination of any of their explosives and thermite could produce, hence combustion was occurring and they could not discriminate between that and thermite.
Originally posted by pteridine
By failing to use the scientific method and assuming a conclusion before doing the experiment, they invalidated their results.
Originally posted by pteridine
Henryco was upset that he couldn't reproduce the results and concluded that his chip samples may have been sabotaged. How one can sabotage a paint sample is not known.
Originally posted by pteridine
The publication of the paper caused the Bentham editor to resign her position in protest so there was apparently
some irregularity in the peer review process, of whatever rigor Bentham requires.
Originally posted by pteridine
Jones has no standing in the scientific community
Originally posted by pteridine
and has squandered what little reputation he once had. He is a known publicity hound
Originally posted by pteridine
and is not to be trusted other than to promote his own agenda.
Originally posted by pteridine
There is no evidence of thermite in the WTC dust.
There is no evidence of thermite in the WTC dust.
Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by pteridine
There is no evidence of thermite in the WTC dust.
Thermite is composed of AL powder and Iron Oxide (rust). Mixed and ignited it burns at 5000 degrees melting thru just about anything in its path, leaving a slag like mass of grey/black metal pools and rivulets.
Originally posted by intrptr
Given the time the gasoline fires worked on the aluminum plane parts and any steel items on every office floor, they may have volatilized and mixed during the violence of the collapse, winding up in the basement where they appear to be rivulets of slag produced by thermite. Spectrographic analysis would show a mix of FE and AL.
Originally posted by intrptr
The temperatures needed to melt metal in the towers prior to collapse might be provided by the wind rushing in to the floors on fire with all the windows blown out (like a venturi in a carburetor say). That was like a blast furnace at altitude with steady winds that day. Would melt anything.
Or after collapse, the temperature in the "cocoon" of the basement under all that debris spiked and melted metal then too. See smoke from fires for days. Principle is simple enough. Get a Weber "Smokey Joe" Barbecue. Pop on the lid and temp increases inside the "bubble".
Originally posted by snowcrash911
Originally posted by pteridine
Jones, et al., misinterpreted their data to see what they wanted to see. Running the DSC in a stream of air was one of their biggest blunders.
False, they simply replicated the experiment by Tillotson et al. You have not read Tillotson's paper, you are simply parroting JREF. That is not needed. Which is why I asked you to carefully read my response.
Originally posted by snowcrash911
Now, I don't wish to get into the habit of defending Steven Jones, who in his spare time investigates all kinds of wacky things, but I don't wish to lie to attack him either. Repeat your lies, as many times as you wish, the only recourse you have is alleging he fabricated his data. That, I can understand. Lying to avoid having to cope with the implications of his data, I don't. I could get into a protracted argument with you, debunking each and every single nonsensical (mutually exclusive!) dodge vomited out by the debunker community over the years. I've forgotten more about nanothermite than you will ever learn. I could engage in yet another back-and-forth; but I don't care to. The nanothermite issue is not on my priority list. Carry on.
Originally posted by pteridine
I will respond to each of your points as I have time.
Originally posted by pteridine
Do not presume to tell me I have read and what I have not read. If you look carefully at JREF, you may find that I am the author on an early criticism of Jones' shoddy analytical chemistry.
Originally posted by pteridine
Thoughtless replication is not an excuse. Running the DSC in a stream of air was one of their biggest blunders.
Originally posted by pteridine
Tillotson analyzed a material he synthesized;
Originally posted by pteridine
Jones was doing a forensic analysis and didn't consider that organics in the material would burn and that it would be important to show reaction in the absence of air.
Originally posted by pteridine
Also note that the DSC traces of Tillotson are dissimilar to Jones DSC and only produce 1.5 kJ/g of the theoretical 3.9 kJ/g. Most likely this is due to surface oxidation of the aluminum. Surface oxidation has a more significant effect on nanoparticles than larger sized materials.
Originally posted by pteridine
Jones sees none of this effect because he is burning paint binder in an air stream.
Originally posted by snowcrash911
Originally posted by pteridine
The energy output was greater than any combination of any of their explosives and thermite could produce, hence combustion was occurring and they could not discriminate between that and thermite.
This is anti-scientific gibberish. If elemental iron is found in previously molten spheres not before, but after, a thermitic reaction has occurred, that is, oxygen molecules transferred from iron oxide to aluminum. The DSC plot dovetails with Tillotson. Yes, there is an organic component in the chips, but it isn't bound to any other elements. No, it's not paint.
Originally posted by snowcrash911
Originally posted by pteridine
Thoughtless replication is not an excuse. Running the DSC in a stream of air was one of their biggest blunders.
No it wasn't. Trotting this argument out as if it in any way "refutes" an active thermitic reaction is your biggest blunder, not theirs.
Originally posted by pteridine
Tillotson analyzed a material he synthesized;
So do you have the paper? You can prove you have it by posting it or linking to it.
Jones contacted Tillotson to ask him if he had conducted his tests in air. He did.
Originally posted by pteridine
Jones was doing a forensic analysis and didn't consider that organics in the material would burn and that it would be important to show reaction in the absence of air.
I didn't know the WTC existed in an airless vacuum on 9/11; that's news to me. I didn't know the presence of air explains a thermitic reaction, where metal oxide bondings are unbound, and transferred to another metal, in other words, the departure of oxygen from the oxidizer to the reducer in a reduction/oxidation reaction.
The samples were ignited in air, and so was the WTC. An experiment conducted in vacuum is not required to determine if a material is actively thermitic. One merely must the establish the newly found presence of thermite reaction byproduct, such as previously molten microspheres, composed of mostly elemental iron.
A material containing a reducer and an oxidizer metal, which, if ignited, forms previously molten microspheres, containing mostly elemental iron, is actively thermitic.
You cannot get out from under this basic fact. There is no non-thermitic explanation for a thermitic reaction. The only option you have is to allege experimental data fabrication, which is fine with me, unlike lying about the Active Thermitic Materials paper which some "debunkers" feel justified doing. The end (debunking) does not justify the means (lying).
Originally posted by pteridine
Jones runs the DSC in air rather than under argon so he can’t determine if any heat generated was from a reaction or combustion.
Originally posted by pteridine
In retrospect, he realized that he erred when he did this and adds weasel words on page 27 of his paper; "As this test was done in air it is possible that some of the enhancement of energy output may have come from air oxidation of the organic component." The phrase "air oxidation of the organic component" is Jones-Speak for combustion. This means that it could have burned to make the heat and there is no way to tell how much heat was made by combustion ["air oxidation of the organic component"] and how much was made by a reaction of some sort.
Originally posted by pteridine
The thermite reaction is more complex than most imagine. For the purposes of this discussion we will allow that it is simply the reduction of a metal oxide, in this case iron oxide, with elemental aluminum.
Originally posted by pteridine
The first thing we notice is the wide disparity of values for the "highly engineered" material.
Originally posted by pteridine
This should raise doubts as to sample collection and preparation and even if the materials are the same thing.
Originally posted by pteridine
Now we note that two of the chips, #3 and #4, have far more energy than if they were 100% thermite.
Originally posted by pteridine
They also have more energy than any of the high explosives or any combination of thermite and any high explosive.
Originally posted by pteridine
Arithmetically, if we have a 50:50 mix of thermite and HMX we should have an energy of about 4.7 kJ/g. How can this be?
Originally posted by pteridine
To explain this, we must understand what is being measured and how. The explosives and thermite have, internal to them, their own oxidants.
Originally posted by pteridine
We include their oxygen in the weight we measured. If we measure heat from a burning hydrocarbon, for example, we don't include the weight of the oxygen in the air we use to burn it. Candle wax burning in air has about 10 times the energy of thermite using this convention. What does this mean? It means that some, if not all, of the energy from the red chips is due to burning of the carbonaceous paint matrix in air.
Originally posted by pteridine
I hope you are not too confused with all this technical stuff. After all, you forgot more about this than I will ever know. The reason we want to run the DSC in an inert gas is so we can see the thermite reaction. Thermite doesn't need air to react. If there is no reaction in an inert gas stream, there is no thermite and all the other experiments are meaningless.