JONES new paper:Microspheres and Temperatures

[Sizzler]

Sizzler:

No, I am unable to post on 911Blogger. I have tried posting on forums like LetsRoll and LC... those sites are not particularly open to debate any more than JREF is.

It's too bad we live in a world of opposing "camps".

What we have here is a failure to communicate.........

I'll have to get an account and 'just ask questions' there to Jones.

I really think you nailed this on the head, and Jones needs to address your issues/questions/comments and few others that Mackey addressed.

I wonder how different the 'other' paper is that has been accepted for publication. Surely a peer-review would address these raised points.

 

[T.A.M.]

In the end, his paper, FROM WHAT I HAVE READ HERE, even if taken as legitimate, uncompromised science (a very large stretch), it proves nothing, concludes little of relevance to the cause of the collapses, and is ignorant to all that Occam shaves you with.

TAM

 

[twinstead]

Surely a peer-review would address these raised points.

A legitimate peer review is exactly what the doctor ordered for Jones; he should be actively seeking it with gusto if he sincerely believes he is on to something.

 

[T.A.M.]

A peer review, a true peer review, while certainly warranted, and advised, would only confirm or refute that the science within the report is sound. It would do little to confirm or refute the insane conclusions drawn from it, nor do I think it would address the lack of discussion within, of alternative, and simpler, causes of the glorious microspheres.

TAM

 

[twinstead]

A peer review, a true peer review, while certainly warranted, and advised, would only confirm or refute that the science within the report is sound. It would do little to confirm or refute the insane conclusions drawn from it, nor do I think it would address the lack of discussion within, of alternative, and simpler, causes of the glorious microspheres.

[star trek]Damn it Jim, I'm a doctor, not a miracle worker...[/star trek]

 

[R.Mackey]

What sound does a low intensity thermobaric make? By 'low intensity', I mean one with a blast front which never exceeds, let's say, 100 mph.

Hokey smokes!!

You're going to get Stundied for that one. I'm not going to do it, and I don't participate in teh Stundies, I'm just warning you.

Either you're playing dumb to gain some leverage off my sense of charity (not a bad strategy) or you're even more confused than I could have imagined. But I'll try to help. We have to go back to Square One for this.

There is, by definition, no possible explosive of any kind with such a low blast front speed. Remember what we're talking about, here. The "blast front" you are describing is a pressure wave. In the case of a high explosive, like TNT or RDX, the "blast front" is a shock wave, and is therefore supersonic. The speed depends on a lot of things but will exceed 340 m/s, or 770 MPH to use your choice of units. A low explosive, like black powder, does not generate a shock wave, instead generating a possibly large in amplitude, but not sharp, pressure wave. This wave moves at the speed of sound, 770 MPH.

The sound speed is the minimum speed of the "blast front." There is no explosive, not of any kind, that will go a mere 100 MPH.

To get such a slow speed, you're not talking about explosives any more, nor a "blast front." That kind of speed, being at Mach numbers of < 0.15, is definitely in the regime known as "incompressible flow." Since we're not setting off this strange device in a sealed chamber, the static air pressure remains constant. The only forces are kinetic, i.e. what "pressure" you feel is strictly due to the air's velocity. Your device will simulate the effect of a 100 MPH gust of wind.

Because the force is purely kinetic, we can calculate the actual felt pressure directly -- it only depends on speed in this case. Using the Bernoulli equation, the felt pressure is equal to ρ v² / 2, where ρ is the density of air, and v is the speed of the air at infinity.

In your case, the speed is your mandated 100 MPH (about 45 m/s), and air density is about 1.2 kg / m³. The felt pressure then works out to about 1200 kg m² / (s² m³), or 1.2 kPa. In archaic units, this is 0.17 PSI.

That's it. Not even enough to break windows. Abandon this hypothesis now.

The only way you can reconcile such a slow airflow speed with structural damage is if your mystery device is in mechanical contact with the structure -- rather than transmit a "blast wave," it just pushes on the columns. That, of course, can be done as slow as you wish.

So rather than focus on hyperbaric explosives, you should instead start looking into hypotheses involving, for instance, expanding foam, or (dare I say) collapse of the upper structure.

If you need still further help, as I imagine you do, please start another thread. This is long overdue.

 

[Myriad]

Myriad:

Jones himself has told me that some of the WTC spheres are hollow.

I have provided a mechanism that applies to steel and I am familiar with the work on hollow fly ash particles carried out at the CEGB Labs in the UK.

For the steel mechanism see my post 403 above which is taken from several articles in the journal: Steel Research Volumes 64, and 72.

Thanks, Apollo20. I cross-posted with your previous post or I wouldn't have had to (re-)ask the question. (That is to say, my post was open on my desktop for a few hours while I was busy with something else, during which time you posted yours.)

This is really interesting stuff that I probably would never have learned about if it weren't for this dispute (nor needed to, but still...).

Just to be clear, I want to ask about the implications of this with respect to the most prevalent 9/11 wtc sabotage theories. Even though they won't usually come out and say it, Jones, and Sizzler here, have suggested the possibility that a significant portion of the wtc dust microspheres came from:

1) Puddles or flows of molten thermite/thermate reaction product that got mechanically atomized by impacts and fluid turbulence during the collapses.

2) Puddles or flows of structural steel, melted by the heat produced by thermite/thermate or other mystery accelerants, that got mechanically atomized by impacts and fluid turbulence during the collapses.

Or, presumably, a mixture of the two, thermite reaction product mixed with the steel it melted through, that got mechanically etc.

In other words, could the phenomenon you described in steelworks (outgassing of CO inside the melted droplet) to produce hollow spheres happen with thermite iron and/or re-melted structural steel in air, or does it require newly-converted steel (and/or the O2 from the Bessemer process) to happen?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[The Almond]

The Almond:

Thanks for that information!

Well of course some "contamination" of any WTC dust sample is possible, but in the context of the 9/11 devastation to that area of New York City, what does the word "contamination" mean?

I am prepared to give SJ and his WTC dust sample the benefit of the doubt on that one!

In terms of a forensic investigation, there are a number of ways to collect an unbiased, "uncontaminated" sample. As I mentioned before, forensic investigators tend to collect from flat, metallic surfaces which are unlikely to develop a surface charge sufficient to collect normal dust. Beyond that, surfaces such as windshields are easy to determine if they're clean (in the sense that they're only contaminated with the stuff you're interested in).

To me, Jones has introduced enormous bias in his sample due to location and sampling method. For instance, I would be more accepting of a sample collected from the outside surface of a piece of glass that was unbroken during the collapse. What I gather from Jones's paper is that he collected the dust from inside the apartment, meaning that when the collapse occurred, the pressure wave blew into the apartment and disturbed the particulate matter already there. That means anything collected inside the apartment is necessarily a combination of room dust and WTC dust with the ratio largely unknown.

I certainly understand where you're coming from. I would be willing to accept that the plethora of dust around ground zero originated in some way in the WTC towers or as part of the cleanup effort. My issue is that there are extremely well established collection and random sampling protocols that are part of such forensic investigations. Jones has largely ignored those protocols, and in addition to numerous other failures of measurement science (I hope he learns a bit about particle analysis before his next paper!), he's failed in scientific method by his stubborn refusal to entertain the idea that the dust could not be part of ash produced in the WTC fires.

That's why I have serious doubts about Jones. His work contains all of the earmarks of shoddy research. That is, his work looks like someone desperately trying to shoehorn any information he finds to fit his theory, to the detriment of all others. It's just crappy science.

 

[Gravy]

What sound does a low intensity thermobaric make? By 'low intensity', I mean one with a blast front which never exceeds, let's say, 100 mph.

metamars, I'm not accusing you of being crazy, but please be aware that this type of irrationality would be perfectly at home coming from the keyboard of a crazy person. I implore you to watch some videos of thermobaric explosions. Please find a new hobby. This one does not suit you.

 

[BenBurch]

metamars, I'm not accusing you of being crazy, but please be aware that this type of irrationality would be perfectly at home coming from the keyboard of a crazy person. I implore you to watch some videos of thermobaric explosions. Please find a new hobby. This one does not suit you.

Indeed, as Wikipedia tell us; "Thermobaric weapons distinguish themselves from conventional explosive weapons by using atmospheric oxygen, instead of carrying an oxidizer in their explosives. They are also called high-impulse thermobaric weapons (HITs), fuel-air explosives (FAE or FAX) or sometimes fuel-air munitions, heat and pressure weapons, or vacuum bombs. They produce more explosive energy for a given size than do other conventional explosives, but have the disadvantage of being less predictable in their effect."

Hard to understand how you could have a "gentle" one!

 

[HereticHulk]

I'm having a laugh, actually.

So how is this a waste of time then if you find this amusing?

 

[HereticHulk]

You know what Sizzler, let he who is without sin cast the first troll stone.

I have almost eleven thousand posts here, and I am willing to bet that a very small minority of them might be considered trolling. Many of my posts may not be detailed analysis, or ridiculous obfuscation, but rather brief, and occasionally witty commentary, but at least I am up front and honest about where I stand.

At least I didn't come in to this forum PRETENDING to be one thing, and as most of us suspected, turned out to be something else.

I think you are simply annoyed that we called you out on your true intentions here...too bad, we have done it to others before you, and will do it to others after.

I am glad you have revealed yourself for the truther you are...too bad you had to take the cowardly way of announcing it.

TAM

Why do you feel the need to label everyone and put them into your own little categories? Seems a bit odd, especially when it has nothing to do with the OP. Like a resident troll.

 

[tsig]

I agree with you. My gut feeling is that the official hypothesis is wrong, but I do accept it as truth at the moment, because most of the (direct) evidence points in that direction.

I'm waiting for the day for my gut feeling to be confirmed. And yes, that might take forever and ever.

Until then, I am here, asking questions.

Could you respond to the response I made to your post a few pages back?

My response is in red.

Thanks.

Try not to think with your gut. Use your mind.

 

[tsig]

Perhaps by looking them up.

Ever used google?

Funny how twoofers always accuse everyone else of not doing research and yet we have to basically tell them how to find the info they claim to seek.

You can lead a troofer to data but you can't make 'em think.

 

[tsig]

Do you know the difference between an oxidized metal and a metal-oxide?

Can you explain the difference between covalent and metallic bonding in terms of optical properties?

Can you tap dance on the ceiling naked in terms of optical properties?

 

[tsig]

Why do you feel the need to label everyone and put them into your own little categories? Seems a bit odd, especially when it has nothing to do with the OP. Like a resident troll.

The resident troll is a cat.

Why do you feel the need to ask endless questions and not listen to the answers?

 

[Sizzler]

Try not to think with your gut. Use your mind.

Using my mind, I rationally come to the conclusion that there is no direct evidence of an inside job.

However my gut tells me it was an inside job, and with enough time, evidence will be made positive and direct.

My gut has been wrong and right in the past, so time will tell.

 

[beachnut]

Using my mind, I rationally come to the conclusion that there is no direct evidence of an inside job.

However my gut tells me it was an inside job, and with enough time, evidence will be made positive and direct.

My gut has been wrong and right in the past, so time will tell.

Wrong 6 years ago. Gee, even RJ Lee said fire. Jones made this up 4 years after 9/11. Mislead by an idiot idea, from a possible insane professor of fusion physics. I hope his physics work was better than his failed thermite and cider block test model of the WTC. Failure is 9/11 truth, and represented in Jones work of zero research, just talk school of DRG. Did DRG support Jones' work on the article claiming evidence that Jesus Christ visited the Americas. Did Jones get help from Christ to figure out Thermite?

Seems to me, to have this perfectly insane insight into 9/11, 4 years after the fact, he must of received the word from Christ when he also was inspried to writh his article about Christ. With expert theologian and super hearsay "truth" aurthor, DRG, I doubt if we can fight the truth! As you say, with enough time the insane ideas of Jones will have to be truth; just ask Uncle Fetzer. Oops, he broke up with Jones when they went their separate but both nut case idea way.

So you are not sure about real evidence, but you are sure with enough time the pile of lies with come up to be the truth.

You may be a truther if you say -

…it was an inside job, and with enough time, evidence will be made positive and direct

Of course you are so sure about that you retract your statement almost -

My gut has been wrong and right in the past, so time will tell.

Oops I made a mistake, you did not say anything. So you are a truther.

Just glad you did not find real support for Jones in his RJ Lee citations. I think you may of uncovered errors in Lee's work, you should go public; or did you miss it as you posted accepting the errors in Jones' work?

So you believe 9/11 was an inside job, like the guy who Clinton said those groups ideas make them "look like idiots". Or you are not a truther but keep repeating

…it was an inside job, and with enough time, evidence will be made positive and direct

How do you feel to have gut feeling that even Clinton says is a sign of "looking like an idiot"? Good that Jones just made this up and has crazy ideas on 9/11; how did you get your false ideas, and a gut feeling, that is also wrong on 9/11? Did these charlatans fool you? Was it the false ideas from LCFC? What is the key for people like you to say,

…it was an inside job, and with enough time, evidence will be made positive and direct

, without evidence and just the false papers like Jones' work?

 

[beachnut]

I'll have to get an account and 'just ask questions' there to Jones.

I really think you nailed this on the head, and Jones needs to address your issues/questions/comments and few others that Mackey addressed.

I wonder how different the 'other' paper is that has been accepted for publication. Surely a peer-review would address these raised points.

His paper does not say much. This will be the paper to get published to create credibility for his other work by association. By publishing a paper that really only cherry picks the work of his references, Jones' and his group build a "look we are published in a real journal"! The standard truther, 9/11 truth follower, fails to comprehend at the K-3 level; Will followers fall for this?

This could be a tactic to squash what rational people tease them with constantly, the , "never in a real journal" quip. A say nothing paper to give the 9/11 truth dolts some "credibly". Such will not change the lack of fact used to make their implied conclusions.

They can use the violent exothermic chemical reaction (fire for 9/11), as their new battle cry, "look our paper, a real peer review paper says thermite did it", and that " violent highly exothermic chemical reaction" as published, is thermite. (end run)

I have seen PhDs do end runs before! It is PhD standard procedure! If you can not attack straight on, do the end run! Smart, under-funded PhDs have to use this tactic to piece together multiple studies to complete a larger work.

Jones and the guy are doing the classic end run, by stringing all the woo papers to this paper if it is published in a mainstream journal. Will one paper tied to the "violent exothermic chemical reaction" fool idiots who lack K-3 reading comprehension? Why are these guys making up lies in 9/11 truth? Is it really just to sell DVDs? Or was it just to get more wiki lines on their wiki post?

 

[T.A.M.]

Why do you feel the need to label everyone and put them into your own little categories? Seems a bit odd, especially when it has nothing to do with the OP. Like a resident troll.

I don't label everyone, just those that conveniently fit into a category. It allows me to free up attention to those who are making an honest effort to learn here. As I said to Sizzler, HH, I have nearly 11,000 posts here, and the vast majority are NOT trolling. As well, you can ask any poster here, including many "truthers" or truther agnostics, and if they are honest, they will agree.

Why does it bother you?

A better question, why do you feel the need to spew your nonsense all over this forum?

A lot of what you see from me is in regards to Ron Paul. My reason for posting rhetorical, some might say "trolling" posts on RP and his "movement" is because (A) The man has associated with, and AGREED WITH ON MANY ISSUES, Alex Jones, a complete lunatic who deserves nothing but trolling, and (B) because the RPers encourage RP to hang on despite the fact that he has no chance of winning, simply because they are desperately hoping that at some point he will "reveal" what he "really" thinks with regards to 9/11 and the NWO.

The fact that you think I am a troll is actually encouraging to me. However, I am confident that you are in the minority in those feelings about me...carry on.

TAM