Thermitic Red/Gray Chips Discovered in WTC Dust

[chattanova]

Danish Chemists Discover Thermitic Red/Gray Chips in 9/11 WTC Destruction Dust

“We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples
we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center.
...The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material
incorporating nanotechnology and highly energetic. ...The carbon content
of the red material indicates that an organic substance is present. This would
be expected for super-thermite formulations in order to produce high gas
pressures from ignition and thus make them explosive.”
- Dept. of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Denmark,

The Open Chemical Physics Journal
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

http://img02.picoodle.com/img/img02/3/4/4/kennet/f_911RedGrayCm_a878108.jpg http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/5950/911thermiterailroads.jpg

Left: Photomicrograph of red/gray chip from samples of the WTC dust involved
in this study. 31-page report with photomicrographs and spectra were published April 3, 2009,
in The Open Chemical Physics Journal. Right: Red-gray residues of burnt thermite
used by railway workers to cut or weld railroad tracks shown in Wikipedia.

Wikipedia: “Thermite is a pyrotechnic composition of a metal powder and a metal oxide, which produces an aluminothermic reaction known as a thermite reaction. It is not explosive, but can create short bursts of extremely high temperatures focused on a very small area for a short period of time. Thermite may be used for repair by the welding in-place of thick steel sections such as locomotive axle-frames where the repair can take place without removing the part from its installed location. It can also be used for quickly cutting or welding steel such as rail tracks, without requiring complex or heavy equipment.” Nanotechnologically produced “super-thermite” can produce high gas pressures that are explosive.

http://www.earthfiles.com/

[goldengoose]

Sorry, this hoax is yesterday's news. Jones and a few other frauds paid to publish a worthless article in a vanity journal. Ludicrously, they claim it was "peer-reviewed," but there was no review.

Nobody has discovered any evidence for thermite at the WTC complex. Many details can be found in the ongoing discussion on the James Randi forum (JREF). Thermite cannot cut horizontally, by the way, which is one reason it is not used by demoltion companies.

[mynameis]

The sabotage of steel does not always need involve cutting, a mere weakening of steel is all that is required with tension creep stresses to allow the integrity of the structures give way. As a skeptic, I would think that you would hold your tongue or conclusions until enough reputable sides have looked at the nano-therm data evidence and judged it as accurate or inaccurate.

[goldengoose]

The sabotage of steel does not always need involve cutting, a mere weakening of steel is all that is required with tension creep stresses to allow the integrity of the structures give way. As a skeptic, I would think that you would hold your tongue or conclusions until enough reputable sides have looked at the nano-therm data evidence and judged it as accurate or inaccurate.


The discussion on the JREF has already expanded to five pages. The thread was started by a mentally-ill kid who thinks he's been cloned from Galileo. The real engineers are disgusted with Jones's characteristic refusal to do any of the things a scientist is supposed to do. If you decide to check out that discussion, pay particular attention to the contributions of "9/11files."

[tabea_blumenschein]

The discussion on the JREF has already expanded to five pages. The thread was started by a mentally-ill kid who thinks he's been cloned from Galileo. The real engineers are disgusted with Jones's characteristic refusal to do any of the things a scientist is supposed to do. If you decide to check out that discussion, pay particular attention to the contributions of "9/11files."

Here's a link (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=139293) to that discussion. ;)

[mynameis]

I don't know about Bentham being a reputable journal, but I did find this information insightful and an easy way to reach a global audience rapidly. I would think that the samples of dust taken should be peer reviewed by outside experts across not only the United States, but the rest of the world.

[secondsun]

Nobody has discovered any evidence for thermite at the WTC complex.

...so what melted the steel... and you said i think `molten glass` in another thread!

[goldengoose]

I don't know about Bentham being a reputable journal, but I did find this information insightful and an easy way to reach a global audience rapidly. I would think that the samples of dust taken should be peer reviewed by outside experts across not only the United States, but the rest of the world.



Your suggestion is rational, but for that reason, Jones and his merry tricksters wouldn't dream of considering it. Check out tabea's link and read every post by Sunstealer. He's a materials scientist who demonstrates why the "discovery" of Jones and the other frauds is, in reality, paint.

[goldengoose]

...so what melted the steel... and you said i think `molten glass` in another thread!



Nothing melted the steel. There was no "melted" steel.

[waitew]

Nothing melted the steel. There was no "melted" steel.

You see here's what troubles we with that statement.It's obvious there were large quantities of molten something consistent in appearance with molten iron before during and after the collapse.Those who saw it first hand said it was molten 'steel'.That doesn't prove that it was molten steel,of course,but since you're trying to convince us that a thorough investigation has been done & therefore there is no need for another then what the hell was it?Shouldn't we know it's exact composition?The site was cleaned up.The cooled solidified 'slag' of that formerly molten material was shipped away,yet,we're left to guess?Is the material removed from the basements of those buildings at Freshkills? May we sent an independent team out there to collect samples?Why not?

[lizzy]

more....Thermitic Red/Gray Chips Discovered in WTC Dust



http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13049

[stannrodd]

We all know that the construction steel used was coated in red metal paint...

.. don't we izzy !!

Stann :)

[tabea_blumenschein]

If thermite were used, why are there no eyewitness reports, photographs, or videos of hundreds (thousands?) of melted-through steel beams/columns in the rubble pile?

Just asking questions! :)

[mynameis]

Your suggestion is rational, but for that reason, Jones and his merry tricksters wouldn't dream of considering it. Check out tabea's link and read every post by Sunstealer. He's a materials scientist who demonstrates why the "discovery" of Jones and the other frauds is, in reality, paint.

First, being patient is a must for rational mind. By casting ad hominem's at scientific work without an independent conformation is just being a cocky chanticleer. This is tantamount to saying don't bother investigation because the doubters will lay upon you the chilling effect so scientific work is ineffective and the 6,500 year old world is flat. I do not doubt the work as yet, there is only the word of the scientific method behind the claim. Secondly, if the scientific process for identifying the material is sound by contemporary standards, then why shouldn't the work be taken as it is at the moment. The results could be coincidental or circumstantial and should prove eventually how each of those collected particle samples, which are independent of gathering methods may be important an inquiry or inconsequential. Without prejudging I do not need to read anything by anyone else that has no degree of scientific background par the problems with the scientific processes used or access to the samples in question.

[goldengoose]

Why don't you doubt the work of someone who has written a paper about Jesus' visit to the Americas and who has falsified photos in the past? Jones was rebuked by his own department for failure to maintain professional standards. He refuses to share his work with serious researchers. He and other frauds paid to publish in a vanity journal and are falsely claiming that their paper was peer-reviewed. The person who posts on the JREF as "Sunstealer" is a materials scientist.

[mynameis]

Why don't you doubt the work of someone who has written a paper about Jesus' visit to the Americas and who has falsified photos in the past? Jones was rebuked by his own department for failure to maintain professional standards. He refuses to share his work with serious researchers. He and other frauds paid to publish in a vanity journal and are falsely claiming that their paper was peer-reviewed. The person who posts on the JREF as "Sunstealer" is a materials scientist.

First its outside the scope of 911, second what does belief in religion have to do with machines and the interpretation of those materials in the analyzing? You claim fraud, but I don't see any credibility behind your specious claims of this being fake data.

[andrewjohnson]

If links don't work, use this version:

http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=224&Itemid=60

Questioning "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe"

Why has this new paper been published now by Jones, Harrit et al? What important 9/11 evidence are Steve Jones and the Co-authors ignoring or unable to address?

This is a quickly composed article, posted as a response to the re-cycled and morphing thermite theory, which has again been “dressed up” in what appears to be an authentic Scientific Paper. As all 9/11 researchers should know, appearances can be deceptive. So, let’s scratch the veneer of apparent credibility and look at the evidence and issues Steve Jones and his cohorts won’t address.

Could Jones, Harrit et al have published this paper because too many people are finding out about the Hurricane (Erin) parked outside NYC on 9/11? Are they also realising the connection of the effects seen at the WTC to those of the Hutchison Effect:

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/erin/

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/

Exactly what is the Bentham Open Journal? It costs $800 to get a paper published on there:

http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/MSandI.htm

Perhaps it is too much to expect or ask reviewers to look into the background of the evidence as a way of validating the paper.

http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/EBM.htm

Though the editor in chief is listed, no other details about reviewers on the editorial board are available – apart from their name and country. I.e. their qualifications and areas of specialism are not listed (at least not on this page).

When studied closely, there is no verifiable evidence that thermite played ANY SIGNIFICANT role in the destruction of the WTC. (It MAY have been used in cutting some of small amounts of remaining steel in the clean up operation). If it were truly significant, why didn’t Jones and his team submit his research in their legal challenges to NIST (see below).

2005 - Jones says "thermite carried in in loads"
2006/7 - Jones says "probably thermite AND superthermite"
2008 - Jones says "Paint on thermite"
2009 - Jones says "Active thermitic compounds"

So which one is correct? Or is this "morphing as we go" to string people along - and distract them from the verifiable evidence that thermite/superthermite/nanothermite/DOD thermite/superthermate can never explain - such as

The severe lack of debris:

http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=145&Itemid=60

Upside down cars at the WTC

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/JJ1.html#lift

Straight-line hurricane movement

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/erin/pics/erin2001_e.gif

Magnetic field disturbances at the PRECISE moment of "1st impact".

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/erin/erin5.html


Recently, I compiled a list of questions and comments regarding Steve Jones and his research, and posted them here.

http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=222&Itemid=60

I have reproduced slightly modified versions of some of the points here.

1) Steven E Jones and a group of people submitted an RFC to NIST regarding the NCSTAR reports for WTC 1 & 2.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/RFCtoNISTbyMcIlvaineDoyleJonesRyanGageSTJ.pdf

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/AppealLetterToNISTGourleyEtAl.pdf

Why do these documents not mention Molten Metal anywhere in them? Why does it not mention Prof Jones OWN thermite tests - which are said to be "conclusive"?

2) On May 8 2008, Prof Steven E Jones suggests the towers could have been destroyed with the help of Paint on Thermite. Why?

http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/SEJones/Paint%20on%20Thermate%20-%209-11%20Debate-Air%20America%20-%20R%20Greene%20-%20S%20Jones%2008%20May%202008.mp3

3) Can the authors comment on or explain inverted cars near the WTC on 9/11 and the exploding cars reported by witnesses such Patricia Ondrovich and the exploding Scott Packs (oxygen tanks) reported by some firefighters?

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/JJ1.html#lift

4) Can the authors comment on the proximity of Hurricane Erin to NYC during the events of 9/11 (was he aware of its proximity and existence?

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/erin/

5) Are the authors going to submit a Qui Tam fraud case against NIST's contractors as Professor's Morgan Reynolds and Professor Judy Wood have done (Dr Wood's case is currently under appeal)

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.html

Now let’s have a look at some other things that Dr Steve Jones has suggested.

Steve Jones suggests 9/11 Truthers should irradiate themselves:

http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=45&Itemid=60
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h71WsJMGdI8

30:05 -Jones: OK. One other exercise is that we have learned that with evidence we can learn a great deal so if there is an event and - we won’t even name a cit lets just say an American city - blamed on Iran, certainly there will be 9/11 truthers nearby and I hope they realize the importance of collecting a sample [right] whether that’s dust … [also radiation] right - having a radiation detector handy if you’ve got one – whether it’s Geiger - if you send me a sample I’d be glad to look at it and I’m sure you would too, Bill. So, if there is such an event the point – the reason I’m emphasizing this is because it’s a bit of a warning if there are perpetrators thinking about – such another 9/11 they’d better think twice because 9/11 truthers are out there – we’re watching. We will get samples – we know what to do – evidence-based studies – we can do very quickly and we can put an end to lies - on the next 9/11 if it [inaudible] … which I hope we’ll avoid… is what I’m trying to say…

Steve Jones Denies that 70 stories of WTC Steel Turned to Dust - it "Shook and Fell"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO9Iv_4ZfNI

Steven Jones Suggests it's Safe to Dip Wet Fingers in Molten Metal (what has this got to do with what happened at the WTC)?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tou71StrOb0


It's ALL about the Cover up of FREE ENERGY. But some people who were previously involved in the Cold Fusion cover up don't want you to realise that.

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/

[white horse]

If thermite were used, why are there no eyewitness reports, photographs, or videos of hundreds (thousands?) of melted-through steel beams/columns in the rubble pile?

Just asking questions! :)

BUt there are aren't there?

There is video of alleged thermite reactions from windows of the WTC before collapse, and there are photographs of diagonally sheered beams after the collapse.

[tabea_blumenschein]

BUt there are aren't there?

There is video of alleged thermite reactions from windows of the WTC before collapse, and there are photographs of diagonally sheered beams after the collapse.

That's right, alleged thermite reactions.

As for the stuff spilling from windows, my first thought when I heard of it was that it was molten aluminum that had spilled out when a floor sagged. There was plenty of aluminum lying around, what with plane wreckage scattered everywhere, and the fires were more than hot enough to melt large quantities of it. Since then I've heard other possibilities, such as molten lead from UPS (uninterruptible power supply) batteries, and even molten glass. Any of those possibilities is reasonable in my book.

Also, that stuff was seen spilling out several minutes before the actual collapse of the building. It it were molten steel pouring out from columns destroyed by thermite, that would have coincided with the actual collapse; it wouldn't have occured several minutes before.

As far as the diagonally cut columns, those were beyond doubt cut by cleanup crew workers with torches. Until someone can demonstrate that thermite can produce a perfectly straight cut at an angle, those columns can't be presented as evidence of thermite charges.

[goldengoose]

BUt there are aren't there?

There is video of alleged thermite reactions from windows of the WTC before collapse, and there are photographs of diagonally sheered beams after the collapse.


The beams were cut by oxyacetylene torches. Perhaps you don't know that, but Jones does.

[bryan]

The beams were cut by oxyacetylene torches. Perhaps you don't know that, but Jones does.

You and Jones are working together. He makes false claims so you can shoot them down.

[4879]

A ground-breaking scientific paper confirmed this week that red-gray flakes found throughout multiple samples of WTC dust are actually unexploded fragments of nanothermite, an exotic high-tech explosive.

The samples were taken from far-separated locations in Manhattan, some as early as 10 minutes after the second tower (WTC 1) collapsed, ruling out any possible contamination from cleanup operations.

Authored by an international team of physicists, chemists, and others, the research paper was titled "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe." It was published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, Vol. 2., and is available online for free download. The lead author is Niels H. Harrit of the Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen.

The paper ends with the statement, "Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material."


Link to pdf : http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/openaccess2.htm

[abababba]

None of the debunkers on either side are explaining why the red chips were highly explosive. Until someone does this, the tactics are mostly misdirection.

If they were paint, they would not flare up when in contact with a flame.

The torches would not leave behind explosive red chips.

[goldengoose]

You and Jones are working together. He makes false claims so you can shoot them down.


Amazingly, you got something right. Yes, Jones does make false claims, and rationalists do shoot them down. You are, as usual, lying about any cooperation between the fraud Steven Jones and serious researchers.

[goldengoose]

None of the debunkers on either side are explaining why the red chips were highly explosive. Until someone does this, the tactics are mostly misdirection.

If they were paint, they would not flare up when in contact with a flame.

The torches would not leave behind explosive red chips.


The chips are paint. The materials scientist who posts on the JREF as "Sunstealer" has demolished the latest fantasy concocted by Jones and other frauds.

[goldengoose]

The chips are paint. Jones and his fellow frauds got caught again. They paid to publish in a vanity journal, and lied that they were peer-reviewed.

End of story.

[abababba]

The chips are paint. Jones and his fellow frauds got caught again. They paid to publish in a vanity journal, and lied that they were peer-reviewed.

End of story.

That's a plausible story until you realize that the chips were highly explosive as I said before. Can you find paint that is highly explosive?

[goldengoose]

That's a plausible story until you realize that the chips were highly explosive as I said before. Can you find paint that is highly explosive?


Why won't you take the trouble to inform yourself? The JREF thread keeps expanding, and Sunstealer's refutation of Jones grows increasingly definitive.

[abababba]

Why won't you take the trouble to inform yourself? The JREF thread keeps expanding, and Sunstealer's refutation of Jones grows increasingly definitive.


Can you point me to the place where they present evidence red paint can be highly explosive?

[abababba]

...


Also be interested to hear those that think DEW only is responsible try to debunk the highly explosive red/gray bi layered chips.

[abababba]

The silence is deafening.

[gamolon]

Can you point me to the place where they present evidence red paint can be highly explosive?

Can you point me to the part where they say the red chips were "highly explosive"? Thermite "explodes"? Since when?

[abababba]

Can you point me to the part where they say the red chips were "highly explosive"? Thermite "explodes"? Since when?


"Red chips when ignited produce very high temperatures even now, several years after the 911 tragedy, as shown by the bright flash observed and the production of molten iron rich spheres. Correspondingly, the DSC tests demonstrate the release of high enthalpy, actually exceeding that of pure thermite. Furthermore, the energy released is over a short period of time, shown by the narrowness of the peak in Fig. 29...If a paint were devised that incorporated these energetic material, it would be highly dangerous when dry and most unlikely to receive regulatory approval for building use. "

Pg. 27-28 of the paper

[gamolon]

"Red chips when ignited produce very high temperatures even now, several years after the 911 tragedy, as shown by the bright flash observed and the production of molten iron rich spheres. Correspondingly, the DSC tests demonstrate the release of high enthalpy, actually exceeding that of pure thermite. Furthermore, the energy released is over a short period of time, shown by the narrowness of the peak in Fig. 29...If a paint were devised that incorporated these energetic material, it would be highly dangerous when dry and most unlikely to receive regulatory approval for building use. "

Pg. 27-28 of the paper

So, based on that paragraph above, are you telling me that thermite "explodes"? If it did, why did they not use the term "explode"? Instead they use terms like "energy released" and "when ignited produce very high temperatures".

Can you also tell me why they didn't test the samples in vacuum? It is my understanding that thermite does not need air to burn.

[abababba]

I have no idea why they didn't test in a vacuum. This is a misdirection tactic because you can't explain why there was such a large energy release when the red chips were put under a flame. Does paint have this property? If not, stop saying that the chips were paint. That's the point.

[gamolon]

I have no idea why they didn't test in a vacuum. This is a misdirection tactic because you can't explain why there was such a large energy release when the red chips were put under a flame. Does paint have this property? If not, stop saying that the chips were paint. That's the point.

Why did you edit out the part where you said that the chemical composition does not match red paint?

[abababba]

Why did you edit out the part where you said that the chemical composition does not match red paint?

Didn't want to shift the focus.

[abababba]

Why did you edit out the part where you said that the chemical composition does not match red paint?

And of course it did share many of the same elements as red paint, so my statement wasn't precise. Now back to the issue, how can red paint perform the way those chips did? Or is it not possible?

[gamolon]

Didn't want to shift the focus.

Riiiggghhhht.

Maybe it was because you have no proof to make such an absurd claim and though better of it.

I must have missed it though. Can you provide me the link or paragraph that shows the chemical composition that Jones supplied of red paint or red primer that he compared to this "thermite" samples to show that it indeed WASN'T red paint or primer?

[gamolon]

And of course it did share many of the same elements as red paint, so my statement wasn't precise.

:rolleyes:

Now back to the issue, how can red paint perform the way those chips did? Or is it not possible?

So you're telling me that the samples DO share a similar chemical composition as red paint or primer.

Right.

As far as red paint or primer performing the same way the chips did, I'm sure the paper talks about that right? Show me where in the paper that they tested red paint or primer to see if they got the same reaction. I'm sure they did. Or are you asking me because it's NOT in the paper and you don't know.

[gamolon]

And of course it did share many of the same elements as red paint, so my statement wasn't precise.

Precision has nothing to do with it. You were just plain wrong.

Just a quick question. What changed your mind about your statement? Did you suddenly come across new information in the 14 minutes between your original post and your edit?

[abababba]

Show me where in the paper that they tested red paint or primer to see if they got the same reaction. I'm sure they did. Or are you asking me because it's NOT in the paper and you don't know.

So if you are admitting that the only way out for your argument is for red paint to be highly explosive, I am perfectly willing to admit that their paper does no formal testing of putting red paint under a flame because I don't think it does. But I think that their argument that commercial paint is not highly explosive is good enough and should be the standard logical conclusion.

If the discussion ends at you admitting that you need standard office paint to be highly explosive to get anywhere, then any logical mind reading this will know I'm correct.

[abababba]

What color should we paint the office boys?

How about red?

[gamolon]

So if you are admitting that the only way out for your argument is for red paint to be highly explosive

You need to quit inserting your own terms for the ones that they use in the paper. I see no where in their paper that says "highly explosive". Please get your terminology right.

, I am perfectly willing to admit that their paper does no formal testing of putting red paint under a flame because I don't think it does.

Ok. So then how do they know paint or primer would not perform the same way in their tests? Wouldn't it be a feather in their cap to just make sure? I mean, they are producing evidence that could prove the murder of 3,000 people right?

But I think that their argument that commercial paint is not highly explosive is good enough and should be the standard logical conclusion.

So instead of providing proof like igniting the samples in a vacuum or testing red paint or primer in the same way, they leave it to a logical conclusion instead of a proven scientific conclusion? They did tout this paper as "peer reviewed" and published it in a "scientific journal" yes?

:rolleyes:

If the discussion ends at you admitting that you need standard office paint to be highly explosive to get anywhere, then any logical mind reading this will know I'm correct.

Science, logic, logic, science. I love how you guys insert these two terms whenever you feel like it. You quote science when it proves your point, but when science is thrown right back at you to prove you worng, it now becomes a "logical" conclusion.

[gamolon]

What color should we paint the office boys?

How about red?

WAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

You're a comedian to boot!

[gamolon]

So if you are admitting that the only way out for your argument is for red paint to be highly explosive, I am perfectly willing to admit that their paper does no formal testing of putting red paint under a flame because I don't think it does. But I think that their argument that commercial paint is not highly explosive is good enough and should be the standard logical conclusion.

If the discussion ends at you admitting that you need standard office paint to be highly explosive to get anywhere, then any logical mind reading this will know I'm correct.

You need to understand what the difference between "highly explosive" and "incendiary" is.

Can you tell me why 2 of the 4 samples released energy above the level of what thermite should release when ignited?

[abababba]

I'm not saying one more thing until you actually engage on the issue. Yes or no, does red paint release the amount of energy of the red/gray chips. YES OR NO.

Until you engage, these are diversion tactics and everyone knows this.

[gamolon]

I'm not saying one more thing until you actually engage on the issue. Yes or no, does red paint release the amount of energy of the red/gray chips. YES OR NO.

Until you engage, these are diversion tactics and everyone knows this.

I don't know the answer to that and neither do you. Nor does Jones as he didn't test that either.

So, based on the idiotic "logical conclusion" that "why would they use a substance that releases great amounts of energy in a bulding", answer me this. Please tell me why shredded newspaper generates more energy released than thermite yet people are still allowed to bring newspapers into home and buildings.

Why did Jones not perform that test in a vacuum if thermite doesn't need air?

[gamolon]

I'm not saying one more thing until you actually engage on the issue. Yes or no, does red paint release the amount of energy of the red/gray chips. YES OR NO.

Until you engage, these are diversion tactics and everyone knows this.

You just can't seem to answer the quesitons can you.

1. If it was thermite, how did 2 of the 4 samples that Jones collected release MORE energy than what thermite can produce?

2. Why did he not perform the tests in a vacuum to remove the possiblity of contaminents getting into the test chamber? Again, thermite burns WITHOUR air.

3. Could there have been rust in the paint/primer from the columns? Do you know what thermite contains?

[abababba]

I don't know why they didn't test in a vacuum, possibly it will be done in future research. I'm happy to admit when I don't know something if it furthers the pursuit of truth. You can look at the several other threads in which I have changed my position on certain issues based on additional evidence (for instance, whether a power dive can explain high speeds of planes).

Look, household paint does not flare up and create an explosion when you put it under a flame. This should be obvious to any observer and yet you are not willing to admit it. I'm not going to keep going around in circles with you if you aren't willing to admit even the basic facts. We can't have a debate if you don't look at my questions and give a serious answer to whether paint is explosive. If you don't want to go any further into a serious discussion then just let me know so I don't waste anymore time.

You can ask 1000 questions about what else the team of researchers should have done and many of them are valid and should be looked into. This does not explain the properties of the red gray chips and is therefore a smokescreen to the fundamental issue of whether there were explosives in the building.

[abababba]

You just can't seem to answer the quesitons can you.

1. If it was thermite, how did 2 of the 4 samples that Jones collected release MORE energy than what thermite can produce?

2. Why did he not perform the tests in a vacuum to remove the possiblity of contaminents getting into the test chamber? Again, thermite burns WITHOUR air.

3. Could there have been rust in the paint/primer from the columns? Do you know what thermite contains?

I'm not going to answer any of those questions because even if I do it does not explain the explosive nature of the red/gray chips.

[gamolon]

I don't know why they didn't test in a vacuum, possibly it will be done in future research.

It should have been done FIRST. That's why the tests are in question. The test results may possibly conatin contaminents.

I'm happy to admit when I don't know something if it furthers the pursuit of truth. You can look at the several other threads in which I have changed my position on certain issues based on additional evidence (for instance, whether a power dive can explain high speeds of planes).

Ok?

Look, household paint

It's not "household paint".

does not flare up and create an explosion when you put it under a flame.

Their sample did not "flare up and create an explosion". Why can you not understand this? Can you show me anywhere in their paper that states the samples "exploded"? If you can't do that, then you need to quit using that as as part of your explanation.

This should be obvious to any observer and yet you are not willing to admit it. I'm not going to keep going around in circles with you if you aren't willing to admit even the basic facts. We can't have a debate if you don't look at my questions and give a serious answer to whether paint is explosive. If you don't want to go any further into a serious discussion then just let me know so I don't waste anymore time.

Let me ask you something. The energy released by 3 of the samples was ABOVE the level that can be released by thermite. Can you explain why? That simple piece of evidence proves that at least 2 samples could not have contained thermite as the paper states.

You can ask 1000 questions about what else the team of researchers should have done and many of them are valid and should be looked into. This does not explain the properties of the red gray chips and is therefore a smokescreen to the fundamental issue of whether there were explosives in the building.

The bottom line is that the paper is based on faulty testing which means that the conclusion is faulty. What is the "red paint chips" had rust in them? Would that create a high energy release? What if there were elements created by fire that could release a high amount of energy?

Have they proved it was NOT paint contaminated with other components?

Shoody research at best.

[gamolon]

I'm not going to answer any of those questions because even if I do it does not explain the explosive nature of the red/gray chips.

For the millionth time, show me where the paper uses the term "explosive".

People are in the process of discussing that right now. The problem is that the energy released is way more than than thermite so they have provided their own proof that it's not thermite.

So are you saying that anything that has a high energy release is an explosive?

[abababba]

OK, since you can't answer one direct question, I'll try to phrase it differently.

Does red paint have the properties of the red/gray chips mentioned in the paper or not? This should be very easy for someone with an open mind to say no this is not true.

Are these reasonable properties for paint used in an office?

[gamolon]

I'm not going to answer any of those questions because even if I do it does not explain the explosive nature of the red/gray chips.

Here's a quote from someone else in another forum. It explains perfectly whatthe problem with the paper is and the conclusions it draws.

Yes, we get it but if you wanted to show evidence of a reaction that occurs without air, such as the thermite one, then you do it in an inert atmosphere.

However, regardless of this, the thermite reaction cannot produce more energy than it's deltaHr, if it is doing so, then it isn't thermite or something else must be causing the increase over the ideal maximum.

Bearing in mind the chips were observed in a SEM and a carbon rich matrix is seen, it's obvious that what we are seeing is the ignition of that unknown matrix (most likely a binder for paint). In view of seeing that they didn't just have particles of Aluminosilicate and Fe2O3 they should understand that this matrix is likely to be flammable and therefore if they wish to test for a thermite reaction they must do it in an inert atmosphere.

We are not talking about different types of thermite, because the Harrit et al paper specifically talks about Al + Fe2O3. Their own SEM data shows Fe2O3 crystals approximately 0.2µm in size in the red layer.

There are only two other constituents that they identify, one an aluminosilicate (which has the correct morphology and EDS spectrum that matches Kaolinite closely) 1µm and greater in size and a carbon rich matrix. Talk of anything else is pointless. You can speculate all you like about nano-this and nano-that, but we don't observe any particles that small and we don't observe any particles of Al. Talk of alligator breeding is just as far away as talk of nano-thermite in respect of this paper.

So why are you desperately googling for any any term with nano-thermite in and throwing it into the mix? I've seen absolutely zero work from you regarding what I am saying, although in your defence no other truther has bothered to try and they are letting the official moderated thread die - it's no surprise they won't tackle it head on because they don't even know where to start from.

Why are you spending all of your time on the thermite side and not looking to see whether conclusions, based on available data, are correct?

It makes you look like a truther. It looks to everyone like you are trying to defend the paper. If not then where is the balance? Why are you not also spending time looking for things that explain the paper without reference to thermite and then weigh your own evidence?

As ElMonndoHummus points out in post #25, the experiment is flawed and no conclusion of a thermite reaction can be claimed. So why are you not acknowledging this massive failure and see it as a black mark against the paper? If they failed in such a basic matter why doesn't that make you suspicious of their other claims? Could they also be failing in other basic areas?

You go on and on about the Al. You continue to make claims based on reactions that contain Al. For this to happen you NEED particles of Al, whereby Al is the dominant element with only O present as would be expected. Where is this Al? Show me the Al? Show me the particles? Point to them in this photo!

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=916

I see no aluminium particles. Does anyone else?

Why do we see massive amounts of Si, O and C let alone Na, Fe and K in these platelets if we require particles of commercially pure Aluminium >99% which is available off the shelf by the thousands of tons for either the thermite reaction or reaction with O2 from air? If there's no Al particles there is no thermite reaction or with air.

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=888

Why do you continue with ideas about Al when there is no particle in the sample that matches what you are speculating with? You can keep on and on and on, but you are not describing anything that is actually in the samples! Therefore your theories about what constitutes thermite of whatever variety in whatever proportion of reactants is utterly, utterly useless. Might as well talk about zombies, they have as much relevance.

There are no particles with a high enough concentration (99%) of Aluminium in the red or gray layers in samples a) to d) whether they are available for oxidation with air or for a thermite reaction or just taking pretty pictures. If they are then I want someone to point them out to me.

N.B. IMPORTANT - Do not quote the MEK chip EDS data - it is a different material (which has been proven) to samples a,b,c,d that were used for the DSC.

[gamolon]

OK, since you can't answer one direct question, I'll try to phrase it differently.

Does red paint have the properties of the red/gray chips mentioned in the paper or not? This should be very easy for someone with an open mind to say no this is not true.

Are these reasonable properties for paint used in an office?

See my post above...

[abababba]

Here's a quote from someone else in another forum. It explains perfectly whatthe problem with the paper is and the conclusions it draws.

Seems reasonable to me, I don't follow all the calculations, but if you want to argue that the red/gray chips when ignited exhibited a more powerful reaction than thermite, I don't have a problem with that. That doesn't make red paint any more likely to explain the nature of the chips.

[gamolon]

Seems reasonable to me, I don't follow all the calculations, but if you want to argue that the red/gray chips when ignited exhibited a more powerful reaction than thermite, I don't have a problem with that. That doesn't make red paint any more likely to explain the nature of the chips.

And there you and I agree. I am not saying that it's paint chips or primer for sure. I am saying that it may be. That alone says that the paper is garbage and so is the journal that published it. How can laypeople from forums see the errors in testing or all the other issues it has, but a "peer reviewed, scientific journal" could not?

:D

If the paper stood the test of refutation, then I would agree with it. The fact that there are so many holes in it makes it suspect.

[abababba]

To be fair, I think they acknowledge in the paper that the reaction is more powerful than traditional thermite reactions so the criticism of the journal is not appropriate.

I also found this quote from the paper to address a few of the issues we talked about earlier.

"...tests were also performed with a small oxyacteylene flame applied to red/gray chips. Samples were either heated on a graphite block (Fig. 22) or held with tweezers in the flame. Several paint samples were also tested and in each case, the paint sample was immediately reduced to fragile ashes by the hot flame. This was not the case, however, with any of the red/gray chips from the World Trade Center dust.

The first WTC red/gray chip so tested was approximately 1mm x 1mm. After a few seconds of heating, the high-speed ejection of a hot particle was observed under the hand of the person holding the torch (Fig. 22). The intense light and bright orange color of the particle attest to its high temperature. In this case, the attempt to recover the diminutive end-product of the reaction was unsuccessful. A short video clip of the test (including slow-motion) is available here: http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/oxy_redchip_slow.mov

In a later flame-ignition test, the end product was recovered and is shown in the photomicrograph and SEM image in Fig. (23). Once again, the formation of iron-rich semispherical shapes shows that the residue had been melted, enabling surface tension of the liquid to pull it into spherical shapes."

[abababba]

The link above was supposed to be to

http://journalof911studies.com/volume
/2008/oxy_redchip_slow.mov

I broke it in half

[gamolon]

To be fair, I think they acknowledge in the paper that the reaction is more powerful than traditional thermite reactions so the criticism of the journal is not appropriate.

My criticism of the journal has to do with the fact that they just published an article that has major flaws in it as we have just discussed. How did that happen? It's a joke.

I also found this quote from the paper to address a few of the issues we talked about earlier.

"...tests were also performed with a small oxyacteylene flame applied to red/gray chips. Samples were either heated on a graphite block (Fig. 22) or held with tweezers in the flame. Several paint samples were also tested and in each case, the paint sample was immediately reduced to fragile ashes by the hot flame. This was not the case, however, with any of the red/gray chips from the World Trade Center dust.

The first WTC red/gray chip so tested was approximately 1mm x 1mm. After a few seconds of heating, the high-speed ejection of a hot particle was observed under the hand of the person holding the torch (Fig. 22). The intense light and bright orange color of the particle attest to its high temperature. In this case, the attempt to recover the diminutive end-product of the reaction was unsuccessful. A short video clip of the test (including slow-motion) is available here: http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/oxy_redchip_slow.mov

In a later flame-ignition test, the end product was recovered and is shown in the photomicrograph and SEM image in Fig. (23). Once again, the formation of iron-rich semispherical shapes shows that the residue had been melted, enabling surface tension of the liquid to pull it into spherical shapes."

They tested red paint. Ok. What kind of paint? Why do they not give the specifications of the paint like they should have? Did they use red interior house paint or red exterior housepaint? Was it primer or actual paint? Funny how they get very specific with descriptions of their testing and everything else, but lack that type of specifics and just use the term "red paint". Was it the same paint that was used on the columns?

[abababba]

Yes, I agree, they should specify the type of each of the several paint samples used in the testing.