watch from 4 minutes 30 seconds part 5 and part 6
nanothermite found in the world trade centre dust:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjAviEG20dg&
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=300WYhC6KQI&e
so how can you say
"there is actually no such evidence", this is just denial, or did you simply not get a chance to see the above video clip yet?
I didn't review your clip. Having done so, I have identified several flaws with it.
First, he has no samples from other collapsed buildings. Aluminum oxide, iron oxide and iron in the wreckage of a destroyed building do not particularly surprise me. They do surprise Jones, who is not a materials scientist. Now, neither am I, but neither am I gullible. Aluminum oxide, iron oxide and iron are all, I am
quite certain, found to a great degree in buildings of almost any type.
Typically, the Iron(II) oxide pigment is black, while the Iron(III) oxide is red or rust-colored. (Iron compounds other than oxides can be other colors
Black oxide converts ferrous materials into magnetite for corrosion resistance purposes. A grade of hematite called MIO (micaceous iron oxide) is used as anti-corrosion paint (many bridges, Eiffel tower).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_oxide
This rapidly explains Dr. Jones' "red chip/gray chip" item also.
Annual world production of alumina is approximately 45 million tonnes, over 90% of which is used in the manufacture of aluminium metal.[3]. The major uses of speciality aluminium oxides are in refractories, ceramics, and polishing and abrasive applications. Large tonnages are also used in the manufacture of zeolites, coating titania pigments, and as a fire retardant/smoke suppressant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminum_oxide
Iron, you may be aware, is also found in buildings to a large degree.
Further, aren't oxides of all kinds produced via redox reactions, which is to say,
fire?
I prefer the scientific method over inquisitorial McCarthyism.
Oooh! Two impact words in the same sentence. And neither relevant.
Tailspin, there is nothing scientific about 9/11 Troof. It bases the entirety of its approach - as Scott has illustrated - on the assumption of a cover-up by the authorities. It is every bit as scientific as "creation science", which attempts to ferret out God in the details of evolutionary biology.
I regret to have to treat you so brusquely, but I think it is best if I don't mince words.
There will be tears in the Seattle Starbucks today, I fear.
Best regards,
Geoff
PS: I think it would be good for you to review "Screw Loose Change" also. Please do so.
http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/