A Thermite/Thermate Question

[GodisEnergy]

who said they used grenades ?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Yes i understand what i gave you,thats why there metal oxides, copper oxides etc.You can mix different thermite mixtures together.

But it doesn't matter if you can do it, you need to show that it WAS done, currently you have failed persistently do that.

Let me illustrate this. You are working from a conclusion to a theory, not testing a theory to reach a conclusion.

You have concluded that thermite was used, but instead of testing the evidence to see if it fits, you instead are forcing the evidence into your predetermined conclusion, or at least you are letting Steven Jones do it for you.

I call this the Alien Technology argument because UFO believers use it all the time. They see a light in the sky they can't identify and instantly call it an alien spacecraft. From then on anything can be explained by Alien Technology. If the light appears to move at mach 10+ without any evidence of heating of the air, well that's because of Alien Technology. If the light appears to go directly up against all laws of aerodynamics, it's alien technology. Essentially they merely attribute any properties they need to define as properties of Alien Technology.

In the same way Steven Jones merely declares that these signatures are of a super secret type of military thermite that has all these chemicals in it. He has ZERO evidence that such a thermite even exists or that it would even do anything he claims it could, but because he can shoehorn the chemical signatures into it by claiming that it exists and has the same properties as the signatures show, he then believes that he can wave the graphs as evidence.

It's a form of circular reasoning, it's highly unscientific, and a major logical fallacy, and if you can't see that and understand why Jones is considered nothing but a buffoon here, then you are really beyond hope.

 

[bio]

But it doesn't matter if you can do it, you need to show that it WAS done, currently you have failed persistently do that.

Let me illustrate this. You are working from a conclusion to a theory, not testing a theory to reach a conclusion.

You have concluded that thermite was used, but instead of testing the evidence to see if it fits, you instead are forcing the evidence into your predetermined conclusion, or at least you are letting Steven Jones do it for you.

I call this the Alien Technology argument because UFO believers use it all the time. They see a light in the sky they can't identify and instantly call it an alien spacecraft. From then on anything can be explained by Alien Technology. If the light appears to move at mach 10+ without any evidence of heating of the air, well that's because of Alien Technology. If the light appears to go directly up against all laws of aerodynamics, it's alien technology. Essentially they merely attribute any properties they need to define as properties of Alien Technology.

In the same way Steven Jones merely declares that these signatures are of a super secret type of military thermite that has all these chemicals in it. He has ZERO evidence that such a thermite even exists or that it would even do anything he claims it could, but because he can shoehorn the chemical signatures into it by claiming that it exists and has the same properties as the signatures show, he then believes that he can wave the graphs as evidence.

It's a form of circular reasoning, it's highly unscientific, and a major logical fallacy, and if you can't see that and understand why Jones is considered nothing but a buffoon here, then you are really beyond hope.

Is it just a strange coincident for you, that the microshpere have a very similar X-EDS signature like known Thermate samples?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Is it just a strange coincident for you, that the microshpere have a very similar X-EDS signature like known Thermate samples?

How quickly people forget. Is it just a strange "coincidence" for you that the microspheres have an identical EDX signature for spheres from fly ash?

Thanks RedIbis....

I am not questioning Jones' data, I am questioning his interpretation of said data.

You need to take a look at Volume III of the famous "Particle Atlas" by Walter McCrone. This provides scanning electron micrographs and EDX spectra for thousands of common materials. The section from pages 760 - 780 is most interesting since it shows flyash microspheres from large domestic waste incinerators burning paper, wood and plastics as well as flyash from coal-fired furnaces. The EDX spectra show major peaks from Al, Si, K, Ca, and Fe together with smaller peaks from Ti, S and Cl.

Jones' spectra are a perfect match for FLY ASH!

Does it also not bother you that there are other pieces of evidence missing? Such as overt signs of melting on the steel that was examined? Something that's been pointed out over and over in this very thread? As well as there being no real opportunity for thermite to have been installed?

For the umpteenth time, obsessive repitition of chemical issues means nothing in the absence of other overt signs of thermites effects. There is a reason thermite is considered a dead thesis.

 

[bio]

How quickly people forget. Is it just a strange "coincidence" for you that the microspheres have an identical EDX signature for spheres from fly ash?

Come on - this signature looks different. Dr. Greening exaggerated.
On of your friends here said therefore: "If the top photograph is an EDS spectrum produced with a older SEM and bear in mind that the 2nd edition of the The Particle Atlas Book was published between 1973-1979, then one would not expect to see any Oxygen in any spectra for the simple reason that the EDS of that time would not have been able to detect it!"

Do you have better EDX signatures than Dr. Greening? Then you can prove your point of view is right.

 

[Sunstealer]

i didnt see any spheres near that size in those sources.?

I have no idea where you get 1.5mm from. The RJ Lee paper shows SEM photos with particles less than 10 microns in scale. I'd estimate about 3 microns in diameter. I have consistently shown that the burning of coal produces fly ash that contains iron microspheres in a range of sizes upto iirc 0.4mm in diameter and lower than 3 microns all with a similar chemical composition to microsphers found in WTC dust samples as per RJ Lee.

Secondly as a Materials Engineer (Metallurgist) with over 10 years experience including SEM experience and EDS, WDS, XRD (I sit at work less than 10 feet away from two SEMs - seperated by a wall ofcourse) and other analytical techniques I can safely say and others here have already shown as much, that the EDS traces that you are putting up in comparison to the WTC iron-microspheres are completely different. It definitely shows that you have little to no experience of EDS. Just because peaks appear showing the presence of an element does not mean that chemical composition is the same. If you are going to show these plots then you MUST include the wt% composition from those samples along with the plot as a MINIMUM otherwise there is no way of interpreting the data fully.

Secondly, anyone of any standing would not rely on a single analytical technique for classification. The reason SEM with EDS is used is because it's quick and therefore cheap. Show me some XRD data of WTC iron-microspheres and you'll get a good idea of chemical compounds present, however, I've shown in the papers above that chemical composition varies widely with particle size and origin. Relying on a single EDS spectrum from a tiny area on a single, 3 micron iron-microsphere and a subsequent spectrum from a single thermite produced particle is utter madness. The data simply isn't there to produce a comparison. You'd have to do a complete analysis with the same rigour as the papers above on all known thermites. This would be very, very expensive.

It's interesting to see the difference between properly produced papers, their content and style, and truther powerpoint nonsense. Producing proper papers with data would go along way to giving the truthers some credibility. Instead they produce the crap one expects from those with little training and knowledge.

 

[Sunstealer]

I honestly doubt that there has been a lot of research into it. I can tell you that as a chemist, the two XED signitures are very different to the trained eye. For instance there is no Si peak in the thermite. The Fe peaks in the WTC sample are far lower indicating less Fe in the sample. The WTC has big K peaks which don't exist in the Thermite sample whereas the Thermite sample has Cu peaks while none appear in the WTC sample. The sulphur in the WTC is very little compared to the Thermite sample and the WTC sample compaints Na and Ni, niether of which appear in the Thermite sample. I'd also note that what seems to have been labeled as a Mg peak in the Thermite spectrum, is in a totally different place to that in the WTC one.

So what does it all mean. Well firstly that the two are quite obviously different materials. Chemists tend to look at differences in spectra to determine if things are the same, and these have lots of differences. The second thing it tells us is that the spheres contain all of the most common elements in the WTC, Iron, Aluminium, Silicon, Carbon, and Oxygen.

In the end it's like trying to tell people that a banana is a cat simply because they contain a similar chemical make-up while ignoring all the other differences.

QFT GodisEnergy. Please reread this post then reread it again. This area is a technical one and laymen are not going to fare to well. Best to read and learn.

 

[Sunstealer]

Is it just a strange coincident for you, that the microshpere have a very similar X-EDS signature like known Thermate samples?

To the untrained eye they do. Again reread phantoms anlogy between a cat and a banana. Similar to you is a world away from identical in chemical composition.

 

[Sunstealer]

Also read this exchange. Again it backs up what I've said about EDS/EDX and lack of an Oxygen peak. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3276813&postcount=57 from this thread http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102021&page=2.

The problem with people such as GodisEnergy is that they are laymen and take graph or spectrum as presented without understanding the nuances or equipment limitations. This is why you get nonsense like "where is the Oxygen!!" and comparing peaks between data. I don't even expect he realises that these peaks do not directly related to wt%
From the above thread

I know full well that peak height ratios in EDX spectra are not directly proportional to the elemental concentrations in the sample. There are X-ray absorption and emission coefficients that need to be considered which are sample-matrix dependent. Nevertheless, peak height ratios do offer some approximate indication of the sample composition, especially for elements with similar atomic weights. Thus I have at least demonstrated that iron and aluminum-rich microspheres may be produced by the combustion of carbonaceous materials such as coal, wood, cardboard and paper.

 

[bio]

To the untrained eye they do. Again reread phantoms anlogy between a cat and a banana. Similar to you is a world away from identical in chemical composition.

Are there more such similarities (as in the Thermate/Microshpere case) in form of X-EDS signatures?

 

[scott75]

Are there more such similarities (as in the Thermate/Microshpere case) in form of X-EDS signatures?

Bio, are you asking if there are more likely explanations for the X-EDS signatures then thermate? If not, I'll ask it .

 

[bio]

yes - this is also a good question!

 

[scott75]

As pointed out by Shyam Sunder during the NIST building seven briefing, Once thermite begins to erode the steel in a vertical column. There is no more physical contact between the thermite and the steel to continue the reaction to cut the column. Its like throwing sand against a wall and expecting it to stick. Your thermite fantasy cannot happen in this physical universe until you get gravity to work sideways.

Actually, thermite doesn't have to be in direct contact with the steel. I strongly recommend you read Robert Moore's "Statement Regarding Thermite, Part 1", which can be found on the Journal for 9/11 Studies' web page:
www(dot)journalof911studies(dot)com

 

[beachnut]

why dont you read my posts before repeating your trash on this topic which we are trying to talk about scientifically with your fantasy of mainstream media like pulizter prizes and washington post, new york times covering any relevent news.
Hey if this thermite thing has been debunked why cant i find the debunking?

Thermite was made up! It was debunked 7 years ago when zero products from thermite were found. As in zero. There a clumps of iron left over from thermite reactions, where are they. There were zero devices used to cut the large columns in the WTC; zero devices found.

You have zero scenario. Zero

Zero evidence, and zero rational ideas. Made up by Jones in 2005.

So it has been debunked, you are not reading.

You also can't tell me the heat of reaction difference with the special additives! You are not prepared to support a fantasy, a lie made up by Jones in 2005. Do you even have his first failed letter where he makes it up out of the blue?

The fact is you are supporting a failed idea and can't see the lie Jones made up.

You can not tell me how it was done, or the formula used.

In the real world there would be piles of products and we would know the exact formula and we could track the supplies bought for the termite deal. But thermite is not practical for bringing down buildings, this is why RDX is used by professional to bring down buildings. You need to gain knowledge, you are supporting nut case idea thermite, made up in September 2005, four years after 9/11 due to biases only Jones can explain unless he has gone totally insane. He is banking on people being ignorant on the specifics so they will follow his crackpot idea.



But go right ahead tilting at windmills based on hate and disrespect for those who died on 9/11. Don Quixote would not be pound of you.

Actually, thermite doesn't have to be in direct contact with the steel. I strongly recommend you read Robert Moore's "Statement Regarding Thermite, Part 1", which can be found on the Journal for 9/11 Studies' web page:
www(dot)journalof911studies(dot)com

How ignorant on the topics needed to understand 9/11 are believers of 9/11 truth! A good example of stupid, the article you posted as Jones makes up stuff and idiots try to back in the proof! What a bunch of doltish ideas in the papers of those who write for 9/11 scholars. Scholars? What a ironic failure name for Stupid Ideas from Former Scholars.
There are 3 inches of fire proofing on the core columns, makes the thermite impossible for many reasons Jones fails to address! What a dumb idea, thermite, Jones made it up and people support fantasy.

Zero devices found to hold thermite on 9/11. How many did Jones say were used? OH, Jones never laid out a rational explanation? LOL

There is a big reason less than 0.0001 percent of all world engineers take Jones serious. So sad to be supported by a few fringe engineers and scientist who have no clue on 9/11.

Not a single column was cut by thermite! Jones lies and calls clean up cuts, thermite cuts. Who supports a liar? Those who support Jones! How sad.

 

[Sunstealer]

Are there more such similarities (as in the Thermate/Microshpere case) in form of X-EDS signatures?

Sorry, I'm not sure what you are asking for. Could you elaborate please.

 

[A W Smith]

Actually, thermite doesn't have to be in direct contact with the steel. I strongly recommend you read Robert Moore's "Statement Regarding Thermite, Part 1", which can be found on the Journal for 9/11 Studies' web page:
www(dot)journalof911studies(dot)com

No remains of any such device were seen or recovered at GZ. In fact. I cannot even find the real existence of such a device beyond patent drawings on an Internet "patent" site. Which will pretty much publish anything even if you do not provide a working prototype.

 

[bio]

Sorry, I'm not sure what you are asking for. Could you elaborate please.

Is it "normal", that there are similarities in X-EDS signatures between microspheres and products of thermate? Can you produce microspheres by yourself in the labor, examine it in a microscope and come to the same result as Prof. Jones?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Is it "normal", that there are similarities in X-EDS signatures between microspheres and products of thermate? Can you produce microspheres by yourself in the labor, examine it in a microscope and come to the same result as Prof. Jones?

shouldnt dr jones have examined microspheres from other known sources, rather than just using the 1 unknown and the 1 control and saying they kind look similar?

or would that be getting too close to science for the truthers tastes?

 

[bio]

shouldnt dr jones have examined microspheres from other known sources, rather than just using the 1 unknown and the 1 control and saying they kind look similar?

or would that be getting too close to science for the truthers tastes?

Prof. Jones should have taken microspheres from other sources than from Ground Zero and compare it under the microscope with products of thermate? Do you think, then he would find out the same similarities?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Prof. Jones should have taken microspheres from other sources than from Ground Zero and compare it under the microscope with products of thermate? Do you think, then he would find out the same similarities?

slight correction, jones should have taken samples from other known sources (IE fly ash) and compared them to the sample from ground zero (not the thermate sample)

and yes, i think he would find the same degree of similarity as he did with the thermate