Don't tell Dr.Jones!
Questions about nano-thermite
- Thread starter 1337m4n
- Start date
-
- Tags
- nanothermite
Don't tell Dr.Jones!
Sunstealer
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 3,128
This is what is so hilarious about the truthers and Jones' samples and the Harrit et al paper. When you look into the sol gel process and it's use in producing nano-sized particles for use in a thermite reaction (of what ever flavour) you find that when comparing the material in the papers with the Harrit paper that the materials are so far apart in their size, morphology and chemistry that only an idiot can't see the difference. What's even more amusing is that various papers on these nano materials get heats of reaction below the theoretical maximum for the classic thermite reaction (namely Fe2O3 + 2Al) at around 3.5 kJ mol-1 and Jones gets above the theoretical maximum for the same reaction and then declares it must therefore be super-thermite! Also note that a reduction in particle size corresponds with a reduction of ignition temperature yet Jones' chips ignite at an even lower temperature yet the particle size of the material in the chips is at least 10 and 40 times larger for the Fe2O3 and Aluminosilicate respectively!
So how does that work? Higher than theoretical maximum output with a lower ignition temperature, but with a far larger particle size than the best that can be produced by current processes under laboratory conditions. Mmmmn. Something isn't right is it. Perhaps the combustion was due to the Carbon matrix in the samples and not a thermite reaction as claimed. No wonder the poor editor resigned when crap like this ended up being published under her remit.
Last edited:
Galileo
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2007
- Messages
- 3,368
But there is nano thermite, super thermite, and thermate.
This is what is so hilarious about the truthers and Jones' samples and the Harrit et al paper. When you look into the sol gel process and it's use in producing nano-sized particles for use in a thermite reaction (of what ever flavour) you find that when comparing the material in the papers with the Harrit paper that the materials are so far apart in their size, morphology and chemistry that only an idiot can't see the difference. What's even more amusing is that various papers on these nano materials get heats of reaction below the theoretical maximum for the classic thermite reaction (namely Fe2O3 + 2Al) at around 3.5 kJ mol-1 and Jones gets above the theoretical maximum for the same reaction and then declares it must therefore be super-thermite! Also note that a reduction in particle size corresponds with a reduction of ignition temperature yet Jones' chips ignite at an even lower temperature yet the particle size of the material in the chips is at least 10 and 40 times larger for the Fe2O3 and Aluminosilicate respectively!
So how does that work? Higher than theoretical maximum output with a lower ignition temperature, but with a far larger particle size than the best that can be produced by current processes under laboratory conditions. Mmmmn. Something isn't right is it. Perhaps the combustion was due to the Carbon matrix in the samples and not a thermite reaction as claimed. No wonder the poor editor resigned when crap like this ended up being published under her remit.
Poor 911Truth followers can't see these problems with the paper they just post and never comprehend what they are reading. Jones' paper is self debunking.
Exactly. In the paper by Tillotson et al., they specifically remark how their sol-gel thermite is substantially lower power:
Tillotson et al. said:
... so, again, why was this miracle stuff used? Even ordinary thermite would be superior in every way: Higher energy density, higher resistance to preignition, lower chance of detection after the fact, more easily manufactured, cheaper, and it actually existed prior to 2001.
Dr. Jones is a fraud of the highest order. I would dearly like to know if he realizes this, and is simply stringing along the rubes, or if he's just plain nuts.
Isn't it true that the Al + O2 reaction creates about twice as much heat, per mole of Al, as the thermite reaction? Since Harrit's DSC was done in air, shouldn't this force the actual (not just the theoretical) energy density observed to be higher than the measured energy density in vaccuum, or inert gas?
While the Harrit DSC tests may be ambiguous, I don't think they're inconsistent with thermite. Why on earth do you?
Also note that a reduction in particle size corresponds with a reduction of ignition temperature yet Jones' chips ignite at an even lower temperature yet the particle size of the material in the chips is at least 10 and 40 times larger for the Fe2O3 and Aluminosilicate respectively!
I'm having a hard time taking this "criticism" seriously. First of all, I measured 'one' of the platelets, and came up with 68 nm. Turns out, it's two platelets (maybe more, away from the edge) stuck together, which can be seen from this photo (left side), if you look closely at the dolphin-shaped, lighter platelet towards the middle.
So, 34 nm is more like it - the Harrit paper says 40 nm.
If an oxygen molecule is going to react with Al inside a platelet, do you really think it needs to burrow in from the edge? Do not the most simple, geometrical considerations, plus science lessons about the relationship between surface area and volume that we learned in 7th grade, suggest to you that the average distance between oxygen outside a platelet, and Al inside, is going to be determined primarily by the thickness of a platelet, rather than it's area?
If you have a piece of chopped meat that you want to cook quickly, would you shape it into a cube, or into a hamburger (macro-platelet
) ? If you stir fry a carrot, won't it cook faster if you slice it thin (across, I mean)?These aren't the best analogies, because they have to do mostly with heat transfer, rather than a chemical reaction across a boundary (let's assume we're not stir-frying in oil - yuck; also, heat diffusion certainly also is a key factor in how a thermite reaction proceeds). In terms of chemical reactions, I expect that a wood saw will rust, if left out in the rain, much more quickly than an equivalent mass of the same steel, formed into a ball. That's basically because the amount of surface area is so much greater in the saw ('platelet') form.
The photos and diagrams I've seen of sol gels don't suggest to me that the Harrit red layer material is one. Maybe, though, the particles that make up the gel matrix are just not visible in the photos I've seen???
I calculate 58% Al2O3 by volume. OTOH, 40 nm platelets which have oxide layers 5 nm thick, and a silicon platelet core (say it's also 5 nm thick), means that Al particles are 25/40 ~ 62.5% by volume, instead of 42% by volume. Also, as I have pointed out elsewhere, Al2O3 yield is in the MPa range, while spherical Al2O3 particles are typically defect free, which make them tough to crack (yields in the GPa range). I have speculated that this is what would make a platelet nanothermite have a lower ignition temperature than spherical nanopowder 'equivalents'.
That might be just the thing if you want to turn jet fuel into a fireball in 1/3 second..... This seems to me to be the most plausible use of a nano-thermite. I guess the question then is, why not use Magnesium, or other standard igniters used with flame-throwers? Not being a chemist, I have little idea, but I'll speculate that Mg would be easier to detect, at least visually. Doesn't Mg make a brilliant flame, when it burns?
If you still can't figure out why Dr. Jones's own data shows the stuff isn't thermite, then you really need to seek help from a professional. We've made it about as clear as we can.
The advantages of the nanothermite -- the real nanothermite made by Tillotson and his team -- are that it is more uniform and predictable, has a relatively fast reaction time, and has a substantially LOWER ignition temperature than normal thermite, yet high relative to some other compounds including explosives. However, it has an extremely low energy density, about 1/30th that of ordinary gasoline, and 1/3 that of TNT.
What you would want in the WTC case is something with inordinately high energy density, an extremely high thermal stability, and a very low reaction rate. Real nanothermite does not fit this bill at all.
What Dr. Jones has found is a substance that burns readily in air, ignited at ordinary fire temperatures, and has a wildly varying energy content albeit in no way competitive with normal combustibles like wood or paper, let alone jet fuel or gasoline. This is not a match to nanothermite, nor does it have properties advantageous or even faintly usable for any WTC demolition scenario.
It is, however, utterly consistent with organics containing sphere-like and plate-like structures of aluminum and iron, and their oxides, at decidedly larger-than-nano sizes. Like paint. Paint burns. Paint burns in air with a similar ignition temperature and a comparable energy density, and not being designed to burn would burn somewhat unpredictably depending on how it was dried and its substrate. Perfect bloody match to what Dr. Jones found.
I don't see what your problem is.
The advantages of the nanothermite -- the real nanothermite made by Tillotson and his team -- are that it is more uniform and predictable, has a relatively fast reaction time, and has a substantially LOWER ignition temperature than normal thermite, yet high relative to some other compounds including explosives. However, it has an extremely low energy density, about 1/30th that of ordinary gasoline, and 1/3 that of TNT.
What you would want in the WTC case is something with inordinately high energy density, an extremely high thermal stability, and a very low reaction rate. Real nanothermite does not fit this bill at all.
What Dr. Jones has found is a substance that burns readily in air, ignited at ordinary fire temperatures, and has a wildly varying energy content albeit in no way competitive with normal combustibles like wood or paper, let alone jet fuel or gasoline. This is not a match to nanothermite, nor does it have properties advantageous or even faintly usable for any WTC demolition scenario.
It is, however, utterly consistent with organics containing sphere-like and plate-like structures of aluminum and iron, and their oxides, at decidedly larger-than-nano sizes. Like paint. Paint burns. Paint burns in air with a similar ignition temperature and a comparable energy density, and not being designed to burn would burn somewhat unpredictably depending on how it was dried and its substrate. Perfect bloody match to what Dr. Jones found.
I don't see what your problem is.
JoeyDonuts
Frequencies Not Known To Normals
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2008
- Messages
- 10,536
Looks one heck of a lot like Dr. Jones' actual findings not reflecting the known substances left from the usage of thermite - and therefore inventing (or misappropriating) a technology to prop up the possibility of his theory.
Perhaps because you're focussing on the least plausible one. While the most plausible scenario (I believe) for the use of nanothermite on 911, period, is as an incendiary for the jet fuel, the next most plausible 911 nanothermite scenario is what I'll call a slow CD one. What I mean by a "slow CD" is basically wrapping a thin layer around columns (assuming it has foil-like properties; otherwise, you'd have to paint it on), wrapping that with fire insulation, and using the added heat plus pre-existing loads to cause the columns to fail. Certainly, you of all people will have no problem believing that just getting the columns to fail on one floor will create an unstoppable collapse. (Sorry, Richard Gage).
There's no law saying that you can only wrap (or paint) a 100 micron thick layer of nanofoil around a column. If an office fire causes a particular columns nanothermite wrapper to ignite, so what? That's probably a good thing, in the slow CD scenario. You do not need precision timing for the slow CD scenario. You do need your nanofoil to reliably ignite.
The possible problems with the slow CD scenario are
1) will the nanofoil blow away the fireproofing?
2) will the fireproofing melt off?
If either 1) or 2) occur, the heat will not be trapped next to the column for any length of time, and the slow CD will fail.
I noticed that you forgot to mention that the Harrit material produced metallic spheres. So far, nobody has suggested a brand of paint that definitely makes micropheres when they're ignited.
A regular thermite would be hard to apply to columns in a thin layer, and even if you solve that problem, how would you confidently not just ignite it, but make sure that it spread? In a 4 ml thick layer (e.g.), I don't think you could reliably ignite it at one end of column, and have it go to another end.
A 'normal' nano-thermite, even if it doesn't explode off columns before it can weaken them, is going to burn at a higher temperature (well, if I can infer correctly from their DSC behavior). If it burns 200 C higher, and the fireproofing melts off as a result, again the columns will not be sufficiently weakened to fail. Another advantage of a lower temperature is that it won't melt you column surface. (No, I'm not sure of the details, but the desirability of not having mottled metallic columns is self-evident.
Do let us know when you, or anybody else, find a paint that they can ignite, after it's dried, that creates microspheres. Also, I don't want to look it up now, but one of the French Henry's had remarked on the narrowness of the exotherm (i.e., power profile). While not supporting the notion of Harrit's red chip material as a slow CD agent, as a fireball incendiary, having that property may be ideal.
Good grief, man, an ignition system for the jet fuel??
You think the jet fuel isn't going to get ignited on impact? You think that, oh, just maybe 150 tons of shredding aircraft plowing through a structure isn't going to create any heat?
You think somebody put igniters -- open to the air -- that were coordinated not just with the impact floor, but also with the correct time of impact, to within +/- 1/2 second?
That's the most plausible scenario you can imagine?
What makes you think there weren't microspheres to begin with? Ever put iron oxide (primer) paint under the microscope? Didn't think so. And there are other possibilities besides.
The "narrowness," huh. As in, the organic paint binder all ignites at more or less the same temperature. Well, golly, what a surprise.
What you're doing is called the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy, the most extreme example of it I've ever seen. There is absolutely no reason to believe this stuff is thermite, not of any stripe, nor is there any reason to believe it's in any way malicious. If we can't get past that, there's no point to concocting scenarios of spiraling insanity regarding how it might have been used.
Why make up idiotic ideas about 911? Is your purpose to make moronic ideas up about 911?
Jet fuel burns in aircraft impacts when the pilot leaves the engines running. The blades in the engine are over 800 degrees C! Jet fuel auto ignites; auto ignites at 450 degree F. The other bad news for 911 the KE of impacts was so great much of the jet fuel was instantly (0.25 second) dispersed over the entire area of the WTC and ignited by jet engine parts at temperatures greater than 600 degree C. The engine exhaust gas temperature was 800 C at the Pentagon before impact, and the WTC aircraft were similar.
your post is so dumb I am sure other people will comment on your delusions and if you need me to make a detailed study please ask
jet fuel in a crash; please research before posting pure junk
This was a low speed crash, the pilot had stalled the Buff. The copilot seat is just starting up the rail, he had initiated ejection. As you see a fireball; this is common in crashes like a stall with engines running or high speed impacts like 911 with engines running so your ideas are pure junk on the jet fuel. Do you need a word from a trained aircraft accident investigator? You just got it.
Pilots are trained to turn off the JET engines before impact in a crash to abate the fires! Yes, the pilot must recognize the crash coming to be successful. The terrorist hitting building on 911 had the engines to the firewall, at 100 percent! Fire is guaranteed. Sorry, 911Truth lost this one big time!
When a jet engine impacts the building the engines liberate great quantities of hot turbine blades igniting the fuel and there are raging fires in the core of the engines!
true
Last edited:
Sure I do, just like I 'think' Allied incendiary bombs, even if they hadn't added thermite to them, would have created heat when they came crashing through buildings after falling thousands of feet. And yet, thermite was added to them, anyway. Do yo think that was a wasteful mistake?
I'm not sure why you ask "open to the air". If you apply your nanothermite to a column, then cover up the column with fireproofing, it won't be "open to the air". If you apply it to columns in an impact area, you don't need to time anything. The impact will rupture Al platelets, the thermite reaction kicks off, and, as we all know, nanothermite flames propagate very quickly. (Hopefully, Harrit, et. al, will do an experiment where they bang on it with a hammer, and see if it ignites. In fact, I'll ask them about this. If they can't get one to ignite by hitting it with a hammer, then I would doubt this impact ignition method I'm suggesting.)You think somebody put igniters -- open to the air -- that were coordinated not just with the impact floor, but also with the correct time of impact, to within +/- 1/2 second?
That's the most plausible scenario you can imagine?
IOW, for two of the nanothermite scenarios I have mentioned, the method of application could be the same.
However, even if you strung up porous cloth bags of nanothermite chips, such that they essentially "open to the air", I expect that they'd be stable. You might get a lot of complaints to the security department, however.
If you mean microspheres of the size that Harrit obtained, from chips of the width and size that Harrit was using, then the reason I don't think that there were such microspheres to begin with is the fact that this is a debunking web site, and nobody has posted such pictures. If somebody actually has such evidence, but has been shy to produce it, perhaps reading this post will help them lose their shyness.
No, I haven't. Apparently, if anybody else who frequents this site had looked at iron oxide (primer) paint under the microscope, and found similar spheres, of similar size, they're holding out on us. If they now lose their shyness, recall the brand of paint, create paint chips of that specific brand, burn them to isolate the spheres, and post the photos, we can at least speculate as to whether or not doing a similar DSC on them, as had Harrit, will create a similar DSC plot.
This being JREF, I doubt that anybody will actually attempt that. It's so much easier to bloviate.
In fairness, I'll note that I also doubt that a single 911 Truther will have done any such simple tests on primer paint, either - including the ones proclaiming how wonderful the Harrit paper is, without bothering to take it to their local university physical chemistry department, first, to see what they think about it.
It'd be even more surprising if your organic paint primer, while burning at more or less the same temperature, managed to create a larger microsphere out of any smaller micropheres. Not if the temperature burning in open air is far less than the melting point of iron.
BTW, at this point I'd like to mention something about the DSC tests which confuses me. Since the exotherm in the DSC occurs well before the melting point of iron (430 C vs. 1538 C), how come there are not additional exotherms at a higher temperature? The DSC plots of Harrit are similar to the Granier DSC plots done with with smaller Al size (in that there are no large exotherms after the peak one, which is well before 1538 C) , so nothing seems particularly inconsistent, there.
The only things that I can think of are that the DSC burnings are particularly inefficient, in some sense. Or else, the temperatures we associate with a DSC spike are not really close to the temperature at the point of the specimen, itself, but rather the temperature of the burning chamber, (or else temperature of the surrounding gas) which of course will be at a lower temperature.
Not if it's a part of one's religious faith that something cannot be thermite - in which case, the fact don't matter.
I find this to be a curious statement. If it's a highly engineered incendiary that has no business being in the WTC, that can't be good. If it's a paint chip or other coating, then nobody will claim that it's malicious, anyway.
Do you realize that this is basically the opposite of what Dr. Greening had written, at one point?
The reason I have talked about scenarios of different plausibility, is primarily because debunkers have focused on the question of how it could be used, trying to infer insights from that about what it is - or rather, is not. Indeed, I was replying to arguments that you, yourself had made, which obviously (as I hope I've made clear) are limited to a scenario which need not have been the only possible one. Even if I'm wrong about the ordering of plausibility in the 3 basic scenarios (i.e., explosive CD less plausible than slow CD, which is less plausible than fireball incendiary), I'm sure if I asked one of my physics profs of years gone by about their opinion re a correct ordering, they could answer me rationally without snark about "spiralling insanity".
How about you? What if you look up one of your old physics professors, and ask them to rank the plausibility of the 3 scenarios of nanothermite in a WTC context that I mentioned? Will they even be able to answer you without snide remarks about "spiralling insanity"?
Last edited:
Just sent off an email to Harrit, et. al.:
I have speculated that the most plausible 911 nanothermite scenarios are the following, from most plausible, to least plausible:
1) incendiary, to make jet fuel turn into a fireball in about 1/3 second
2) slow CD, wherein a thin layer is applied to heat the columns, causing them to fail under their pre-existing loads
3) explosive CD
If 1) is, indeed, plausible, then I would further expect that one possible way to ignite a nanothermite igniter, itself, is simple impact. That certainly solves any timing problems.
Hence, my question: Are the red/gray chips stable to hammer blows, or will they ignite?
Wow. I can't even figure out what you're trying to argue here.
Jet plane crashes do not require an additional incendiary to ignite the jet fuel. Simple statement of fact. Deal with it.
If your igniter is screened by fireproofing or whatever, how is it supposed to ignite the jet fuel?
I see no reason to even suspect that Dr. Jones's paint chips could be ignited by a hammer blow. I have no idea where you pulled that from. And for the record, the real nanothermite is highly shock insensitive as well -- it's a feature.
Shifting burden of proof and argument to ignorance. It's not my job to exhaust sources of microspheres for you. I think they're present as a pigment in the paint. You haven't even acknowledged that as a possibility.
It doesn't matter. The microspheres are a problem for you, no matter how you look at it. Either (a) this substance (actually paint) already contains the microspheres, in which case finding them later is no surprise; or (b) the substance by itself, and at low temperatures creates microspheres, in which case finding them in the dust afterwards is unremarkable.
You seem to have forgotten your own argument, once again. The argument is that the microspheres must come from structural steel, and that supposedly indicates extreme temperatures. But, what this shows is that if you burn this stuff all by itself, at a low temperature, you get microspheres in the residue without the steel ever being involved. Either way, it shows microspheres exist without any steel melting whatsoever, so it disproves the Truther axiom that microspheres == steel heating.
That "anybody else" is Dr. Jones's team. It's their responsiblity to exclude this hypothesis. The only reason anyone else needs to get involved is because their team is grossly incompetent.
Well-poisoning. Grow up.
Now you're starting to understand.
That would surprise me as well, but there's no requirement for this to happen, not yet. It also strikes me as possible if unlikely. Surface chemistry is a tricky thing.
Makes no sense. You either misunderstand thermite or you misunderstand DSC plots, or both. The DSC describes activation temperatures and net calorimetry. These show that whatever reaction is taking place occurs at 430oC (in air, which is not particularly useful). They do not specify what temperature is produced. That is a function of the total heat produced, and the specific heat of the environment.
If you have a small enough quantity of real thermite, and you react it, you won't get molten iron there either. The powders will just get hot. Similarly, if you react a large quantity of thermite in a confined and well insulated space, it can exceed molten steel temperatures. There is a maximum temperature it can reach, when basically all of the heat goes into heating its own constituents, but there is no minimum temperature unless it stays so cold that the reaction stops.
While Dr. Jones's sample does not produce molten iron, it does result in molten irony.
Are you suggesting paint cannot be "highly engineered?" Lots of money in paint. And it's flammable.
"At one point?" You mean he found new information, and came to a new conclusion? You might want to try it sometime.
Trying to propose a hypothesis is good practice. You are a full step ahead of the other Truthers in this respect. I only beat you up because the scenarios you've come up with are totally absurd. It amazes me that you can't see this. You are basically disproving Dr. Jones's work all on your own, if you could only hear yourself.
I doubt they'd be able to stop laughing. Again, your problem, your burden of proof. I only suggest you take it elsewhere because, for whatever reason, you clearly are unable to accept our criticism. Perhaps a change of venue will help you understand. Here, well, you're just going in very small circles.
Sunstealer
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 3,128
Given
which shows that it's extremely unlikely that any free Al is present.
Can you complete (and balance) any of the following equations please?
Al2SiO5 +O2 --> ???
Al2O3 +O2 --> ???
Al2Si2O5(OH)4 + O2 --> ???
Also once you start reducing the thickness or diameter of an Al particle then the ration of aluminium oxide to free aluminium increases. Increase the surface area = increase in % Al2O3 which means a decrease in the Al available for the reaction which intern means less fuel and therefore a decrease in the amount of energy or heat produced. It may well burn very fast but it won't put out sustainable heat for anything.
I'll comment on the shape in the moderated thread when I have time for a longer post.
Sunstealer
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 3,128
That is the funniest thing I have read on the internet for some time.I have speculated that the most plausible 911 nanothermite scenarios are the following, from most plausible, to least plausible:
1) incendiary, to make jet fuel turn into a fireball in about 1/3 second
2) slow CD, wherein a thin layer is applied to heat the columns, causing them to fail under their pre-existing loads
3) explosive CD
If 1) is, indeed, plausible, then I would further expect that one possible way to ignite a nanothermite igniter, itself, is simple impact. That certainly solves any timing problems.
Hence, my question: Are the red/gray chips stable to hammer blows, or will they ignite?
You cannot be serious. I mean honestly read back what you have written slowly. Do you honestly not see how bizarre and mind numbingly crazy this is?
1) What is the point in going to all the trouble when jet fuel will happily ignite all by itself in the crash. Can you not think of a single flaw in what you are saying?
Think about it. The NWO spends huge amounts of time and money and the use of lots and lots of people developing a material, trucking it in, using a secondary workforce to remove the fireproofing then covertly painting an incendiary material on. 1 layer at a time (how many layers is needed) , then putting on the fire proofing across 2 enormous sky scrapers on each floor level so that just at the right moment, with split second; 1/3 second timing, they can ignite the correct amount of incendiary material on the correct floor to make a naturally occurring fireball do, erm what exactly?
2) Wow! A maximum of a 100µm layer of incendiary is able to heat a column that could be inches thick, to atleast 600°C, causing it to fail. And this all takes place very slowly with a nano material that you have shown burns far faster than thermite due to it's increased surface area.
1in = 2.54cm
2.54cm = 25.4mm
25.4mm = 25400µm
25400/100 = 254 (given Jones' claim that the maximum thickness of red layer is 100µm - samples a,b,c,d show ~ 15µm)
So you think that a material that is 254 times thinner than a 1 inch thick steel section is going to put out enough energy to get that steel to 600°C? Have you not seen any of the calculations performed by Greening - you have posted in the very same thread and Greening does the calculation and the post where he does this is addressed to you! http://the911forum.freeforums.org/active-thermitic-material-in-wtc-dust-t150-15.html#p2605
How about others in this forum? http://forums.randi.or//showpost.php?p=4649984&postcount=441If you think it's possible then show us the maths - use that post as a guide.
For 15µm layer it's 25400/15 = 1693 times thicker.
Office fires easily have far more energy available and regularly reach 600°C, so why bother with thermite when all you have to do is set the building on fire and ensure it there is no way of fighting the fire?
3) How can you produce an explosive with an incendiary material? Thermite can never go bang. You have seen the clips and the photos of thermite with very small particles - it doesn't explode.
This is why mainstream science and scientists don't get involved. They would then be subjected to such bizarre questions as you propose and then be castigated when they don't waste their time replying. Who on earth in their right mind would actually bother to reply? They would just print them out and stick em on the undergrad's common room for all and sundry to laugh at. Honestly. Have you lost your mind entirely? I suggest you seek medical help immediately.
Professor Jones has replied:
I have asked him to inform me with the results, when the test is done.
BigAl
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 5,397
Until "HOW" (that involves man-made demolition and fits the eyewitness reports and evidence) is established, "WHO" and "WHY" is a dodge to distract the rubes from the fact that there is no "HOW".
Jones lets the cat out of the bag. He is not interested in the science at all. He is pushing a political agenda. There is no "who" or "why."