Peer-reviewed study proves twin towers demolished

Jones did a good sales job on you, which is the purpose of the paper. His interest is mainly in the shaping of public opinion with high-tech speculative statements in an open access journal as opposed to doing stringently peer-reviewed quality scientific research.

The 400 C ignition temperature is too low to be consistent with thermite or even nano-thermite. That temperature is more consistent with a hydrocarbon material. Thermite with a very small particle size of about 0.025 micron ignites around 530 C.

There are other problems with the energy release per mass. The amount of energy released for two of the burned chips was 6 kJ/g and 7 kJ/g. This is more than the energy released by Fe2O3-Al thermite which is 4 kJ/g.

Moreover, Jones only considers the red layer to be active and the gray layer relatively inert. In that case, the energy released by the red material would be even higher than 7 kJ/g because the mass of the inactive gray material was included in the mass calculation. It would be 14 kJ/g if the gray layer had the same mass as the red layer. That is 3.5 times higher the value of 4 kJ/g for thermite. The high energy release per mass is more consistent with common hydrocarbons instead of thermite.

Jones even had to admit this was a problem. He tries to get around it by speculating that there were other high-energy materials present in the chips that enhance the energy release of his speculated thermite. His speculation is always on the side that ups the ante to increasingly exotic incendiaries and explosives.

.

 

Jones has acknowledged that thermite and even nano-thermite isn't a good demolition tool. He then speculates in the latest paper that the chips, which he speculates are un-ignited manufactured super nano-thermite, were used as a detonator for speculated high explosives but gives no details as to how an incediary could be used as a detonator. He always speculates upward toward the more exotic weapons scenarios and always something that supports his thermite theories.

Anyone who has read Jones' papers will be aware that he has no expertise in high explosives or building demolition.

From the latest paper by Harrit and Jones:

"The red material does burn quickly as shown in the DSC, and we have observed a bright flash on ignition, but determination of the burn rate of the red material may help to classify this as a slow or fast explosive. It may be that this material is used not as a cutter-charge itself, but rather as a means to ignite high explosives, as in super-thermite matches. Having observed unignited thermitic material in the WTC residue, we suggest that other energetic materials suitable for cutter charges or explosives should also be looked for in the WTC dust. NIST has admitted that they have not yet looked for such residues"


.

 

Speculative statements from Jones' latest paper:


"We suggest that the organic material in evidence in the red/gray chips is also highly energetic, most likely producing gas to provide explosive pressure."


"It may be that this material is used not as a cutter-charge itself, but rather as a means to ignite high explosives, as in super-thermite matches."


"Having observed unignited thermitic material in the WTC residue, we suggest that other energetic materials suitable for cutter charges or explosives should also be looked for in the WTC dust."


"The nature of the organic material in these chips merits further exploration. We note that it is likely also an energetic material..."


"One might speculate that the red thermitic material has been attached to rusty iron by an adhesive."


"If a paint were devised that incorporated these very energetic materials, it would be highly dangerous when dry and most unlikely to receive regulatory approval for building use."


.

 

Ha Ha, I'm just stirrin' the pot dude...great rebuttal btw.
Alex Jones is a fucking nut and his little buddy with the speech impediment is his trained monkey.
If you wanna know what I really think....

Too bad, I'm gonna tell ya anyway.

Everyone please stop wasting your brains on this bullshit
Even if 911 was an inside job ( which I highly doubt) SO WHAT?

There are far greater atrocity's that the U.S. has been involved in that are well documented

The bombing of Dresden.
Of Nagasaki, and Hiroshima.

The Secret bombing and invasion of Cambodia
Secret war in El Salvador and Nicaragua
The atrocity's in East Timor
The invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan...

But now I'm going off topic aren't I?

( Sorry, Just a fit of Troll-ettes syndrome. I'm out of weed.)

Carry on...


ZW eace:

 

I didn't think you were xexon, i just thought you'd picked up the jew hating baton.

I think it was an accident. Its not that there's nothing strange about the incident, its that the conspiracy theory makes no logical sense.

No, he's a spy. Israel spies on the US, I am aware of this. Even allies spy on each other sometimes.

So true you said it twice. But here's three reason that is FAIL.

1. That isn't their motto. The Mossad motto is "Where there is no guidance, a nation falls, but in an abundance of counselors there is safety", which is Proverbs 11:14.

2. Of course there is the old motto, "For by wise guidance you can wage your war, and in abundance of counselors there is victory", which is Proverbs 24:6. Conspiracy websites translate "wise guidance" as "deceit" yet this website has 12 translations of Proverbs 24:6, none of which use "deceit", which suggest the conspiracy theory version is just some made up crap repeated endlessly on the web, as is so often the case.

3. The final FAIL is that it is competely ridiculous to point this out as some kind of damning revelation about Mossad. What do you think the motto of the KGB was or the CIA is? Honesty is the best policy? What is the motto of Al Queda and Hizbollah - 2 Legit 2 Quit?

I can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the earth is round either. But I don't need to. You're the one that needs to prove something.

 

No it doesn't.

Plus, you are confusing the budget of the 9/11 commission with the spending of the other agencies and their investigations, which of course was much more.

 

Well, you would think the Official 9/11 Commission Report would be a direct product of the 9/11 Commission...


:frown:






:toetap05:

 

It isn't?

 

Wouldnt "other agencies" issue their own reports, with their own research?


Not one entitled, The official 9/11 Commission Report?"

 

The more I read the paper by Harrit and Jones, the more it looks like they may have 'discovered' the red primer that was used on the WTC columns.

The heat per mass released by the burning of the red layer of the chips is too high to be solely due to thermite and is more consistent with that of a hydrocarbon material. Hydrocarbon materials are commonly used as the binder in primers and paints.

Jones' own data show that the plate-like particles in the red layer are alumino-silicates. Jones' calorimeter data also lacked the dip at 663 C, the melting point of aluminum. That dip is usually seen if elemental aluminum is present.

Alumino-silicates are in many materials and derived from clays. They are used as fillers in epoxy, primer, and paint. They have the plate-like structure nearly the same as what is seen in the chip photos in Jones' paper. They often have plate thicknesses of less than 100 nanometers, the same as what Jones's photos show. They aren't nano-engineered to be that size and shape. They can occur naturally in that form and they can be formed into that size and shape by simple mechanical processing.

The use of thermite and explosives would have been detected in the column debris by the thousands of workers who cleaned up the mess. There weren't any columns that showed evidence of cutter charges or steel melted by thermite. Also, eroded steel due to sulfidation is not melted steel. Steel cut by oxygen torches during cleanup isn't evidence of controlled demolition either.


.

 

The gray layer of the chips has iron, carbon, and manganese, which is consistent with the steel used for the columns of the WTC towers. It's not unreasonable to assume that the gray-red chips are shavings of the near-surface region of the painted steel columns that resulted from scraping during collapse. Jones said he collected the chips from the dust with a magnet. The gray layer of the chips would be ferromagnetic (attracted to a magnet) if it was the column steel.

The red layer of the chips also showed the presence of zinc and chromium. That would be expected because of the zinc chromate that was used as a rust inhibitor in the red primer used on the WTC tower columns.

The red layer also showed Fe2O3 particles which are often used as pigments in paints and primers. Sub-micron particles of Fe2O3 are common and involve no nano-engineering. The thickness of the red layer of the chips is not unreasonable for what would be expected for a layer of primer or paint.

The gray-red chips were common in the dust according to Jones' specimen collection, which suggests that a large amount of that material was present in the WTC buildings. There were 283 steel columns in each WTC tower. Each column was a quarter-mile high and covered with primer.

One would also have to consider all the painted metal objects in the WTC such as office furnishings.

.

 

Yes.

 

So, the amount of money that other agencies spent researching the attacks, would be completely irrelevant and unassociated with the 600 grand the 9/11 commission allegedly spent on its own investigation.


Correct?

 

No, it isn't. The 911 commission was only one piece of the big picture of investigation into 9/11.

It is a unfair comparison. The amount the Independent Counsel spent investigation Clinton-Lewinsky is the total amount spent on the investigation. The amount spent by the 911 Commission is not the amount spent investigating 9/11, it is only one small part of the picture.

Plus, both the 911 commission budget figures and the Lewinsky investigation budget figures are wrong, in fact way off.

This is what I find frustrating - conspiracy theorists never seem bothered that they get so many facts wrong. They just shrug and carry on. Aren't you bothered that your sources are so full of crap?

 

what sources?


I dont think that I've posted any links in this thread...


How would you know that my sources are full of crap if you dont even know what they are?

 

The $600K figure is crap. Dubtrice reads it on a conspiracy website and then goes around repeating it. You read it in this thread and then start repeating it.

It is wrong. I pointed that out before yet you kept repeating it. You don't seem to care whether its correct or not.

 

Surprise, surprise - the editor of the journal Rat calls "well respected" (although he disappears from the debate when asked to back that claim up with something) has resigned, saying the article was published without her knowledge.

 

http://www.boingamazing photo 911

 

Speaking of the cookie monster, cookies probably have more energy per mass than thermite.

.

 

The Snickers WMD theory.

I calculated the energy per mass of a Snickers candy bar. It is 20 kJ/g. That's five times higher than the 4 KJ/g for Fe2O3-Al thermite. That makes it a highly energetic active material.

Blow torching a Snickers bar revealed a solitary orange sparklie, just like in the Jones video.

Harrit and Jones can now propose that government agents disguised as vending machine workers secretly delivered and stashed up to 100 tons of Snickers bars WMD in the Twin Towers and set them off in a precisely timed sequence.

Moreover, the Snickers bars could have been used as detonators for Whitman's Sampler premium chocolates, which are proposed to have even more energy per mass.

Rumor has it that one of the board members of the M&M Mars candy company (maker of Snickers) is a relative of someone who was on the 9/11 commission. That makes it even more suspicious.


Snickers bar:

271 food calories = 271,000 calories = 1135 kilo-Joules
mass of candy bar = 57 g
energy/mass = 1135 kJ / 57 g = 20 kJ/g

.