A Thermite/Thermate Question

[twinstead]

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?

Obviously because you've sold out to The Man. Don't be a sheep; learn to think Outside The Box

 

[GodisEnergy]

I dont know what your qualifications are, i did chemistry at university before changing degree ,im not a complete noob,


however i do trust a Professors results abit more than a hardcore cult of extremist debunkers known as jref,
If there were a professor who could debunk or explain all of jones theories then i would be very interested in looking at it.

If there were microsheres from fly ash which were the same as jones i would be interested in it too.

I havent seen any.
SO i dont know if the microspheres are from thermite or fly ash.

The only X-EDS anaysis i have seen on fly ash has shown many different chemicals like hematite which together as a dust would show a similiar pattern to thermite.But as single spheres i havent seen the exact same yet

The manganese may have been in the steel but the it fused with fly ash to form microsheres?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

That's your problem right there. You trust. You don't verify.

You say you took chemistry at your university. So did I. It doesn't matter a single bit for either of us because truth is never about who gives the argument, it's about what the argument is. Your chemistry courses, my undergrad Bachelor of Arts degree in chemistry, and Jones's PhD in chemistry do not matter. If what any of us says it's wrong, then it's wrong. And that's Jones's problem. He states that thermite was used. He is wrong. We've demonstrated that over and over. He is factually incorrect, he handwaves arguments, he misrepresents facts, and he draws unsupportable conclusions. That state is independent of his, your, and my degree, or any amount of trust you give him.

You can talk about microspheres all you want, you can obsessively list all sorts of minutiae about the spheres all you want, but in the end its all irrelevant because the evidence of molten steel is completely missing. A few burnt edges on pieces of metal does not cut it. Nor does a 40 lb chunk of unidentified metal not proven to be steel and not sufficient to account for the tons of steel connections that would have to be severed. The nature of the two buildings collapse and subsequent state of debris argues very firmly against the use of explosives, incendiaries, or anything else to compromise the lower parts of the towers. You don't need thermite to overwhelm the structure, you only need the moving mass of the upper stories. And that's exactly what you got when the structure failed in the fire zones. Characteristics of discovered microspheres do not overcome the these problems, they do not explain why there was no evidence of installation prior to collapse, they do not explain why there were no signs of such use during the fires, and they do not explain why there were no signatures left over after the event.

Repetition of details regarding the spheres does not make the argument fly. The molten steel is missing. Microanalysis of spheres is literally not seeing the forest for the trees.

 

[PhantomWolf]

however i do trust a Professors results abit more than a hardcore cult of extremist debunkers known as jref

Why? Just because he has a PhD in microelectric physics? Perhaps you should instead trust him exactly the same as you do us, in fact better, try trusting neither and do your own research from non-truther books and journals, go and find out the real deal from people with nothing invested in the debate instead of just parroting Jones as infalliable.

i did chemistry at university before changing degree

Which probably means you have more chemistry knowledge than Jones does!

I havent seen any.
SO i dont know if the microspheres are from thermite or fly ash.

Another thing pointed out to you, no one else has seen them, Jones refuses to allow anyone do independent tests on them. Why? If he was so sure that his results are right, why doesn't he allow others to repeat the tests or at least access to his actual data?

The manganese may have been in the steel but the it fused with fly ash to form microsheres?

Well I know some are saying they are from flyash in the concrete, but there are other possiblities. For instance, each plane carried 80 oxygen generators capable of creating fires that reach into the thousands of degrees when they burn, could those fires have heated steel from the floor pans to temperatures where they melted? We don't really know, but then neither does Jones. That's the problem, instead of eliminating fly ash, the building steel or other sources (some of the steel he tested had been cut for removal from the WTC site), he just claims it has to be Thermite. Why do you accept that unquestioningly?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Jones's PhD in chemistry

Jones' PhD is in Physics, not Chemistry.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Jones' PhD is in Physics, not Chemistry.

And I keep making that mistake.

The whole problem is, I was in my university's chemistry school at the time the cold fusion story broke, and I only discussed it with other chem students. So somehow, my addled mind has continued to associate Jones with chemistry, despite the fact that said addled mind damn well knows fusion is a physics topic.

Blah... I never said I wasn't defective...

 

[GodisEnergy]

no im not trusting i want to verify ,
you want me to beleive your claims on fly ash and 1,3 dimethylpropane without investigating if its possible .

Huh ?The nature of the building collapse completely corresponds with controlled demolotion, if there were evidence of them putting bombs in the building before the collapse then they would have been caught .This doesnt make sense to me sorry.
As i have previously speculated the recent fireproof upgrade on the same floors the plane hit ,could have given oppurtunity to place the thermite sol gel onto the steel like a fireproof.And then use thermite to assist gravitational collapse, or assist a rdx explosive collapse

After all if you need X ammount of explosive to bring down the towers doesnt this disprove the gravitational collapse theory because no explosives were used/\

I saw molten steel flowing from the south tower,is this the evidence of melting steel your looking for.There are several pictures i have shown of previously molten iron,anaylsis did show it was iron ,another large peice was the metorite ,
if we could test this peice it should come out as molten iron too due to its reddish iron oxide colour.

This sample was sent to steven jones by concerned workers at landfill

Who nows how much other sulphidization of steel and anonamlies were present in the wtc .Only a limited study on the steel was conducted.

If the Crime was this big wouldnt the coverup be big as well maybe thats why they had so many feds at freshkills to remove molten steel.
Its not as if they would just leave the evidence for people to find.
A total of 164 peices of steel were saved from the freshkills landfill for future study.Compared to the number of peices of steel this is insufficient.

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/molten-steel-found-in-ruins-of-world-trade-center/1524185349



Even if there isnt large pools of molten iron like you claim.Steven jones has already extrapolated 10tonnes of molten iron sphericles .So that would account for alot of molten iron.
I beleive this is due to the smaller scale of nano thermite reactions compared with commericial thermite which is more glutenous.


this explains the differences in the spheres from spot to spot
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bsp3DPTmiN0&feature=related




if thermite didnt melt the steel then maybe it was these guys

 

[Evilgiraffe]

no im not trusting i want to verify ,
you want me to beleive your claims on fly ash and 1,3 dimethylpropane without investigating if its possible.

GIE, you really do need to stop copying and pasting your arguments. You've been picked up several times on this molecule.

1,3-dimethylpropane is a straight chain alkane, better known as pentane. It is useful only for burning or possibly as a low boiling point solvent for some organic syntheses.

The molecule you're after is 1,3-diphenylpropane. A much more vaguely interesting aromatic compound consisting of two benzene rings dangling from either end of a propane backbone. It is formed when polymers burn.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

DIPHENYLPROPANE!!!!!

Jesus.... how am I supposed to take you seriously when you can't even state the evidence correctly?...

 

[Sunstealer]

I dont know what your qualifications are, i did chemistry at university before changing degree ,im not a complete noob

So you changed because you didn't have the aptitude. You didn't pass.

however i do trust a Professors results abit more than a hardcore cult of extremist debunkers known as jref,
If there were a professor who could debunk or explain all of jones theories then i would be very interested in looking at it.

I have two friends who are professors, one in Chemistry the other Neuroscience. Guess which one I'll go to if I want to know something about the brain. Just because someone is a Prof doesn't mean they know something outside of their field. Jones is clearly in this category because;

He doesn't understand what a eutectic structure is. He doesn't understand what diffusion is. He doesn't understand F-i-c-k's Laws (hyphens because JREF think's it's a swear word). He doesn't understand what sulphidation/sulfidation is. He doesn't understand how diffusion of Sulphur and Oxygen into Iron reduces that resulting eutectic melting point to 940°C¹. He doesn't understand a simple phase diagram consisting of two elements only. He doesn't understand what incoherent lattice means with regard to oxide layers on iron substrates. He doesn't know what is meant by grain boundary attack. He doesn't understand what liquation means. He doesn't know what is meant by erosion in that context.

And nor do you. I do. Bolded terms are your homework. Google them and understand how such severe erosion to WTC steel occurs without the nonsense that is thermite.

1. http://www.rolledalloys.ca/trcdocs/heatresist/SULPHIDATION.pdf

If there were microsheres from fly ash which were the same as jones i would be interested in it too.

I havent seen any.

Yes you have or did you not read the papers that I posted? The information in those papers shows directly that iron-rich microspheres are present in fly ash from the combustion of coal and that those spheres have a varying composition but all contain the same the basic constituents as per Jones' EDX spectra. It's there in black and white. Read the papers. I dare you to take the time to actually sit down with a cup of coffee/tea/juice and actually read the material.

SO i dont know if the microspheres are from thermite or fly ash.

Then why are you so sure Jones is right? If there is conjecture then you can't make the call. However, one would look at the most likely source. Hint: Thermite ain't it.

The only X-EDS anaysis i have seen on fly ash has shown many different chemicals like hematite which together as a dust would show a similiar pattern to thermite.But as single spheres i havent seen the exact same yet

Yes you have or did you not read the papers that I posted? ..... same as above.

The manganese may have been in the steel but the it fused with fly ash to form microsheres?

lol. I'm sorry but this shows that you may have taken a Chemistry degree but left after the first week. Manganese is an alloying element of steel. Finding it strange that an iron microsphere contains Manganese is like finding it strange that beer contains H₂0. More homework. Look up why manganese is added to Iron/Steel.

 

[Sunstealer]

DIPHENYLPROPANE!!!!!

Jesus.... how am I supposed to take you seriously when you can't even state the evidence correctly?...

It's plainly obviuos that GiE doesn't read a word or has such poor reading comprehension that "The cat sat on the mat" would confuse the hell out of him. He follows Jones like some sort of messiah and laps up the nonsense like a dog laps up it's own sick while the rest of us look on mortified.

The photograph above of the "previously molten steel" shows that he doesn't have any experience with the material. I can tell you now that that lump was not completely molten, it has sharp edges for crying out loud! Wow, a predominantly Iron sample shows the presence of Fe - who'd a thunk it?

FeO-FeS eutectic melts at 940°C. This material is formed due to sulphidation. If the temperature of this material rises above 940°C then it will melt in effect producing an acidic slag. (Note acidic is technical in this case, it's opposed to "base"). You are going to get liquation (melting of grain boundaries), ground boundary attack, spalling of the steel surface and greatly increased corrosion rates.

I've had long experience of corrosion products, the first being during my final year project in 1995, "High Temperature Corrosion of Engineering Ceramics", Silicon Carbide and Silicon Nitride (in the form of SiAlON) and I can tell you now that corrosion products are not straight forward. A liquid slag as produced by high temperatures and heavy sulphidation is not going to have the viscosity of water and just run away like "molten iron" as seen in a steel foundry. Again the preconceptions of what molten or liquid actually is clouds the minds of those who don't have experience.

"Only a limited study on the steel was conducted". But that is all that is needed! I see no problems with http://www.designaids.com/wtc/WTC_apndxC.pdf The corrosion mechanism is there for all to see in black and white. These micrographs are exactly what any metallurgist would expect to see on a steel sample that has been exposed to high temperature sulphidation (and oxidation). It is only those that do not have the technical ability or even basic reading comprehension (because I think even a layman can grasp what is going on with a bit of extra tuition) that do not understand.

And yes I am getting frustrated banging my head against the brick wall that is GiE.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

FeO-FeS eutectic melts at 940°C. This material is formed due to sulphidation. If the temperature of this material rises above 940°C then it will melt in effect producing an acidic slag. (Note acidic is technical in this case, it's opposed to "base"). You are going to get liquation (melting of grain boundaries), ground boundary attack, spalling of the steel surface and greatly increased corrosion rates.

Yes, and that's part of my point. Temperatures associated with thermite - over 2000+ degrees C - would have eliminated any trace of eutectic reactions on steel. Hell, it would've melted the steel component it was found on. Which is why I've said over and over that its presence contraindicates thermite use, at least at the locations the eutectic was detected.

"Only a limited study on the steel was conducted". But that is all that is needed!

Yes, but the truther point - mistakenly made - is that all the other steel debris was not kept for study, therefore there's no way to tell if thermite was used. This way of thinking really misinterprets the reality of the situation. Yes, NIST only bothered recovering and studying a small percentage of the debris, namely the steel components from the impact and fire zones. But it's a mistake for them to say that the remainder was not examined. It was indeed examined; that's how the small percentage was singled out for NIST to study to begin with. And that's a point the fantasy pushers never state. When they say that most of the steel was not kept for study, they don't add "...by NIST" at the end, and they don't note that the FDNY, NYPD evidence response team, and FBI examined the steel before NIST ever got their hands on it. But it's convenient for the fantasy if the notion that NIST was the only investigative agency involved with the steel is pushed, however erroneously.

Not like any of that info will matter to GIE...

 

[PhantomWolf]

another large peice was the metorite

You mean the lump of compacted concrete and rebar created by several floors being squashed together? The one that even had bits of paper sticking to and out of it?

You say you want to verify things, but you don't, you just keep parroting Jones and believing everything he tells you as if it's gospel.

 

[leftysergeant]

Steven jones has found semi reacted and unreacted paint which has the same chemical composition for thermite .And guess what when a laser was pointed at it it exploded violently much better than normal thermite did

Oy! The stupid! I t burns. Somebody please ask tofu-for-brains Jones how he thinks thermite stops reacting.

That picture is of a paint chip. Any construction worker will look at it and tell you "That's a paint chip," and probably call you a moron if you keep insisting otherwise.

How does idiot boy Jones think a spray-on coating of thermite that thin is going to create enoguh heat to cut steel?

Jones is losing his marbles, and it is obvious to all but the ignorant. Get some hands-on experience with this stuff and it should be obvious to anyone with a roomm-temp-or-better IQ that Jones' mind left the building long ago.

 

[PhantomWolf]

How does idiot boy Jones think a spray-on coating of thermite that thin is going to create enoguh heat to cut steel?

Well I was going to point out the inconsistancy in that initally when GiE was parroting the Thermite argument it was pointed out that thermite doesn't burn sideways, so he changed to "it was a thermite torch" until it was pointed out that none were found, but plenty of other things survived, at wich point he went back to his sideways cutting plastered on thermite again, but really by then the entire thing had gotten as stupid as Hewia's apparent belief that dropping a bottle of water three feet and dropping a 10 story building 15 feet would have the same result.

 

[GodisEnergy]

Yes, and that's part of my point. Temperatures associated with thermite - over 2000+ degrees C - would have eliminated any trace of eutectic reactions on steel. Hell, it would've melted the steel component it was found on. Which is why I've said over and over that its presence contraindicates thermite use, at least at the locations the eutectic was detected.



Yes, but the truther point - mistakenly made - is that all the other steel debris was not kept for study, therefore there's no way to tell if thermite was used. This way of thinking really misinterprets the reality of the situation. Yes, NIST only bothered recovering and studying a small percentage of the debris, namely the steel components from the impact and fire zones. But it's a mistake for them to say that the remainder was not examined. It was indeed examined; that's how the small percentage was singled out for NIST to study to begin with. And that's a point the fantasy pushers never state. When they say that most of the steel was not kept for study, they don't add "...by NIST" at the end, and they don't note that the FDNY, NYPD evidence response team, and FBI examined the steel before NIST ever got their hands on it. But it's convenient for the fantasy if the notion that NIST was the only investigative agency involved with the steel is pushed, however erroneously.

Not like any of that info will matter to GIE...

yes its true adding sulpur to thermite causes the eutetic mixture to reduce the temperature required to melt steel.This is why its used because its Quicker.Its added to fasten the reaction.

Whats more is that the steel did melt ,the sulpur residue is confirmation of thermate.Temperatures above 1000degrees. The steel melted away if it was acid or something the oxides on the outside of the steel should protect or limit the reaction to some extent,what we saw is massive corrosion.

The 'paint' chips argument i find redicoulous ,the paint chips explode,explosive paint was used ok,So now is it debunked because its paint?
When a laser was aimed at it exploded to such a degree that this paint company should be in prison for causing the towers to collapse.

As for Sideways cutting ,please i dont know the exact method of how they could cut down the steel.Its not realeased and wont be released for at least 20 years.
I theorized sideway cutting tools could be used followed by rdx.to destroy the tool.
I also theorized rdx could be used with combination of thermite paint to propell it into the steel.
Some sort of jet could be created by burning thermite to cut through steel.
There are many possiblilities.
The fact is how many layers of this stuff could be sprayed onto steel?Many i presume.

Perhaps even by not cutting the steel but a simultaneous weakening of the steel by reducing the steel by an inch for example may cause structural failure.

The fact is this ''Thermite paint'' has been found, it is explosive.

The metorite --- im not parroting jones claims,it was the claim of the engineer who examined the meteor, it does have concrete infused with steel he said.

Sunstealer i did pass chemistry.I got An A ,i didnt turn up to any classes because i found it easy,
and i changed my degree to something more profitable.

Im not arguing with you over eutetic mixtures and so forth,Im agreeing with what your proposing im just disagreeing over what caused high temperature and the sulphidization part.which i beleive is more evidence of themrate,
Were comparing here high temperatures to thermite which explains the massive corrosion because where did all the iron go with all those gaping holes.couldnt have been done by your theory but a High Speed Corrosion capable of Water like viscosity. Aka thermate?

looks like that molten iron sample was flowing,you can see the flowing river marks.Probally the Sample was cut from a larger stream.
But why else would it be there Someone Kept it As a PET ROCK right

 

[twinstead]

Lots of "I theorized" and "I presumes" in the above. It sounds like GIE is just guessing. And hoping. Just like Jones. Good thing we have real experts around who actually know this stuff.

 

[lapman]

I theorized sideway cutting tools could be used followed by rdx.to destroy the tool.

So the super-duper secret silent RDX? Please post another example of this amazing explosive. While your at it, please post other examples of therm*te being used in demolition before or after 9/11.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Unfortunately GIE is making every single claim up and doesn't have any evidence to support a single thing. And again, this is why he nor Dr Jones is able to actually publish a paper on this. Sure it's easy to throw claims out there that are completely made up on an internet forum. But when it comes to publishing a research paper, they actually have to be backed up with facts.

"Whats more is that the steel did melt"

Prove this and prove it melted before the collapse.

"what we saw is massive corrosion"

No it wasn't.

"As for Sideways cutting ,please i dont know the exact method of how they could cut down the steel.Its not realeased and wont be released for at least 20 years."

I would call this a flat out LIE. Proof that this is something that will be released in 20 years and how you know this. Anything to show you aren't comkpletely fabricating this claim (hint: We know you are lying here)

"I theorized sideway cutting tools could be used followed by rdx.to destroy the tool."

And you have absolutely no evidence for this. And if RDX had been used, it would have been detected, yet it wasn't. Is this magic super RDX to go along with the magic super thermite? While you;re simply making things up, why not go with alien technology?

"There are many possiblilities."

You mean you can make up an unlimited number of ideas in your imagination that have no evidence to support them and then use those ideas to claim as proof of an inside job. Hmmm, I could also imagine it was big foot, so I guess that then proves big foot may have been behind the collapse. What else can you simply make up?

"Perhaps even by not cutting the steel but a simultaneous weakening of the steel by reducing the steel by an inch for example may cause structural failure."

Now we're getting somewhere. You could maybe achieve this by damaging the structure with a plane and then further weakening the steel with fire or something? Oh but that's no fun..back to magic thermite and magic paint.

"im just disagreeing over what caused high temperature and the sulphidization part"

You're just making up anything your imagination can to convince yourself it was an inside job. At the same time you are making things up based on imagination and absolutely no evidence you are using this wild speculation to handwave any real science.


If you do try and publish a paper, you can maybe title it "Probably" or "Perhaps"

 

[Sunstealer]

yes its true adding sulpur to thermite causes the eutetic mixture to reduce the temperature required to melt steel.This is why its used because its Quicker.Its added to fasten the reaction.

Whats more is that the steel did melt ,the sulpur residue is confirmation of thermate.Temperatures above 1000degrees. The steel melted away if it was acid or something the oxides on the outside of the steel should protect or limit the reaction to some extent,what we saw is massive corrosion.

The 'paint' chips argument i find redicoulous ,the paint chips explode,explosive paint was used ok,So now is it debunked because its paint?
When a laser was aimed at it exploded to such a degree that this paint company should be in prison for causing the towers to collapse.

As for Sideways cutting ,please i dont know the exact method of how they could cut down the steel.Its not realeased and wont be released for at least 20 years.
I theorized sideway cutting tools could be used followed by rdx.to destroy the tool.
I also theorized rdx could be used with combination of thermite paint to propell it into the steel.
Some sort of jet could be created by burning thermite to cut through steel.
There are many possiblilities.
The fact is how many layers of this stuff could be sprayed onto steel?Many i presume.

Perhaps even by not cutting the steel but a simultaneous weakening of the steel by reducing the steel by an inch for example may cause structural failure.

The fact is this ''Thermite paint'' has been found, it is explosive.

The metorite --- im not parroting jones claims,it was the claim of the engineer who examined the meteor, it does have concrete infused with steel he said.

Sunstealer i did pass chemistry.I got An A ,i didnt turn up to any classes because i found it easy,
and i changed my degree to something more profitable.

Im not arguing with you over eutetic mixtures and so forth,Im agreeing with what your proposing im just disagreeing over what caused high temperature and the sulphidization part.which i beleive is more evidence of themrate,
Were comparing here high temperatures to thermite which explains the massive corrosion because where did all the iron go with all those gaping holes.couldnt have been done by your theory but a High Speed Corrosion capable of Water like viscosity. Aka thermate?

looks like that molten iron sample was flowing,you can see the flowing river marks.Probally the Sample was cut from a larger stream.
But why else would it be there Someone Kept it As a PET ROCK right

I'm sorry but you are so wrong in everything (except the thinning of cross section). You just don't understand. You obviously have a severe reading disability that makes it impossible for you to understand plain English or indeed write English using proper sentences and without horrific misspellings. Get a browser that checks spelling as you type. Secondly a Chemistry genius who didn't need to go to any classes to get a degree at the highest level yet can't spell and mixes up chemical compounds even when shown their error looks suspicious.

Your ramblings prove that you have absolutely no clue as to what you are talking because you wouldn't use and mix up a number of terms nor use the sort of language to describe what you think is happening. It's obvious that you have not done any of the homework that I set you because otherwise you would actually have some clue. I can forgive ignorance in those that are prepared to learn, but wilful ignorance and a self assurance that you are correct when you haven't the first idea of what you are talking about is where I draw the line. You are worse than a layman, because you refuse to learn. You say you have shown the capacity to learn by gaining a degree yet you can't even get the basics right when shown what those basics are.

I gave you an opportunity to learn. I was prepared to take you through it like a baby, step by step and all you do is spout nonsense. I've actually shown this thread to a couple of colleagues and they haven't been able to stop laughing all day. You pick up on things I have mentioned such as the acidity of the corrosion product without understanding the context even though I was specific about the word "acidic" and it's use. You even start talking about viscosity "like water" when I expressly talked about corrosion products that are liquid not having low viscosities and behaving like water. You are are joke. You live in a fantasy world inside your own head which includes fantasy Chemistry.

Thermite would not cause an FeO-FeS eutectic to form. There is no sulphur residue! Learn the proper words please. You obviously do not understand the mechanism that is diffusion because if you did you would understand that time is a significant factor. If thermite was used and a complete through section of steel was melted then we would NOT see the corrosion products in the samples produced. We would see something different, we would not see an FeO-FeS eutectic. What we see is classic sulphidation and high temperature corrosion. Once more this is NOT my theory. I'm not making this up as an explanation, it is the explanation because the evidence for it is right there in black and white. You can see with your own eyes the photomicrographs of the steel sections. You can see with your own eyes the corrosion product, the liquation, the grain boundary attack, the eutectic, the spalling, the compositions. It's all there. Thermite would NOT produce such evidence.

If I had read that report and thought there was something wrong with their conclusion I would be screaming about it. I would not be here saying that they got it right, I would be providing evidence that the report is wrong. It wouldn't just be me, there would be hundreds if not thousands of metallurgists and materials engineers around the world saying that it's not correct and here are the reasons why. The photographs do not lie. Any metallurgist even one straight out of university would understand exactly what is going on, follow it and would notice something fishy. No one does. Why do you think that is?

If you think that there is something wrong then why don't you contact a number of metallurgists asking them to read the report and briefly comment upon it. There are lots of email address and contacts at a large range of universities and institutions. Write to them, link to the report and ask them.