Merged Thread to Discuss The Excellent Analysis of Jones latest paper

lijebaley01 said:
I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but has anyone mentioned that the auto-ignition temp of methylethylketone is 460C, just where the the peak is for his claimed red/gray nano-chips, and that nothing shows up where the thermite peak show be?
Click to expand...

When NIST did the DSC on the actual paint samples from the steel, they found that the organic binder ignited around 450 C. What we have here is the amazing re-re-re-re discovery that carbonaceous materials combust at around 400 C in the presence of oxygen.

Oooo....

Ahhhh....
 
lijebaley01 said:
I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but has anyone mentioned that the auto-ignition temp of methylethylketone is 460C, just where the the peak is for his claimed red/gray nano-chips, and that nothing shows up where the thermite peak show be?
Click to expand...


Now you don't think that Jones would have used the MEK soaked chips for the flame test:)
Given that MEK can be used to help make Thermite, it was always a strange choice to soak the chips in, and the failure to clearly show which chips were tested in the flame test just adds to the suspicion that Jones was fabricating his results to match his theory.
 
Harrit paper

If I may, I would like to point out something very wrong in the Jones, harrit, et al paper, Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe. He has a DSC trace of the red/grey chips, soaked in MEK (figure 29) in which he claims the peak to be thermite of some sort. However, 460C just happens to be the autoignition temperature of the methylethylketone.
I am sorry if this is already well known, there is just too much to go through to find out.
 
Pointed out just recently, actually, in a thread just down the list aways.

Welcome to the forum.

TAM:)
 
Steven Jones, to nobody's surprise, keeps on defending his BS.

In 9/11 blogger comments section:

Steven Jones @ 911blogger said:
We're in this together.

There appear to be two main WALLS of defense for the "official story" of 9/11.

1. People's extreme reluctance to question a BIG LIE, especially when the lie comes from their government. This "Big Lie principle" was enunciated by Hitler and used by him, and is the basis of "false flag events." This is seen also in the refusal of NIST to even LOOK for residues of explosives in the WTC dust -- and they are getting away with it.

2. The wall of nonsense thrown up around solid evidence by so-called "debunkers". For example, the notion that the red/gray chips are merely flakes of primer paint (suggested by Eagar of MIT and others). This notion ignores the fact that the primer paint contains significant ZINC whereas the red/gray chips contain NO zinc (looking at an inside surface freshly exposed by fracture); it also ignores the fact that the red/gray chips produce iron-rich spheres upon ignition which burning paint does not do. There are many other examples.

With the solid evidence we have published, we are breaking down wall #2... but how to break down wall #1??

http://911blogger.com/news/2010-05-...hip-approaches-milestone-10000#comment-232827
Click to expand...
 
S. Jones could (if he wanted to, but he doesn't) rectify the entire situation of doubt or ambiguity, concerning his alleged "results" from his so called "paper" by simply doing the following.

Provide samples of his dust to a TRULY independent lab for analysis, including testing in an Oxygen free environment.

Do the members of the truth movement not find it a bit odd that this ground breaking, earth shatter evidence has not been submitted to a truly independent 3rd party for confirmation via analysis for repeatability of his/their results?

DO the members of the truth movement not find it a bit odd, that the chips were not tested in an oxygen free environment, given that thermite has its own oxygen source and should burn in such an environment?

Do the members of the truth movement not find it a bit odd that not a single other analysis of WTC dust has mentioned the presence of thermite, or "unknown thermitic or heat producing materials" in their results?

Do the members of the truth movement not find it a bit odd that many of the other analysis of WTC dust do mention PAINT in their list of materials in the dust, but the Harrit/Jones paper does not?

Do the members of the truth movement not find it odd, that a so called scientist does not follow the principles of science, and attempt to rule out all other possible sources of the "chips" before concluding they are "an exotic thermitic material"?

TAM:)
 
lijebaley01 said:
If I may, I would like to point out something very wrong in the Jones, harrit, et al paper, Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe. He has a DSC trace of the red/grey chips, soaked in MEK (figure 29) in which he claims the peak to be thermite of some sort. However, 460C just happens to be the autoignition temperature of the methylethylketone.
I am sorry if this is already well known, there is just too much to go through to find out.
Click to expand...

Good catch, and it certainly goes along with what a lot of other people with a semblance of competence have said before. The DSC results actually disprove the existence of thermite. Welcome to the forums, by the way.
 
9/11 bedunkers think the red-grey chips are PAINT! :D

I think there are even whole threads on this, but here's the latest:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7280536&postcount=1476

Do they have any evidence of this? No. Has a study been done that refutes Harrit and Basile? No. So why do they say it's paint? They're bedunkers. They'll say anything. They think it's normal for steel-framed highrises to plummet to the ground from local upper-floor failures. What can we expect?
 
Jono, here, says the paper's very data debunks its conclusions. The floor's yours, Jono!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom