Anyway
There are several other massive flaws with Jones findings, to start with anyone who is familiar with academic writings know that a good measure of the validity of research can be determined by the paper it is published in. Bentham open journals who published Jones work claim to be peer reviewed, claim to be, but they’re not.
After suspicions about their “peer review” system one researcher used a computer program to generate an “Accademic Paper” and submitted it to Bentham open for publication, it was just utter gibberish, but it was published and passed the “peer review”. For Jonse’s work to be published then in this journal rather than adding weight to his findings it actually makes them look a bit silly. And on top of that following the publication of Jones et al publication in the journal the editor of “the open chemical physics journal” quit over it because she had not been informed of its publication and disapproved of it. There is also another key point to make, any respecting academic who found some huge ground breaking evidence on the scale that jones had found would not go to this kind of journal he would go to one of the bigger papers like Nature.
Regardless.
This video provides a fantastic explanation of just how dubious this very publication was.
But that’s not the only problem, nor is the fact that he can’t actually prove where his samples came from but even if you think about his own results it makes no sense. In the paper Jones states that 0.1% of the sample was found to have these red “unreacted thermite” chips, that means based on that sample for every kilo of dust 1 gram would be unreacted thermite. The whole point of the thermite would be to undergo a reaction and melt through the steel, well that what Jones would have us believe, yet at the same time also seems to argue that loads of it didn’t react?. He expects us to believe that loads of this extremely highly reactive thermite did not ignite?
In yet another inconsistency Jones received 5 samples but only tested 4, the reason he cites for this is because the owner of the fifth sample didn’t want o be named, so rather than calling him Mr. X, Jones just omitted this sample completely form the paper. Doesn’t add up to me a individual not wanting to be identified in a piece of academic writing is not grounds to dismiss he/her samples. Mr X was obviously quite happy to submit the samples and these samples should have been included and a pseudonym used for Mr.X. I can see no reason why this would not be possible, unless Jones did test it and just not like the results.
And not only that but other more, lots more robust science looking at 9/11 dust after Jones work arrived at a different conclusion stating that
The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments.
There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminium particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite
Or to be put simply while this research debunked Jones claims, no elemental aluminium, no thermite.
This is consistent with other research looking at assessing the dust from the destruction of the world trade center’s also did not find any evidence of thermite or other explosives such as the US Geological Survey who were called in shortly after 9/11 to analyse the dust. They found lots of similar chemical elements as Jones did but they don’t seem all that shocked to find them, Sulphur is used in building materials for example as already stated.
By far the biggest problem with Jones claim is that thermite cant melt steel, National Geographic proved this in their documentary, they took a whole load of thermite and tried to cut steel with it and failed. Thermite does not cut steel!
However, since then this video has appeared on line:
Clearly shows that Thermate can cut steel, yes that right Thermate, not Thermite!
Jones found no evidence of Thermate, Thermate uses Sulpher (which he did find) and Barium Nitrate (which he did NOT find) to increase the thermitic effect of the reaction additionally the video clearly shows that thermate causes lots of noise, something that is not evident prior to the collapse of WTC-7. So while yes this might demonstrate that thermate can cut steel it does not prove that the thermite that Jones claims to have found in WTC dust could cut steel. There is no evidence of thermate in the 9/11 dust because there is no evidence of barium nitrate in the WTC dust presented by Jones. No barium nitrate, no Thermate.
So, lets get back to Ground Zero, clearly thermate could have theoretically been configured to cut through the steel columns however no one has found any evidence for the existence of thermate at Ground Zero. Additionally there is no evidence in the photographic history as we cannot see any of these huge flashes that thermate and thermite both create nor is any explanation given as to how they could control this incredibly volatile substance. let alone plant it in the building’s
There is so much more about this “Thermite debate” that does not add up, for example Jones refuses to hand his samples over for further independent testing, and further more if he does have this proof why has he not handed it over to the proper authorities. And surly, if you had found this ground breaking evidence you would at the very least publish it in a more well known Journal rather than the rag it was originally published in.
So to summarise Jones et al publish a piece of research that does not stand up to scientific scrutiny in a journal that was not peer reviewed, has been refuted by many in the scientific community and has never been corroborated.
And a final note, many truthers often ask me “show me one other building collapsing due to fire”
Now it’s time to turn that on its head, so truths, show me one other steel framed high skyscraper that has been demolished using thermite?
PS, If anyone has time i would also highly recommend this video as it really sums up many of the main points raised in this thread.
edit on 14-9-2013 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-9-2013 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)
Revisiting Thermite
No comments:
Post a Comment