tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
Well you could take some college courses in physics and strength of materials then you could reach your conclusions based on knowledge and data rather than faith.
Merged Thread to Discuss The Excellent Analysis of Jones latest paper
- Thread starter The Big Dog
- Start date
Well you could take some college courses in physics and strength of materials then you could reach your conclusions based on knowledge and data rather than faith.
The use of such a list would tell us which, if any of the paint(s) Jones allegedly tested, might have been used in the WTC. Paints, as others have explained here, and elsewhere, can have a WIDE VARIATION in composition, and characteristics. As a result, unless Jones has tested some of the paints that would have been used in the WTC, in particular the red primer, then his tests are USELESS.
The lack of investigation into other sources for the chips, is proof positive that Jones either (A) he is a horrible scientist, or (B) as such confirmation bias, as to make his investigation on this matter useless. Take your pick.
TAM
Oh oh, moving the goal post here, aren't we ?
I didn't ask why it would be useful to test other paints. Because I know why and they know too, as they did it.
I am asking of what specific use would be the list of the paints they have tested, considering no one knows exactly, apart from Tnemec, what paints were used here and there in the huge complexe. You have a list of paint : a few pick in a pool of dozen, or hundred, or thousands of paints/suspect. What use is that list ?
I didn't ask why it would be useful to test other paints. Because I know why and they know too, as they did it.
I am asking of what specific use would be the list of the paints they have tested, considering no one knows exactly, apart from Tnemec, what paints were used here and there in the huge complexe. You have a list of paint : a few pick in a pool of dozen, or hundred, or thousands of paints/suspect. What use is that list ?
The use of such a list would tell us which, if any of the paint(s) Jones allegedly tested, might have been used in the WTC. Paints, as others have explained here, and elsewhere, can have a WIDE VARIATION in composition, and characteristics. As a result, unless Jones has tested some of the paints that would have been used in the WTC, in particular the red primer, then his tests are USELESS.
The lack of investigation into other sources for the chips, is proof positive that Jones either (A) he is a horrible scientist, or (B) as such confirmation bias, as to make his investigation on this matter useless. Take your pick.
TAM
I have quoted your original post, and my reply, because I find it odd, that you would accuse me of moving the goal posts, when I simply answered your question. You asked me what use would the list be, so I answered.
Anyway, I will turn it around and have you answer this...why do you think he didn't include the list of the paint types (specific names etc...). If you think he did not, simply due to length limitation for the paper, well...I think you are not only Naive, but perhaps blinded as well.
I'll tell you what I think. I think he PURPOSELY left such things out because he knew that if he did, we (as well as any of the scientific community who might read his paper) would have the ammunition to prove that his elimination of "paint" as a source of the chips was INADEQUATE.
You cannot ELIMINATE, by any stretch, PAINT as a material, from the list of possible alternative sources (and more likely I might add) if you have not tested paints that were used within the WTC. Now we know the Tnemec Red Primer WAS USED, so why did he NOT test this paint??? We can speculate, but why has he not answered to this?
I remember reading somewhere, I do believe, that you are early in your science education or career (may be that was someone else), but if you are, then you should probably not use Jones et al as examples or role models. Any good scientist will tell you that SPECIFICS are incredibly important, as is REPRODUCIBILITY of your results by INDEPENDENT analysis.
TAM
I am not early, I am not in at all (and it would be a bite late to change that...). My wife is a searcher (in social psychologie) thus, so I get some insight on how the world of science works... to a certain point 
No back to business : I think you didn't get my question at all. I formulated it several time so maybe I am not doing this well. My point is that the list is not included because it's would not be a useful info to anyone. You failed so far to bring any contradiction to that statement and that's the question I am asking. Of what use would such a list be to anyone ? The ony reason I can see for that list to get some use is that you think they lied about their test so people can double check them. Well IMO :
a) it's very unlikely considering the test (what paint would you expect to produce flame and material ejection under the fire, seriously ?)
b) if you know what paint were used in WTC (and AFAIK, apart from TRPP nothing is really known so that's another reason that make your point senseless to me), you don't need to know their list : just take a torch and do it !
BTW Tnemec red primer paint is ruled out by Greening and Sunstealer from what I get. The question is rather paint featuring kaolin for Sunstealer or "other, unknown paints" for Greening. So I *really* don't see where any of this would lead anyone anywhere...
Hmm. Hope Sunstealer to be back soon with answers to my questions !
No back to business : I think you didn't get my question at all. I formulated it several time so maybe I am not doing this well. My point is that the list is not included because it's would not be a useful info to anyone. You failed so far to bring any contradiction to that statement and that's the question I am asking. Of what use would such a list be to anyone ? The ony reason I can see for that list to get some use is that you think they lied about their test so people can double check them. Well IMO :
a) it's very unlikely considering the test (what paint would you expect to produce flame and material ejection under the fire, seriously ?)
b) if you know what paint were used in WTC (and AFAIK, apart from TRPP nothing is really known so that's another reason that make your point senseless to me), you don't need to know their list : just take a torch and do it !
BTW Tnemec red primer paint is ruled out by Greening and Sunstealer from what I get. The question is rather paint featuring kaolin for Sunstealer or "other, unknown paints" for Greening. So I *really* don't see where any of this would lead anyone anywhere...
Hmm. Hope Sunstealer to be back soon with answers to my questions !
I am not early, I am not in at all (and it would be a bite late to change that...). My wife is a searcher (in social psychologie) thus, so I get some insight on how the world of science works... to a certain point
No back to business : I think you didn't get my question at all. I formulated it several time so maybe I am not doing this well. My point is that the list is not included because it's would not be a useful info to anyone. You failed so far to bring any contradiction to that statement and that's the question I am asking. Of what use would such a list be to anyone ? The ony reason I can see for that list to get some use is that you think they lied about their test so people can double check them. Well IMO :
a) it's very unlikely considering the test (what paint would you expect to produce flame and material ejection under the fire, seriously ?)
b) if you know what paint were used in WTC (and AFAIK, apart from TRPP nothing is really known so that's another reason that make your point senseless to me), you don't need to know their list : just take a torch and do it !
BTW Tnemec red primer paint is ruled out by Greening and Sunstealer from what I get. The question is rather paint featuring kaolin for Sunstealer or "other, unknown paints" for Greening. So I *really* don't see where any of this would lead anyone anywhere...
Hmm. Hope Sunstealer to be back soon with answers to my questions !
1. I believe, the Tnemec primer was not ruled out, but rather was determined not to be the source for ALL of the samples. I believe they are considering multiple sources for the chips, of which the primer COULD be one.
2. I have answered your question. The list would be useful to prove how vigilant or (lack there of) Jones et al were at eliminating paint as a source. If they tested one or two paints, NEITHER OF WHICH were used in the WTCs, then it would prove they did VERY LITTLE to eliminate paint as a source. IF however, they tested 8-10 paints, and let us say 50-75% of them were in use in the WTCs, then I would say their attempt to eliminate the paints as sources, IN THIS REGARD (the tests they did perform) was better.
3. I am not saying it had to be (the list) in the front, or even in the main "materials and methods" part of the paper, but a list in an appendix would be considered STANDARD fair in such a paper/analysis. This is where he failed, IMO.
with regard to your (a) point, given you are a non-scientist, on what basis do you make your claim? Show me the science behind that, or is it just your "gut instinct"?
As well, just because the only paint listed in NIST (IIRC) was the primer, does not mean that a list does not exist somewhere, of other paints used in the WTC.
All this aside, it is a minor point in terms of investigating it further. My bone of contention is that it is considered proper scientific procedure to list the details of the materials you test...End Of Story.
Yes, he gave it to 2 other truthers to test.
TAM
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,092
The list of paints tested would be very useful, specifically to see whether or not it contained paints that were likely used in the WTC, and biased researchers might not be the best judge of that. But there isn't any need for speculation about Tnemec, when there are still some actual WTC steel samples in a hangar at JKF. To assume that it isn't Tnemec because the currrent formula contains zinc is to presume that the 1960s formula didn't, either. Why guess about that when you can test the actual stuff?
1. Not from what I read.
2. Do you have / know if there is a list from WTC paints ? My understanding is that the list isn't known apart from TRPP. I've seen no mention of it so far. If such a list exist, I can see your point, finally. Thus I am pretty sure that most reference their could have been are lost apart from what was used initially.
3. Did you ask them ? It's common practice to ask about details to the author. That's how, for instance, Jones learned that Tillotson et al. did their DSC in air, and that's how, by not asking before speaking, a lot of people here made agressive misstatements on the matter like "it's never made in air, boo".
My a) point : I explained it with common sense "what paint would you expect to produce flame and material ejection under the fire, seriously ?". I don't expect paint to be fireproofing but I assume paints are tested under fire and that a paint producing exothermic peak and material ejection at relatively low temperature would not pass security tests.
Moreover no one here has been able to test any paint under the fire and show any spark / material ejection. Considering it's a simple / cheap test to do I consider it should at least be done before discussion hypothesis.
2. Do you have / know if there is a list from WTC paints ? My understanding is that the list isn't known apart from TRPP. I've seen no mention of it so far. If such a list exist, I can see your point, finally. Thus I am pretty sure that most reference their could have been are lost apart from what was used initially.
3. Did you ask them ? It's common practice to ask about details to the author. That's how, for instance, Jones learned that Tillotson et al. did their DSC in air, and that's how, by not asking before speaking, a lot of people here made agressive misstatements on the matter like "it's never made in air, boo".
My a) point : I explained it with common sense "what paint would you expect to produce flame and material ejection under the fire, seriously ?". I don't expect paint to be fireproofing but I assume paints are tested under fire and that a paint producing exothermic peak and material ejection at relatively low temperature would not pass security tests.
Moreover no one here has been able to test any paint under the fire and show any spark / material ejection. Considering it's a simple / cheap test to do I consider it should at least be done before discussion hypothesis.
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
Yes he should. I will pledge $50 to a fund to pay for testing by a reputable group like Underwriter's Laboratories.
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
Much is being made about the formation of 'iron-rich spheres', indeed Dr. Jones was quoted 'The formation of these iron-rich spheres implies extremely high temperatures'. I take it they are claiming that this indicates temps of 1400 C or higher (in the paper).
I see that figures 24 - 28 show XEDS spectra of various materials, and that the 'WTC' samples show a number of elements including Mg, Ti, S, K, Ca in addition to O, Fe and Si.
Sunstealer states that it is misleading to call the spheres 'iron-rich', since there is also much Oxygen. But there is a large O peak in the XEDS of commerical thermite also - aren't these similar?
What I'm interested in is whether there is any hard evidence one way or another as to whether the spheres are indeed proof of extremely high temps, as Jones claims.
Anyone?
I see that figures 24 - 28 show XEDS spectra of various materials, and that the 'WTC' samples show a number of elements including Mg, Ti, S, K, Ca in addition to O, Fe and Si.
Sunstealer states that it is misleading to call the spheres 'iron-rich', since there is also much Oxygen. But there is a large O peak in the XEDS of commerical thermite also - aren't these similar?
What I'm interested in is whether there is any hard evidence one way or another as to whether the spheres are indeed proof of extremely high temps, as Jones claims.
Anyone?
Drs_Res
NWO Acorn Hoarder
I'll second that.
I will pledge $50.00 (USD) to a fund to pay for testing by a reputable group like Underwriter's Laboratories.
So that's $100.00 now.
Otherwise he is withholding evidence (in case it actually is evidence)
Finding tiny pieces of material that look like nanothermite is still something else than evidence of controlled demolition of the Twin Towers on 9/11 I believe .
Pyrotechnics used to be a hobby of me. sometimes I needed very fine Aluminium powder for flash compositions, but you can't buy this stuff over here, so I bought some cheap 'silver' paint wich contains very fine Aluminium powder. In order to seperate the aluminium powder from the organic binders I heated a can of this paint with a very small hole in the lid. The aluminium powder that was left behind was very fine, and therefore suited for high energetic compositions (it burned very fast with Fe2O3) .
so the idea that the nanothermite is just paint doesn't sound very strange to me.
Finding tiny pieces of material that look like nanothermite is still something else than evidence of controlled demolition of the Twin Towers on 9/11 I believe .
Pyrotechnics used to be a hobby of me. sometimes I needed very fine Aluminium powder for flash compositions, but you can't buy this stuff over here, so I bought some cheap 'silver' paint wich contains very fine Aluminium powder. In order to seperate the aluminium powder from the organic binders I heated a can of this paint with a very small hole in the lid. The aluminium powder that was left behind was very fine, and therefore suited for high energetic compositions (it burned very fast with Fe2O3) .
so the idea that the nanothermite is just paint doesn't sound very strange to me.
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
(*Bump*)
Issues regarding the findings in this paper are being raised in another thread. I am bumping this thread in order to bring it back to the first page for those reraising the Bentham papers points.
Issues regarding the findings in this paper are being raised in another thread. I am bumping this thread in order to bring it back to the first page for those reraising the Bentham papers points.
Molten iron (many microspheres are almost pure iron or iron oxyde) is a proof of extremely high temps: 1400°C.
To reach these temps you need to concentrate the heat released by a reaction in a small volume.
- The reaction of a given volume V of Thermite gives enough energy to ideally melt ~ 2V of iron
(16kJ/cc for thermite; 7.8kJ/cc to melt iron: (470 J/(°C.kg) x 1500°C + 270000J/kg) x 8000/1O^6 kg/cc)
- The reaction of a given volume V of Coal (carbon) gives enough energy to ideally melt ~ 10V of iron
(79kJ/cc i.e ~ 5x more than thermite)
But each C atom needs an oxygen molecule from the air thus a volume V of Carbon needs
32/12 (ratio of molar masses ) times 2267/1.43 (ratio of densities) times 5 (20% of oxygen in the air) = ~ 20000 V of air.
Therefore when a very small organic or pure carbon particle burns in the air, its energy is released very fast (because it is very small i.e big S/V ratio ) but this energy is released in a huge volume ~ 20000 V so a tiny iron particle (volume V also) around can only get ~1/20000 of this total energy. So it cannot reach the temps able to melt it (see above) . Thus for quite obvious reasons coal or any organic stuff that needs the air oxygen can only melt iron when the heat is accumulated in time and concentrated in space as in a blast furnace.
Let us investigate the extreme case of an organic and iron microparticles confined together into a very small chamber (comparable to their size) and submitted to an air flow ~ thousands of V on a very short time scale (because you must be faster than the dissipative effects which are also very effective for such microparticles ).
But then the particles must also retain much of the heat which is hardly believable ( the air flow would at the same time produce energy lost at high rates). So even this extreme scenario is untenable.
Therefore i see no way to reach the temps of molten iron for such a reaction at the microscopic scale. The reductant and oxydiser (good english ?) must be together in the chips allowing the heat to be released concentrated in a small volume as for a thermitic reaction: high density of energy needed! organic stuff +oxygen = very low energy density because huge volume!
I really need no more to be convinced that the chips are highly energetics by themselves and knowing their composition and the composition of the residuals the evidence is clearly for a Fe2O3 +Al thermitic reaction.
Fred
It is my understanding that were would expect to find such spheres in WTC dust from flyash and that compounds in Jones' dust samples would have lowered the melting point of iron.
IIRC there are links about flyash on this forum but can anyone provide a link indicating that elements in the dust affect the melting poit of Fe?