Tuesday, February 10, 2009

DEBUNKING "9/11 Debunked: Thermate Chemical Signatures Disproven" rkOWNED

This is a response to a video created by YouTube user RKOwens4 which attempts to debunk Steven Jones. Hilarious coming from someone with no degree or experience in physics or chemistry.
Yet a lot of people automatically assume it's true because it's debunking. And conspiracy theorists are tin foil hat crazies, with no scientific knowledge.

Well they're in for a surprise if they actually read professors, engineers and chemists like Steven Jones' papers.

So let's start with the misconceptions this rkowens displays.

First off
Debunkers are confusing WTC dust with IRON SPHERES found [IN THE DUST].
The Spheres show that the chemicals were formed due to melting and/or vapourisation, this is due to surface tension. When a liquid is formed the surface tension of the liquid forms a sphere.
Just like when you spray water you will notice many small spheres forming.

This is important as the SPHERES not the dust has the chemical signature of a variation of thermate.
This indicated the various chemicals found in the spheres were melted at the SAME TIME. Forming spheres. The spheres found had chemical signature of FE, AL, K, SI. And various additives and variations of the thermate was found.
Including sulpur, copper, manganese.
Different aluminothermic reactions have different properties, some are faster reacting, like sulpur which reduces the melting point of steel.

What other mechanism can make fe, al, k, si melt at the same time to form spheres?
Debunkers like to beleive the iron came from steel, the aluminium came from cladding and silicon from glass, etc.

Forming from office fire is impossible, for a start iron cannot melt in office fires and the melting points of these metals are so different, there would be a sizeable time delay from heating WTC common materials. Then they also have to cool together at the same time to form a sphere.
Thermate however provides the solution to this question because the reaction is very fast. No other mechanism is known to provide spheres such as these.

Secondly rkowned is confusing Steven Jones arbitrary usage of the word thermate with military grade (Thermate-TH3 (in military use) is 68.7% thermite, 29.0% barium nitrate, 2.0% sulfur )
There are a wide variety of different types of thermate, thermite, and other aluminothermic reactions. In fact all you need is a metal oxide whose metal is lower in the reactivity series than aluminium to create such a reaction. As the aluminium steals the oxygen from the oxide.
Iron is the most common form of aluminothermic reaction, this is known as thermite.

So finding barium nitrate in spheres is not at all necessary for a thermate reaction.
Finding aluminium oxide and iron or other metal as a single sphere is.

It turns out nano-thermite and thermate was used, the chemical signature found in unexploded red chips of nano-thermite, DO MATCH known government combinations.

RKowned claims aluminium oxide was not found, but he obviously has not looked at the WTC iron spheres X-EDS which clearly all show aluminium oxide.

Another bunk claim of rkowned is his claim that sulphur was from gypsum.Gypsum however is used as fireproofing because of its molecular stability.
However the chemical signature of gypsum is not found in any WTC iron spheres as there is NO CALCIUM.

As you can see Gypsum CaS04 is not responsible for sulphur found in the iron microspheres.

Related Info:

Face off with the Debunkers, Part 2 - Ryan Owens

Debunking Molten Aluminium Flow From South Tower

Controlled Demolition Not Possible?

9/11 Debunkers: Meet RKOwens4

RE: What the Heck is Jason Bermas talking about?

The 9/11 Un-debunked Series