WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine

Nano thermite? There is no evidence for any kind of thermite. If you are speaking of the abysmal Jones paper, the paint samples were collected as dust after the collapse and there is no way of knowing which building the primer paint chips came from. Further, Jones failed to show the chips were reactive by running the DSC in air rather than under Argon, so he could not determine whether the results were simple combustion or reaction.

No you are wrong, and you were debunked years ago about running the DSC in the air under Argon. You were showing it would not have made no different in the outcome of that particular test.
You are still claiming red paint chips was all that Jones found, yet to this day you have no scientific evidence to support your theory.

No one has every debunked Jones paper, weather it was Peer Reviewed or not. It doesn't matter now. We have A&E science that proves demolition was used to bring down the WTC and you have never debunked that either and no scientist on planet earth has debunked A&E science.

I have debunked Jones' paper using Jones' own data. It was easy because Jones fails to understand the chemistry involved or the diagnostic for reactive materials that contain both oxidizer and reductant. The fact that you do not understand thermodynamics or chemistry does not change anything. A&E "science" is tainted by people like Jones who want a certain outcome and those who blindly follow him in ignorance.

a reply to: Informer1958

Yet you just ignored the very fact that I just posted to you, that NIST made millions of dollars to fool you.

That won't work and I have noticed that you continue to avoid posting what I have requested. About Steven Jones.

Steven Jones

"The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."

www.debunking911.com...

a reply to: pteridine

I have debunked Jones' paper using Jones' own data. It was easy because Jones fails to understand the chemistry involved or the diagnostic for reactive materials that contain both oxidizer and reductant. The fact that you do not understand thermodynamics or chemistry does not change anything. A&E "science" is tainted by people like Jones who want a certain outcome and those who blindly follow him in ignorance.

You were caught lying and twisting Jones science repeatedly many people on ATS caught you and called you out and I was one of them at the time.

You sir have never disproved or debunked A&E but to only ridicule it as you just demonstrated just now. You blindly follow the lies from the NIST and have demonstrated repeatedly that the OS is all true.

That won't work and I have noticed that you continue to avoid posting what I have requested.

Almost all of us has posted that.......when will you

a reply to: skyeagle409

That won't work and I have noticed that you continue to avoid posting what I have requested.

Nothing works for you does it.

a reply to: Informer1958

Nothing works for you does it.

I want you to post the evidence that demo explosives were used and for a very specific reason.

To let you know, I contacted Protec Documentation Services, Inc. last year and I want you to post evidence that their seismic monitors detected demo detonations. I am not shy about contacting companies for references and clarifications.

a reply to: skyeagle409
The inconsistency in Informer's [and others'] posts are obvious. He claims nano thermite and then says that seismic evidence shows demolitions. Thermite would not provide such; only explosives or a collapsing building would.

Apparently, those that claim scientific evidence have no knowledge of science at all.

a reply to: skyeagle409

About Steven Jones.

So what? Screw him and take the other studies if ya like. Which brings me to my old question:

Explosives, Thermite or both, where should we go next?
Which residues are we supposed to find if anything of this would be the case?

Can you name a few things that would imply the use of explosives? Any chemicals for ex.?

I want to post the evidence that demo explosives were used and for a very specific reason.

I can't wait, seems you are a bit frustrated.. I wonder why, hum....

a reply to: skyeagle409

I want you to do so as well. Btw., did you ask RJ LeeGroup, Inc. for clarification regarding their dust-analysis or will you accept their work by now?

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine

I have debunked Jones' paper using Jones' own data. It was easy because Jones fails to understand the chemistry involved or the diagnostic for reactive materials that contain both oxidizer and reductant. The fact that you do not understand thermodynamics or chemistry does not change anything. A&E "science" is tainted by people like Jones who want a certain outcome and those who blindly follow him in ignorance.

You were caught lying and twisting Jones science repeatedly many people on ATS caught you and called you out and I was one of them at the time.

You sir have never disproved or debunked A&E but to only ridicule it as you just demonstrated just now. You blindly follow the lies from the NIST and have demonstrated repeatedly that the OS is all true.

I showed the faults in Jones' paper and was never seriously challenged. Perhaps you would like to take the issue up and debate the technical aspects of Jones' paper with me. Show how Jones proved that a thermitic reaction occurred and compare the caloric outputs that he found with thermite and known explosives. Then show the source of the chips by building and evidentiary control of the chip samples.

a reply to: wildb

If you can't wait, then why am I waiting for you to post the time lines and seismic data?

a reply to: pteridine

The inconsistency in Informer's [and others'] posts are obvious. He claims nano thermite and then says that seismic evidence shows demolitions. Thermite would not provide such; only explosives or a collapsing building would.

Apparently, those that claim scientific evidence have no knowledge of science at all.

I agree! I have visited the website of 'AE 9/11 Truth' and it is amazing the huge amount of disinformation and misinformation they spew, which is on par with 'Pilots For 9/11 Truth'.

a reply to: skyeagle409

I agree! I have visited the website of 'AE 9/11 Truth' and it is amazing the huge amount of disinformation and misinformation they spew, which is on par with 'Pilots For 9/11 Truth'.

And the fact is, you have failed miserably to prove anything was disinformation but to only ridicule it. How interesting.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

I want you to do so as well. Btw., did you ask RJ LeeGroup, Inc. for clarification regarding their dust-analysis or will you accept their work by now?

No, but I will if I need to. However, let's take a look here.

RJ LeeGroup

a reply to: skyeagle409
The A&E is based on bombast and posturing. Gage and crew milk the gullibles for money and provide whatever commentaries keep the cash flowing. The followers feed on their own fantasies in a mutual admiration society, much like Rush Limbaugh does. The "science" they claim ignores anything that does not fit predetermined conclusions and is of exceptionally poor quality. Challengers are told that they are being duped if they believe the "OS."
There seems to be no claim or position with evidentiary backing. Mainly, claims keep moving from explosives to thermite and back again in a seemingly never-ending cycle, as each is shown to be false, in turn. Some of the A&E supporters also promote other, more entertaining, theories. The shaped charge nuclear demolition was a peach as was the space ray causing "dustification." A Russian professor promoted the nuke and a female professor of some sort pushed the space ray.
Did A&E ever provide or support any detailed position? I only remember that they said "things didn't seem right," or "the collapses defied the laws of physics" but could not explain how the laws of physics were defied. They are short on physical evidence and long on feelings.

a reply to: Informer1958

And the fact is, you have failed miserably to prove anything was disinformation but to only ridicule it.

On the contrary, the fact that you cannot refute my claim with time lines and seismic data sums it up that I am correct.

a reply to: skyeagle409

That is an answer with regards to the presence of fe-spheres only, which is not surprising indeed. Only their amount, shape and variations is. He didn't debunk his own work with this statement, nor did he comment on the rather fishy composition of said dust.
He actually wrote this with regards to the Jones you hate so much, who kinda focussed on fe-spheres due to his thermite-claim. You've provided me with an answer to a question you invented so to speak. But we don't want to reduce a complex matter to this single side aspect, do we?

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: skyeagle409

About Steven Jones.

So what? Screw him and take the other studies if ya like. Which brings me to my old question:

Explosives, Thermite or both, where should we go next?
Which residues are we supposed to find if anything of this would be the case?

Can you name a few things that would imply the use of explosives? Any chemicals for ex.?

As there were no series of explosions indicating demolition, the primary thing "that would imply the use of explosives," looking for explosive residue may be fruitless, but we can at least consider your question. What explosives would you expect? Commercial and military explosives all leave some unreacted residue. Nitrate esters and nitro aromatics all leave nitrate ion. Thermobarics leave metal oxides and residue of dispersing charges. There are others but their instabilities would make them poor choices for demolition.

a reply to: pteridine

The A&E is based on bombast and posturing. Gage and crew milk the gullibles for money and provide whatever commentaries keep the cash flowing.

Richard Gage and company are doing a fantastic job to help of lighten the wallets of those who are not in the habit of doing homework.