• 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

GodisEnergy said:
see my post 163


I DONT WANT TO CHANGE THE TOPIC ,its you people that rapidly change the topic whenever i bring up hard evidence.
Click to expand...

Who is going off topic? You have yet to present hard evidence. That's the point. You're making conjecture and opinion.

I wanted to get back to 1,3 di

1.noone saying its proof of thermite but it does correspond to the other findings.
2.the abundunce of it
3.Noone has ever found it before in a office fire if you can find me a office fire that has produced it ill change my mind
Click to expand...

1. No, it does not correspond to the other findings.
2. There is no abundance of thermite. You're simply taking materials that are in abundance in the WTC and trying to say that the cause may be thermite. But that would leave a big problem in that the material from the building could then not be accounted for since you are saying the material is from thermite and not the material used in the building. What happened to the material form the building? Is that how magical thermite works? It magically removes the material from the bulding and replaces it with the same material only from a thermite reaction?
3. Show us some examples of where this was looked for in an office fire. Show us anything to show you aren't simply making up this claim (hint: We know you are lying because it's a completely false statement that you made up).


You guys always state how science works on experiments etc.But you just

Assume that it comes from computers
Assume that the iron microspheres come from fly ash
Assume that the sulphidiztion of steel came from Batterys
Click to expand...

No
No
No

We go by things that are known to be there in the building. This is unquestionable. You on the otherhand are trying to now argue that those things such as batteries and fly ash didn't exist in the building since the source is thermite instead of those things.

So we have concrete proof of these materials being in the building and absolutely no evidence what so ever that the material came form thermite charges instead. Thermite would leave signs aside from materials such as the signatures on the steel it cut and things like that. There is zero signs of any such things.

And then you accuse steven jones of assumtionism ,when he created a test to see if thermite could create the products above
Click to expand...

And Jones has been proven completely wrong. he, like you, has not been able to publish his speculation into any reputable engineering journal because there is nothing to support the claim. You could also argue that it was done by space aliens with superior technology to cover their tracks. It's certainly not impossible. And your argument is no different.
Untill i see evidence of these three things im afraid no matter how much talking well do we wont find out wether this was an inside thing or not.
Click to expand...

Until you see evidence of what things? Evidence that there was dry wall used in a building? Evidence that the backup systems in the building used batteries? It's funny because you require no actual evidence of thermite or of a CD to think there was one.

NO, YOU won't agree that it wasn't an inside thing. The rational world has already proven beyond any doubt that it was not an inside job. You on the other hand decided without any evidence that it was and you will never change your mind. Please don't insult everyone by pretending you are open minded and simply need more research to make a conclusion. We're not that stupid. You know very well that you think it was an inside job and the reason you won't stick to your own beliefs is because you know you can't support them.
 
Last edited:
Well we dont really know what the residue from Nano thermite would look like,at such a small scale ,the residue molten iron * seemed to mainly form spheres very small.
Unlike commerical thermite which is much larger aluminium sizes in the mixture makes the molten iron stick together more when it melts.

Then there is wether the burning of the thermite was used to create a hot jet of air which could slice through steel.This would limit the residue effect.

When you say these chemicals were present in the towers its true.But wether they can be fused together from different elements like gypsum,fly ash ,manganese ,zinc,etc into Single spheres to form the eds spectra of the ones jones produced.
I think is unlikely and unproven
 
A W Smith said:
yet none of those coupon samples or cuts (yes i can see the unmistakable signature of oxyacetylene torch cutting in those samples) have the characteristic white thermite residue on them. So is this super duper alien technology self cleaning thermite now?

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/photosoftorch-cutsteel
Click to expand...

well testing the steel didnt show oxyacetylene marks but the signature of thermite
Once again....:jaw-dropp
 
What's unproven is the use of thermite. And no, traces of thermite have not been proven no matter how many times you make vast speculation and then claim it to be true. This is why neither you nor Jones is able to write a paper showing this and getting it published. While it's easy to simply declare it so on an internet forum, it's not so easy to show it scientifically.

And again, there were no traces of the steel being cut by thermite. If thermite had been used, there would be no mistaking it. It would not be confused for simple fire weakening and bending.
 
Two things:

1. If you're going to invoke Astaneh-Asl, then you'd better realize that he's referring to eutectic erosion. And that right there argues against thermite being used, because you wouldn't get mere reduction from an inch to paper thin, nor would you end up with the remains of a eutectic mix. You'd merely have completely molten metal.

Eutectic mixes are destroyed by thermite. And the erosion Astaneh-Asl noted is the same erosion that Biederman, Sisson, et. al. studied, so we know it's a eutectic mix. Invoking Astaneh-Asl defeats your argument, because the end result of his observations are the eutectic erosion, not thermite melting.

2. You still talk about nobody ever finding 1,3-DPP in an office fire before. Ignoring the absolute absurdity of not finding an aromatic compound after the combustion of plastics, you're making a claim that the relative levels of 1,3-DPP has been measured after office fires before. If so, then cite the studies; otherwise, you have zero basis for saying that the level of 1,3-DPP at Ground Zero is unusual relative to other fires. You are not providing any argument why it's unusual, you're just saying that the amounts were so high that they're disproportionate to other fires. That's just ridiculous logic, especially in the absence of any comparison to other fires. No, to the best of my knowledge, 1,3-DPP levels after office fires have not been measured. Which is exactly my point: You can't say that the WTC levels are unusual vs. common office fires when you have no measurements from common office fires to compare them with in the first place.

Do you realize that pyrolysis - forget burning, just look at heat degradation - of polystyrene is expected to produce 1,3-DPP, amongst the many other polycyclic aromatics that are possible from cracking such a long polymer? Do you realize that polystyrene is a common component of plastic? You keep brining up the 1,3-DPP as if it helps the thermite argument, but the fact of the matter is that it can not. Even if thermite were used at the Twin Towers, how would you separate the 1,3-DPP sol-gel signal from the mass of that compound generated by the plastics burning? You couldn't! Which is why you would need to show examples of gross physical effects, such as melting (real melting, not just edges that are degraded or steel ends that were torch-cut by welders).

For the umpteent time, just in this thread alone: A chemical analsis claiming thermite has no validity, because it would identify compounds that are expected either as part of the construction of the towers, or from the combustion of the contents. 1,3-DPP is one such compound that's fully expected to be there, even in the absence of thermite and "sol-gel".

The more you post, the less you end up proving regarding the conspiracy hypothesis. All the evidence you show actually works against what you propose.
 
''Various metals(most notably iron and lead" were melted during the wtc event'' RJ LEE report.
Click to expand...

Oh for the love of God, one more time, the RJ Lee report was done before the NIST study, before the nature of the fire was known. So their thought about the fires being intense enough to create them was at the time still a legitimate hypothesis.

On top of that, note that they assume that's how the spheres were made; they don't actually establish it, because all they were doing was measuring relative amounts of various compounds released by the collapse against what the normal, pre-collapse background would be.

You cannot take a presumption to be proof. You're doing far to much of that. The RJ Lee study only hypothesized that the spheres were created during the towers fires; they didn't try to prove it, and they didn't have the benefit of the NIST reconstruction of the fires to know it was an unlikely source.
 
For the last time the building contained all the chemicals, but how do they fuse into one sphere without a extreme heat reaction ,
Single spheres were tested,were not testing dust were testing a sphere .For iron and sulpur and pottasium and aluminium to formed a sphere they would have to be melted at the SAME TIME

Why do you say al asl is claiming its a eutecetic mixture??
 
For the last time, all the chemicals found are chemicals that are found in most buildings and from common building materials. Your argument is like going to the desert and saying "Look there's proof that silicon computer chips were here because of all the sand".

But please feel free to write up an engineering paper showing your claims mr energy. So far Jones hasn't been able to, but you seem to feel pretty sure about it. So what's the problem?
 
GodisEnergy said:
For the last time the building contained all the chemicals, but how do they fuse into one sphere without a extreme heat reaction ,
Single spheres were tested,were not testing dust were testing a sphere .For iron and sulpur and pottasium and aluminium to formed a sphere they would have to be melted at the SAME TIME
Click to expand...

And why do you think that "SAME TIME" was 9/11? What about Jones's evidence proves that the spheres were generated on 9/11? Were the tower fires and the supposed use of thermite the only high temperature events that the components - like, say, the constituents of the concrete - ever experienced? Or did some of those components experience high temperatures during their own manufacture?

That's the part you can't seem to get past. Nothing about what Jones has said proves that the spheres were generated on 9/11.

GodisEnergy said:
Why do you say al asl is claiming its a eutecetic mixture??
Click to expand...

I'm not. I'm saying that Astaneh-Asl first noted it, and the Worchester Polytechnic group further examined it. They were all studying the same pieces of steel, after all.
 
twinstead said:
There is a reason Jones is not taken seriously in scientific circles.
Click to expand...

Well, actually, during the Cold Fusion debacle, Jones was singled out for praise by other scientists for being the only one who was being careful and rigorous about his work. But he was outshone by Pons and Fleischmann. Jones was actually one of the referees chosen to review their work.

As an off-topic aside: I didn't know a researcher died during a cold fusion experiement (his test apparatus - a cell of special electrodes submerged in water - exploded): http://www.newscientist.com/article...explosion-closes-cold-fusion-laboratory-.html

That's sad. I don't remember hearing about that.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
Well, actually, during the Cold Fusion debacle, Jones was singled out for praise by other scientists for being the only one who was being careful and rigorous about his work. But he was outshone by Pons and Fleischmann. Jones was actually one of the referees chosen to review their work.
Click to expand...

Then what's his deal with this 911 stuff? He should know better.
 
twinstead said:
Then what's his deal with this 911 stuff? He should know better.
Click to expand...

I think he was drawn into 911 out of pure frustration of the failure of cold fusion. He wants so desperately to make a name for himself, to distinguish himself from everyone else, that he got caught up in this mess. Of course, this is only my opinion, and only Jones holds the real answers.
 
Last edited:
twinstead said:
Then what's his deal with this 911 stuff? He should know better.
Click to expand...
based on what ive seen from jones i think he likes to arrive at a conclusion, then cherry pick evidence that supports him, and ignore evidence that doesnt

in the case of cold fusion his initial assumption was correct, and most or all of the evidence supported him, and there was little if anything to ignore

in the case of 9/11 his assumption is wrong, which takes him down a very different road
 
twinstead said:
Then what's his deal with this 911 stuff? He should know better.
Click to expand...

That's exactly my criticism of him, and make no mistake, I have nothing but severe criticism for his 9/11 "work" (scare quotes intentional and emphasized). He blasted well knows what a proper peer review is, and he also bloody well knows how scientific discourse is supposed to occur, yet he flaunts both in his quest to advance 9/11 fantasies. He must know that his empty structure of "peer review" for articles on his journal is cargo cult methodology, and yet he forwards them as if they're validated. He's gotta know because he's also shopped papers to outside journals like Bentham! His own actions demonstrate that he knows! He also is smart enough to realize that much of his arguments for thermite are so much handwaving past issues, but he doesn't seem to give a damn, and that's just pathetic. Look at the ridiculous interpretation he gives to the findings of 1,3-DPP, and look at what he says about the levels:

If the 1,3 DPP was due to burning computers, why was it not previously observed “in any sampling we’ve ever done”?
Click to expand...
(Link to PDF of his Powerpoint slide show the quote is taken from)

Pure spin. It wasn't present because the previous samplings were not of burning buildings, but rather of background pollutant levels in New York. He has to know this. He has to know that the EPA source he quotes was comapring to background because the whole blasted context of the report he takes that finding from is a comparison to pre-9/11 pollution figures. But despite that, he continues to pitch the finding in a way to where people think the levels are higher than other office fires. GIE here is a perfect example of; that poster buys the whole deception hook, line, and sinker, and goes out of his way to try to make it work.

I wish I knew what the hell his problems are, but there's no way to get inside a person's head. All you can do is see if the work stands or falls on their own merits. That's why past findings made through proper scientific inquiry stand; they're separate from the individual making the discovery. They don't depend on the individual's reputation to work. There's a reason Newton's work on gravity and mathematics stands yet his work on alchemy doesn't. Neither are forwarded based on his reputation, and neither work or fail for anything other than their intrinsic values. When I cite Jones's previous work, I don't do it as a defense of the man at all. Rather, I do it as an illustration of just how far he's fallen.
 
EDIT: I post in one thread and it ends up in another? Server needs a little kick on the side.
 
Last edited:
GodisEnergy said:
When you say these chemicals were present in the towers its true.But wether they can be fused together from different elements like gypsum,fly ash ,manganese ,zinc,etc into Single spheres to form the eds spectra of the ones jones produced.
I think is unlikely and unproven
Click to expand...
This paragraph here proves that you either didn't read or understand the papers that I posted. Go back and (re)read them then just for good measure read them again. It will take you 2 hours. If you did read them, then why is your reading comprehension so poor? Why do you continually mis-interpret or ignore clear, concise data? If you don't understand then damn well say so. Don't just wander ignorantly around, ask if you don't understand and someone here, including me, will take the time and patience to explain.

This is a clear as I can make it.

1. dig coal out of the ground (coal contains allsorts of elements including Fe, Ca, Si, Al etc)
2. Burn it for power generation. - This process leaves an ash behind. This by-product is called "fly ash".
3. This fly ash already contains microspheres that have compositions of Iron Oxides, Silica and Alumina because Fe, Si, Al have oxidised.
4. Damn we have loads and loads and loads of this fly ash stuff cos we burn loads and loads and loads of coal to make electricity so why don't wwe try and use it for something.
5. Use it in concrete (and other building materials)
6. Use concrete and other building materials in WTC.
7. WTC destroyed, find microsperes.

What is so difficult to understand? That is a far more likely scenario for the "discovery" of iron rich microspheres than thermite.

You also realise that Mn, Mg, Zn will all be present in steel in some quantity or another. There is nothing mysterious about this.

Secondly. Please state your scientific qualifications and experience specifically with regard to high temperature reactions/corrosion. My guess is you didn't get a high school diploma/GCSE/Baccalaureate etc in English (due to such careless spelling) let alone anything else that requires additional rigour. Your "unlikely and unproven" is nothing more than personal incredulity and personal ignorance. Why do you think you are right when people, including me, who do understand and work in related fields for a living are telling you that it's wrong?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom