• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

A Thermite/Thermate Question

bio said:
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?
Click to expand...
There aren't any similarities between the spectra for thermite and WTC dust iron-microspheres that have been posted in this thread. People look at them and go oh look there's Fe in that one and Fe in that one and look there's also some Si common to them aswell and look Al too, all the while not seeing a) that other chemical elements appear in one and not the other and b) that you have to understand that the peaks can only tell you that an element is present and not what chemical compound or composition that element makes up.

eg Oxygen, there appears to be lots of it in one of the traces so how much makes up SiO2, Al2O3, FeO, Fe304 etc?

You need additional information and preferably another technique to do that or at best you need the wt% or atomic % for each element (which modern EDS will produce with the inbuilt software but which hasn'tt been presented here). That should be done as standard imho because that will give a rough idea as to what compounds are present although anyone with experience would have a good idea already just not the percentages. (see Oxygen example above).

I could certainly make "iron-microspheres" in the lab by burning coal in the same way power plants do then use a magnet to remove a percentage of them. The composition of those spheres would vary with size. If coal from another area was used this again would change the composition. As for thermite I don't know. Theoretically you could do the experiment but as I've said previously you would need to do it with all known variations of thermite and then do a full analysis on each sample produced. This would be very expensive.

The problem with Prof Jones is he has come up with a very unlikely hypothesis and has not produced a proper, rigorous paper showing how iron-microspheres could have come from thermite, because he is relying on far too small a data set to come to that conclusion. Saying there is some commonality between 2 spectra is a world away from showing that the two samples are identical chemically and compositionally. It is very easy to get "sucked in" and concentrate on a tiny area when using a SEM. You have to be very careful about what you examine and why.
 
bio said:
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.
Click to expand...

*Sigh*

Congratulations for missing the point. Assuming that the spectra you provide is indeed the correct one from "Particle Atlas", the fact is that the Jones microsphere spectra doesn't match the "known thermite" one either. But only one spectra is based on materials known beyond doubt to have been used in the Twin Towers construction, and it's not the one Jones provided and Ultima posted.

However, this is all useless irrelevancy. Using spectroscopic analysis to claim the presence of thermite fails in the absence of other effects. Which is a part of the argument conspiracy peddlers seem bent on missing no matter how many times we repeat it. The elements identified in the spectra are known to be present regardless of whether thermite was used or not, which is yet another argument you ignore when presenting the spectra as evidence. Fly ash was a known component of the Twin Towers' construction, as were major components of thermite - aluminum, metal oxide, other minor elements, etc. As one example, the entire facade was made of aluminum. So any chemical analysis is only going to show the obvious. As I've said over and over before, finding thermite's constituent components in a Twin Towers dust sample is like finding water in the Pacific: They're supposed to be there. Actual employment of thermite as an incendiary at the Twin Towers can only be claimed by providing signatures of other effects, and those effects are missing. Heck, they're not just missing, they're actually contraindicated. The eutectic erosion that was noted by Astaneh-Asl, Biederman, Sisson, and others is one such contradiction; it's not melting, it's a chemical reaction, the remains of which would be destroyed by the temperatures associated with thermite. The lack of formerly molten iron deposits - iron "pigs" - is another contradiction. The lack of mention of melting on the ripped-apart ends of steel components is a third.

And keep in mind that we haven't even addressed alternate possibilities for microspheres. Ultima keeps on repeating Jones's argument against steel cutting, but arc welding is an entirely different process, and his rebuttal does not address that. Nor does it address diesel engine soot, brake pad dust, and all sorts of other mechanical sources present during construction.

The overall problem here is that any spectroscopy, whether EDX, CG, NMR, or whatever, simply identifies presence and relative amounts of components present. It does not speak for how they got there, and as Sunstealer pointed out, they don't even tell the whole story of the elements they show. Trying to argue that EDX spectra from Towers dust resembles thermite spectra is futile and meaningless in the light of far more plausible alternate sources of spheres who's spectra also bear resemblence. Excessively repetitious presentation of the spectra as if they mean something descends into utter vapidity. This is a dead horse being flailed here.
 
bio said:
Is it just a strange coincident for you, that the microshpere have a very similar X-EDS signature like known Thermate samples?
Click to expand...

Is it just a strange coincident for you, that the microspheres have an X-EDS signature that includes all of the major elements in the construction materials of the towers?

Jones hasn't attempted to falsify his own conclusions, he hasn't tried to eliminate other solutions to his puzzle, he hasn't even bothered to run other tests on the materials to get a better picture of what they actually are, he has merely done one, points out that it has the same elements as a possible secret military concoction, without evidence of that being actually used by the military in any way shape of form, and states that his conclusion, which he formulaed before doing the tests, is right.

If you accept that sort of work as scientific, then you better check out to see if the Earth isn't really flat and stationary.
 
Last edited:
Fly ash consists of Spherical metal oxides

Component Bituminous Subbituminous Lignite
SiO2 (%) 20-60 40-60 15-45
Al2O3 (%) 5-35 20-30 20-25
Fe2O3 (%) 10-40 4-10 4-15
CaO (%) 1-12 5-30 15-40
LOI (%) 0-15 0-3 0-5

Therefore comparing Fly ash to wtc dust is like comparing two chemical cocktails.

However compaing iron microspheres (from the wtc dust) it is not valid to compare to the rest of the wtc dust
Or Fly Ash ,

A better comparison would be to compare iron oxide microspheres from fly ash to the wtc Iron microspheres.
 
Any other evidence of whatever exotic chemical the so called 9/11 truth is proposing this week?
 
GodisEnergy said:
Fly ash consists of Spherical metal oxides

Component Bituminous Subbituminous Lignite
SiO2 (%) 20-60 40-60 15-45
Al2O3 (%) 5-35 20-30 20-25
Fe2O3 (%) 10-40 4-10 4-15
CaO (%) 1-12 5-30 15-40
LOI (%) 0-15 0-3 0-5

Therefore comparing Fly ash to wtc dust is like comparing two chemical cocktails.

However compaing iron microspheres (from the wtc dust) it is not valid to compare to the rest of the wtc dust
Or Fly Ash ,

A better comparison would be to compare iron oxide microspheres from fly ash to the wtc Iron microspheres.
Click to expand...

And did Jones attempt to do that, or anything other than just wave a Thermite spectrum and shout "Eureka!"
 
GodisEnergy said:
A better comparison would be to compare iron oxide microspheres from fly ash to the wtc Iron microspheres.
Click to expand...
Yay! That is exactly the argument. Jones says the iron rich-microspheres could only come from thermite products. I am showing that fly ash (from the burning of coal and other substances) contains iron rich microspheres. These spheres also constain SiO2, Al2O3 and others as per the papers I've posted.
 
GodisEnergy said:
what would be the point of testing a known substance hematite
Click to expand...
because thats how science works, you have 1 unknown and multiple knowns, the more knowns the better, because then you can find the known the most closely matches your unknown
 
GodisEnergy said:
what would be the point of testing a known substance hematite
Click to expand...

Don't you think that when testing something and discovering that it contains most of the commonest elemets in the planet's crust (including the 4 most common)

1 Oxygen
2 Silicon
3 Aluminum
4 Iron
5 Calcium
6 Magnesium
7 Sodium
8 Potassium
9 Titanium
10 Hydrogen

As well as those used creation of the building itself...

Oxygen
Iron
Sulphur
Aluminium
Silicon
Copper
Magnesium
Potassium
Carbon

that you might need to do more than simply test for what elements are present before declaring you know what it was? (especially what those spectra doesn't actually match up.)
 
Sunstealer said:
Yay! That is exactly the argument. Jones says the iron rich-microspheres could only come from thermite products. I am showing that fly ash (from the burning of coal and other substances) contains iron rich microspheres. These spheres also constain SiO2, Al2O3 and others as per the papers I've posted.
Click to expand...

no the fly ash contains spheres of si02 and al203 ,if you test the iron spheres in fly ash it will come out as fe203 or Hematite.
 
GodisEnergy said:
no the fly ash contains spheres of si02 and al203 ,if you test the iron spheres in fly ash it will come out as fe203 or Hematite.
Click to expand...
firstly I'd ask you to provide me with some data to back this up, however, please read on because I think we may be are looking at different things

When I talk about "fly ash" I am primarily talking about the by-products of burning coal in power stations (and this "waste" is used in a number of applications, one of which is building materials - concrete etc)

As I have shown above, this by-product, "fly ash", contains "iron rich mircospheres". These spheres have varying compositions depending upon size (of the sphere) and origin of the combusted material (where the coal is from). From the papers I have provided one can easily see that "iron-microspheres also contain other products such as SiO2 and Al2O3. They are not homogeneous, that is not of a singular compound.

Secondly I am well aware that the term "fly ash" can be attributed to by-products due to the combustion of material(s) in the WTC fires.

Personally I think we have crossed wires.

I think what is required is complete clarification on the subject. That is;

A Clear, concise argument, layed out in sequence. This does not require data or spectra or graphs, but a simple premise. One step at a time. No matter how long a post in this thread. I'm more than happy to spend the time responding to it. If it needs a new thread then so be it.
 
Well what we need to do is an experiment, to see if cement/fly ash can form spheres or has spheres with the same chemical composistion and size as the wtc iron microspheres and whether it could account for various sulpur rich ,manganese rich ,pottasium rich iron spheres.

Getting back to the variations in dr jones spheres for oxygen and aluminium and iron,It does look like the variations in the spheres are caused by how much al203 is trapped in the formation of the spheres.Higher iron concentration spheres have less al,o An effecient thermite reaction
While heavy a,o spheres have little iron which would correspond to ineffecient thermite reaction

Interestingly the commerical thermite sample shows how innefecient it is ,causing the slowness of the reaction
But superthermite with nano al particles would be faster and more effecient.
 
In a situation like 9/11 even super thermite will not do. For soemthing of that size you need:

LUDICROUS thermite!
 
Slide182_PNG.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom