Merged Thread to Discuss The Excellent Analysis of Jones latest paper

[beachnut]

Tons of molten metal at GZ! many evidences also from previous Jones studies
www.darksideofgravity.com/marseille_gb.pdf

F H-C

Did you know each jet aircraft had lots of these on it? These were all crammed into the corner in one of the WTC towers. They have caused jet aircraft to crash when shipped improperly. So there are possible source for making fires to make aluminum and office contents spew out the corner without thermite being planted to kill Americans.


Tons of molten metal? Where is it? Do you have pictures of tons of molten metal?

Did high pressures (in the explosions) and temperatures trigger new physics phenomena ?​

What does this mean with respect to what?
Do you really think a new physics phenomena was in action at the WTC?
Are you serious?

None of the steel holding up the WTC was touched or heated by thermite. There is zero evidence and the dust from the WTC is not evidence of thermite being planted at the WTC.

In your paper.

●

​

Sol-gels method is not only a way to gain power but also enables an accurate control of the reaction power. The spray applying is a known technology ==> the nano-thermitic layer could heat the steel columns very efficiently. The reaction produced liquid iron. Explosions dispersed it producing myriad of these iron microspheres we observe in the WTC dust.​

Why did this thermite fail to burn in the WTC? You know you are claiming this stuff is some nano-thermitic stuff and it has a propensity to burn to completion, not float away. Oh, the one of the thousands of remote triggers never found in the WTC failed?

How thick would it have to be?
How much thermite would be used?
Who did it and why?
Why where there 19 terrorists?​

The office fires in the WTC were large and on multiple floors; how much heat energy was released by the WTC fires and how much thermite would it take to equal each fire?​

How much thermite would be needed to equal the heat in 66,000 pounds of Jet fuel?​

I need to know these things so I can see if your ideas on thermite pass the common sense test.​

So the kg or pounds of thermite needed to equal the heat energy of the 10,000 gallons of jet fuel injected by terrorist with a plane impact.​

And the kg or pounds of thermite needed to equal the heat energy of the office fires in the WTC towers.​

Why did the 19 terrorist plant thermite when the aircraft impacts were enough to make their points? They painted the WTC steel? You implied it, now explain it?​

Your study shows the dust was not thermite but you are willing to explain away all the contaminates and claim thermite? Why do you do this? What is the bias that makes you ignore your own findings of no thermite in the dust? You got some neat rust samples.​

What did they treat the welds in the WTC steel with?​

 

[henryco]

Could you explain the term "projection" please. Is that a term meaning that the gray layer is there to stop material (of the red layer) from being ejected away from the steel surface during the thermite reaction? If that is the case then you are suggesting that the "gray layer" is the outside surface and the red layer is "sandwiched" between it and the steel?

Yes
The photo from the article with two red layers strongly suggest that it was applied in multilayers thus could reach millimeters in thickness
the ration between the inert and activ part allows to tune accurately the power of the reaction.

Can you comment on my post where I show that there is a high degree of correlation with this gray layer and a layer of oxidised steel as shown in the Limited Metallurgical Examination for FEMA? I am convinced that the gray layer is oxidised steel which has spalled (come away) from the steel's surface. See previous posts.

Yes but Possible only for the last gray layer of a multilayer. Certainly not possible for the gray layer found in between two red layers!

Firstly we observe next to no Suphur in the red layers of samples a,b,c,d as evidenced by Fig 7. Has Jones not found thermate?

In Fig 14 we do observe Sulphur, which is dismissed as a possible contaminant too, but given that so many other elements are observed this cannot be dismissed.

In your own examination of the red layer you say that the S and Ca are contamination on pages 14 & 15 (and again in the gray layer pages 16,17 & 18). If one is expecting thermate to be (one of) the material(s) then why do you dismiss Sulphur as a contaminant?

I didnt mean that the thermate was the redchips. It would make no sense to apply thermate at the surface of a column since the melting effect would only be superficial. As i said thermate (nothing to do with the chips) was most probably used in cutter charges and explains the FEMA and other observations of very high levels of Sulfur in previously molten metal.

Dr Greening has performed calculations to show that steel would only be heated by 8°C based on the thickness of the red layer observed. How can such a thin layer of thermite possibly contain enough energy to heat a steel section 5mm in thickness let alone more to it's melting point? (5000 times thicker than 10µm)

Could you produce a calculation to show if it's possible or not? (He's a physicist so i think it is a reasonable question).

But one millimeter of this multilayer staff could certainly heat a column
by hundreds of degrees! (i computed that a given thickness of this thermite can elevate by 500°C 8 times this thickness of steel) add this to the already hundred of degrees from the WTC fires, also take into account that the bigger columns were cutted by thermate charges so the remaning ones were overloaded and you can insure the failure!...as if it was natural...as if it were produced by the fires alone!

Yes I understand. Have a quick look at the spectra produced from the FEMA report, notably the oxide layer and compare it with the gray layers in samples a,b,c,d. I've done that in post #92 above. This also highlights issues with the lack of Sulphur in Jones' samples and the often made claims that Sulphur in the Fe-O-S eutectic comes from the material Jones has found.

nothing to do with the redchips! no sulfur in them , i agree.

Thanks - this was brought to my attention by another member of JREF and the link was posted in the original 40+ page thread that got closed. My French is not good but I can understand the data. One thing I did note was page 13 you identify the places where the XEDS analysis was taken from "aspiro" 20, 21 etc (which is something that Harris et al didn't do), but the subsequent graphs on pages 14-18 have the corresponding number cut off. I can mostly work it out due to understanding "rouge" and "sombre" (dark), but your sample clearly has three different layers (See page 11) and there is no differentiation. except with the "aspiro" labels. (What does aspiro mean?)
Thanks.

This new link is an english version! aspirateur means vacuum cleaner in french
because some of our dust was collected in an appartment with a vacuum cleaner . But here the label is not meaningful since the redchip is not from this sample... i can recover the numbers but they will tell you nothing interesting!

 

[Dave Rogers]

As i said thermate (nothing to do with the chips) was most probably used in cutter charges and explains the FEMA and other observations of very high levels of Sulfur in previously molten metal.

This is a gross misrepresentation of an observation which has already been explained by other means. It's perfectly clear to anyone not playing semantic games with the words used in newspaper articles that (a) the material in which sulphur was detected were not "previously molten metal" but a slag containing iron sulphate and iron oxide, which would be expected to melt at a much lower temperature than steel, and that (b) thermal decomposition of the gypsum wallboard in the rubble pile was a much more likely source of sulphur than a thermite reaction. Even Steven Jones is now claiming that sulphur in his samples originates from wallboard rather than thermate.

Dave

 

[GlennB]

But one millimeter of this multilayer staff could certainly heat a column
by hundreds of degrees! (i computed that a given thickness of this thermite can elevate by 500°C 8 times this thickness of steel) ....

Then please present your calculations.

 

[henryco]

This is a gross misrepresentation of an observation which has already been explained by other means. It's perfectly clear to anyone not playing semantic games with the words used in newspaper articles that (a) the material in which sulphur was detected were not "previously molten metal" but a slag containing iron sulphate and iron oxide, which would be expected to melt at a much lower temperature than steel, and that (b) thermal decomposition of the gypsum wallboard in the rubble pile was a much more likely source of sulphur than a thermite reaction. Even Steven Jones is now claiming that sulphur in his samples originates from wallboard rather than thermate.

Dave

Hello,

This will be my last post because i cannot debate with so many people at the same time on so many subjects (sorry but the "dispersion effect" in the last beachnut post is too extreme for me).

A 5 cm thick steel was reduced do 2.5cm , the rest was of course molten and appears now as swiss cheese (with large holes). 1000°C and an atmosphere rich in SO2 may account for a superficial sulfidation but the magnitude of the effect which is observed is completely out of any reasonable limits and never observed before in similar conditions.

Previously Molten metal was also found in large quantities sandwitched between layers of concrete in what they have called meteorites: this molten metal is essentially iron (no sulfur).

The idea that combustion of a 10 micrometer piece of organic material may locally reach the temperature able to melt iron as we see out in the open is completely untenable for obvious reasons (see my previous post). If there is no more serious counter argument on this crucial point, for me the debate is closed. Thanks

Fred

 

[twinstead]

Hello,

This will be my last post because i cannot debate with so many people at the same time on so many subjects (sorry but the "dispersion effect" in the last beachnut post is too extreme for me).

A 5 cm thick steel was reduced do 2.5cm , the rest was of course molten and appears now as swiss cheese (with large holes). 1000°C and an atmosphere rich in SO2 may account for a superficial sulfidation but the magnitude of the effect which is observed is completely out of any reasonable limits and never observed before in similar conditions.

Previously Molten metal was also found in large quantities sandwitched between layers of concrete in what they have called meteorites: this molten metal is essentially iron (no sulfur).

The idea that combustion of a 10 micrometer piece of organic material may locally reach the temperature able to melt iron as we see out in the open is completely untenable for obvious reasons (see my previous post). If there is no more serious counter argument on this crucial point, for me the debate is closed. Thanks

As an aside before you leave, what do you think is the reason that so many scientists take issue with Jones' findings?

 

[Dave Rogers]

A 5 cm thick steel was reduced do 2.5cm , the rest was of course molten and appears now as swiss cheese (with large holes). 1000°C and an atmosphere rich in SO2 may account for a superficial sulfidation but the magnitude of the effect which is observed is completely out of any reasonable limits and never observed before in similar conditions.

That is not the conclusion of the experts who have studied this phenomenon. The statement "the rest was of course molten" is unfounded; the explanation offered is one of corrosion by sulphur-rich slag, which would mean that the missing material was dissolved rather than melted. What has also never been observed, it should also be pointed out, is a melting process which gives the results seen in these specific steel members; in particular, thinning of edges to near-razor sharpness is strong and almost incontravertible evidence against melting, which will tend to produce rounded edges through the action of surface tension. Therefore, there is no good reason to conclude that these steel members were subjected to temperatures above the melting point of steel.

Previously Molten metal was also found in large quantities sandwitched between layers of concrete in what they have called meteorites: this molten metal is essentially iron (no sulfur).

This is simply untrue. The object referred to as a meteorite has, clearly and visibly, undeformed reinforcement bars projecting from it, with the spiral ridges on their surface still intact. Again, this is clear and incontravertible evidence that they have not melted.

The idea that combustion of a 10 micrometer piece of organic material may locally reach the temperature able to melt iron as we see out in the open is completely untenable for obvious reasons (see my previous post).

No evidence has been advanced that any such event occurred. The microspheres are described as iron-rich, but are clearly not iron, and from the analysis results have not been shown not to be iron oxide microspheres similar to a familiar and well-known by-product of hydrocarbon combustion.

If there is no more serious counter argument on this crucial point, for me the debate is closed.

If you choose to close the debate without having addressed these serious counter-arguments then you are in effect conceding.

Dave

 

[metamars]

Hello,

This will be my last post because i cannot debate with so many people at the same time on so many subjects (sorry but the "dispersion effect" in the last beachnut post is too extreme for me).

A 5 cm thick steel was reduced do 2.5cm , the rest was of course molten and appears now as swiss cheese (with large holes). 1000°C and an atmosphere rich in SO2 may account for a superficial sulfidation but the magnitude of the effect which is observed is completely out of any reasonable limits and never observed before in similar conditions.

Previously Molten metal was also found in large quantities sandwitched between layers of concrete in what they have called meteorites: this molten metal is essentially iron (no sulfur).

The idea that combustion of a 10 micrometer piece of organic material may locally reach the temperature able to melt iron as we see out in the open is completely untenable for obvious reasons (see my previous post). If there is no more serious counter argument on this crucial point, for me the debate is closed. Thanks

Fred

Please consider at least informing us how (or if) you plan to test the chips more thoroughly. While you, personally, may not have access to the proper facilities, surely if you make an effort you can find somebody who will have the requisite facilities and expertise. A closely related question is: "What (if anything) are you, the Harrit team, or any other group researching the chips doing to make your findings known to the relevant scientific communities?" I realize promoting one's research isn't the norm, but publishing in a journal (Bentham) which has been around less than 2 years is basically a guarantee that almost nobody in that field (Physical Chemistry) will see the Harrit paper, unless they're attention is directed to it. Would it not make sense for you to hand-deliver or snail-mail the paper to some physical chemists in France, and at least ask them for some private feedback?

I have advised Professor Jones not to post in the 911 forum, and after seeing how a post on the thermitic paper went in the Science forum, I think it's fair to conclude that posting at any part of JREF is not the best way to come to some sort of meeting of the minds with honest critics. So, if you do not want to reply to this post at JREF, I completely understand, but please consider doing so at the911forum.freeforums.org.

 

[A W Smith]

Yes
The photo from the article with two red layers strongly suggest that it was applied in multilayers thus could reach millimeters in thickness
the ration between the inert and activ part allows to tune accurately the power of the reaction.

When? in 1971? or later UNDER the existing fireproofing which according to documents was never removed during the lifetime of the buildings.

I didnt mean that the thermate was the redchips. It would make no sense to apply thermate at the surface of a column since the melting effect would only be superficial. As i said thermate (nothing to do with the chips) was most probably used in cutter charges and explains the FEMA and other observations of very high levels of Sulfur in previously molten metal.

thermate is NOT an explosive, therefore, cannot be used as a "cutter charge" unless you are claiming a melting charge on a vertical member. Such a device never existed. The reacting thermate cannot hold itself against the vertical member and remain in contact with the surface during the reaction.

But one millimeter of this multilayer staff could certainly heat a column
by hundreds of degrees! (i computed that a given thickness of this thermite can elevate by 500°C 8 times this thickness of steel) add this to the already hundred of degrees from the WTC fires, also take into account that the bigger columns were cutted by thermate charges so the remaning ones were overloaded and you can insure the failure!...as if it was natural...as if it were produced by the fires alone!

You are going to have to show your calculations. And also what "given thickness"??

This new link is an english version! aspirateur means vacuum cleaner in french
because some of our dust was collected in an appartment with a vacuum cleaner . But here the label is not meaningful since the redchip is not from this sample... i can recover the numbers but they will tell you nothing interesting!

Are you serious? A vacuum cleaner? Along with the cat hair? Soiled carpet? Pollen? And other possible contaminates from the atmosphere as well as carbon from the brushes of the vacuum motor itself? This method of collection does not concern you? Is this a joke? Why was this particular sample even mentioned? It should have been discarded and ignored along with all the other 5 year old samples.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I have advised Professor Jones not to post in the 911 forum, and after seeing how a post on the thermitic paper went in the Science forum, I think it's fair to conclude that posting at any part of JREF is not the best way to come to some sort of meeting of the minds with honest critics.

There is nothing dishonest about the criticism many of us are levelling at Steven Jones's work. I suspect that, as long as he persists in drawing unwarranted conclusions from his findings, that his attitude will be the one that prevents any meeting of the minds.

Dave

 

[Dog Town]

My French is not good but I can understand the data. One thing I did note was page 13 you identify the places where the XEDS analysis was taken from "aspiro" 20, 21 etc (which is something that Harris et al didn't do), but the subsequent graphs on pages 14-18 have the corresponding number cut off. I can mostly work it out due to understanding "rouge" and "sombre" (dark), but your sample clearly has three different layers (See page 11) and there is no differentiation. except with the "aspiro" labels. (What does aspiro mean?)

Thanks.

As I demonstrated in that thread, that got closed. Put it through google translator.It works pretty darn good.
http://translate.google.com/

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Please consider at least informing us how (or if) you plan to test the chips more thoroughly. While you, personally, may not have access to the proper facilities, surely if you make an effort you can find somebody who will have the requisite facilities and expertise. A closely related question is: "What (if anything) are you, the Harrit team, or any other group researching the chips doing to make your findings known to the relevant scientific communities?" I realize promoting one's research isn't the norm, but publishing in a journal (Bentham) which has been around less than 2 years is basically a guarantee that almost nobody in that field (Physical Chemistry) will see the Harrit paper, unless they're attention is directed to it. Would it not make sense for you to hand-deliver or snail-mail the paper to some physical chemists in France, and at least ask them for some private feedback?

I have advised Professor Jones not to post in the 911 forum, and after seeing how a post on the thermitic paper went in the Science forum, I think it's fair to conclude that posting at any part of JREF is not the best way to come to some sort of meeting of the minds with honest critics. So, if you do not want to reply to this post at JREF, I completely understand, but please consider doing so at the911forum.freeforums.org.

You're kidding me. You received highly valid and legitimate criticisms about the paper, and your conclusion is that they're not "honest"?

Jesus.

 

[Sunstealer]

Hello,

This will be my last post because i cannot debate with so many people at the same time on so many subjects.

I fully understand. I very much appreciate (and I hope others do too) you posting here and answering questions in a different language to French. I hope you continue to read the thread and post especially seeing as you have directly examined a sample.

If I may ask just two more things concerning your SEM analysis at

The general SEM photos - page 13, have markers (aspiro 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 33) identifying where each XEDS analysis was performed. However, the spectra do not have the corresponding identification, because the pdf file cuts them off - see red arrows - see below. Would you mind labelling the spectra if it wasn't much trouble? That would help hugely because I have a question about the layers.

In the photo below I see 3 different layers - marked 1,2,3. You mention the red (rouge) and dark (sombre) layers. Is layer 3 the same material as layer 2? Layer 3 looks more crystalline and metallic with a "fibrous" appearance as seen on the surface of a ductile fracture (the same as a "cup and cone" fracture of a ductile material) than layer 2.

Thanks very much for your help.

 

[moorea34]

a very interesting paper :

Incorporation of kaolin fillers into an epoxy/polyamidoamine matrix for coatings
A. Astruca, E. Joliff a, J.-F. Chailana,∗, E. Aragona, C.O. Petterb, C.H. Sampaiob, Progress in Organic Coatings 65 (2009) 158–168

Sory but I can't insert images (12 post only for me !!)

 

[moorea34]

For all the DSC curves concerning Al-nano-thermite (not anly with Fe2O3 but also with Mo or Cu) we can note an endothermic peak at 660C°, the melting of Al...

Where is this peak on Jones' graphs, fig 29 ?
Unfortunately (?) the red curve is cuted before, at 600°C ....



Source...

Dependence of size and size distribution on reactivity of aluminum
nanoparticles in reactions with oxygen and MoO3 Juan Suna, Michelle L. Pantoya b, Sindee L. Simona,∗ Thermochimica Acta 444 (2006) 117–127

Thermite reactions of Al/Cu core-shell nanocomposites with WO3
Yi Wang a, Wei Jiang a, Zhipeng Chenga, Weifan Chenb, Chongwei Ana,
Xiaolan Songa, Fengsheng Li a,∗ Thermochimica Acta 463 (2007) 69–76

Characterizing Energy Transfer using an Infrared Camera from a Reacting Nano -Composite Thermite Embedded in a Steel Target by Charles Crane, B.S.M.E. A Thesis In MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
Other very interessant paper : Metal-based reactive nanomaterials
Edward L. Dreizin*, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 35 (2009) 141–167(For the pictures of nano-Al very diferent than 'red chips' ones)


The peak for red chips are not very powerfull... You have DSC curves for Coal and sludges here :
Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry, Vol. 86 (2006) 2, 489–495
SIMULTANEOUS THERMOGRAVIMETRIC-MASS SPECTROMETRIC STUDY ON THE CO-COMBUSTION OF COAL AND SEWAGE SLUDGES M. Otero1, M. E. Sánchez2, A. I. García2 and A. Morán2*

May be pictures later...

 

[moorea34]

I have sent an e-mail to authors of Incorporation of kaolin fillers into an epoxy/polyamidoamine matrix for coatings (french researchers)

I'll give you the result

 

[moorea34]

I've found the paper of Tillotsom (red curve on fig 29 of Jones' paper). The DSC curve realy stop at 600°C.

 

[metamars]

For all the DSC curves concerning Al-nano-thermite (not anly with Fe2O3 but also with Mo or Cu) we can note an endothermic peak at 660C°, the melting of Al...

Where is this peak on Jones' graphs, fig 29 ?
Unfortunately (?) the red curve is cuted before, at 600°C ....

Figure G.1b - 50 nm Al + MoO3 DSC Curves, p. 199 (p. 220, total) in Granier's dissertation, COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF A1 NANOPARTICLES AND NANOCOMPOSITE A1+MoO3 THERMITES, shows peaks from 511 C to 525 C (the green, 20 Kpm peak is off the chart), and onset from 419.4 C to 451 C.

I don't see any endotherms, at all.


Notice that Harrit's peak is at ~ 430 C - if their sample is, indeed, nanothermite, it appears that the morphology has made the oxide layer easier to crack, apparently at about the same temperature as what I'll presume are defective spherical oxide shells, would crack at.

I don't think that it's not absolutely necessary that the Al melt before the Al oxide layer crack. The Al will expand even before it becomes liquid, no?

 

[moorea34]

You will find some pictures here ...

http://www.bastison.net/ALCHIMIE/alchimie.html#B9



The text is in french but I've kept the legends...

 

[leftysergeant]

That is not the conclusion of the experts who have studied this phenomenon. The statement "the rest was of course molten" is unfounded; the explanation offered is one of corrosion by sulphur-rich slag, which would mean that the missing material was dissolved rather than melted. What has also never been observed, it should also be pointed out, is a melting process which gives the results seen in these specific steel members; in particular, thinning of edges to near-razor sharpness is strong and almost incontravertible evidence against melting, which will tend to produce rounded edges through the action of surface tension.

I am blessed with the ability to look at an object from several different perspectives at once. As a fire fighter, I saw nothing about the "Swiss cheese" steel to indicate that thermnite or explosives had been used.

As a construction worker (on rare enough occassion these day, as I approach 63) I fdind nothing at all surprising about the styeel's being scattered on the ground after such a fire.

As an artist, the surfaces exposed by the "melting" of the Swiss cheese looks like some of the metal over which I had poured fuming nitric acid to etch patterns into the surface.

Of course, on the pile, there would be little if any nitric acid, but, with all those computer banks, I anm sure there were great amounts of sulphuric acid. Sulphuric acid and steel are strange in that they reeact best when the acid is somewhat diluted.

Well, DUH!