It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Study claims 'highly engineered explosive' found in WTC rubbl

page: 26
218
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Mind posting your proof? Saying something is true, in a matter-of-fact way does not make it so.

I base my stance on the video of the dutch fellow saying that this was found.

Of course if you have a video of an equally qualified person saying that it was not found...

-------

I really find this extremely funny, scroll back over the 20+ pages and you can watch this type of behavior:

I read "blank" and it said thermate was false! (Yet they do not provide a link to "blank")

I've seen much evidence to show that thermate was not used! (Again no links to their evidence)

Well if this is the way that debating works, then:

I have read much evidence that supports the fact that I really live on the inside of the Hollow Earth, instead of the outside like you guys!

(And no asking to see the proof, since it has been established that proof is not required to substantiate claims; I must be right!)
I bet this goes over "their" heads.

EDIT
Me kant spell good with gramar


[edit on 4/25/2009 by adigregorio]




posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by adigregorio
 


I have based my conclusions on the [non]evidence presented by Jones' team. "Proof" is not a web sound bite or video. One only has to read the paper and look at the data. As I have explained many times throughout this post, Jones' team is either incompetent or is fraudulently interpreting data.
There is NO evidence for thermite, thermate, or nano-engineered anything. Here are a few examples. All that needs to be done is to read the paper.
1. Aluminum. As we look at the EDAX data, we see that the aluminum is associated with silicon and oxygen. That means aluminosilicates, not elemental aluminum. No elemental aluminum, no therm*te.
2. Nano materials. Looking at the SEM, we see some small particles and some much larger particles. Nano-engineered materials have a tight size distribution. The small white particles look like kaolinite, an aluminosilicate clay used as a filler in many products, such as paint. Google SEM images of kaolinite and you willl note the similarities.
3. DSC data. The DSC was run in a stream of air so a thermitic reaction cannot be discriminated from simple combustion. What could combust? The organic binder. Why would it have more energy per gram than therm*te? Easy. The oxidizer was oxygen in air. Therm*te uses iron oxide as the oxidant. It is much heavier than air so energy per gram is much lower than a simple fuel, such as chicken fat.
Look at my earlier posts and see why the explanation for the material not being paint is really ridiculous. As I stated previously, this is either incompetence or fraud.
You are welcome to rebut any of my statements based on the data in Jones' paper.

[edit on 4/26/2009 by pteridine]



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 03:24 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Unfortunatly I lack the skills to intrepret the data. I have to rely on layman terms and other more 'simple' explanations. But I assume you know this already, hence the 'call out' on my lack of said skills.


Let me respond like this:

By your paragraph am I/we to assume that you are 'smarter' and/or 'more knowledgable' than all of the scientists involved? And, if so, why have you not used your knowledge to refute their claims publicly, instead of refuting claims to us?

That is evidence that maybe your proposition is faulty, for if you could really disprove the theory you would have.

Also, still no links...

EDIT--
Spelling

[edit on 4/27/2009 by adigregorio]



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by adigregorio
 


Many analytical chemists see the fallacies in the paper. Yes, we are all either more honest or more competent than the Jones' crew. As I explained earlier, until the paper is published in a real journal, there is no forum for criticism.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Have you tested your paint/primer theory yet? Have you even guessed at which paint/primer has these exact properties?

Ya, didn't think so. You just say this and that without any real substance to back it up.

Until either you or these other scientists show a paint/primer with the same (or even close) physical and chemical properties, all you're doing is spouting opinion. And I for one will not trust anything without analytical data to back it up.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 09:23 AM
link   
The procedure for professional scientists making new claims is to publish their findings and subject them to peer review in accredited journals.

In this forum, some have weighed in on the faulty science involved in the essentially self-published Jones paper. They do this as a courtesy to enlighten those of us with less understanding of the complexities.

Science continually tries to advance with new understanding and discoveries.
It is not the role of proper science to continually have to disprove any and all bad science claims.

Bogus science will always be with us. It's advisable to pay attention when those who can spot it take the time to point out it's errors.


Mike



[edit on 27-4-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Weasel words is an informal term for words that are ambiguous and not supported by facts. They are typically used to create an illusion of clear, direct communication.

Weasel words are usually expressed with deliberate imprecision with the intention to mislead the listeners or readers into believing statements for which sources are not readily available. Tactics that are used include:

vague generalizations
use of the passive voice
non sequitur statements
use of grammatical devices such as qualifiers and the subjunctive mood
use of euphemisms (e.g., replacing "firing staff" with "streamlining the workforce")


Examples:


Examples
"A growing body of evidence..."[3] (Where is the raw data for your review?)
"People say..." (Which people? How do they know?)
"Critics claim..." (Which critics?)
"Clearly..." (Is the situation really clear?)
"I heard that..." (Who told you? Is the source reliable?)
"There is evidence that..." (What evidence? Is the source reliable?)
"Experience shows that..." (Whose experience? What was the experience? How does it demonstrate this?)
"It has been mentioned that..." (Can these mentioners be trusted?)
"Popular wisdom has it that..." (Is popular wisdom a test of truth?)
"It is known that..." (By whom and by what method is it known?)
"It turns out that..." (How does it turn out?)
"History has shown that..." (Which events, date, facts have shown that and who is interpreting these events, dates, ...?)
"Our product is so good, it was even given away in celebrity gift bags." (True, perhaps, but not relevant.)
"See why more of our trucks are sold in Southern California than in any other part of the country." (Southern California is a big vehicle market.)
"Nobody else's product is better than ours." (They're all about the same.)
"Becoming involved with this problem would be beneficial to us." (In what way would it be beneficial?)
"Tradition dictates..." (whose tradition, and why is it valid in all cases?)


EDIT--(Forgot source Doh!)
Source
--EDIT


Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by adigregorio
 


Many analytical chemists see the fallacies in the paper. Yes, we are all either more honest or more competent than the Jones' crew. As I explained earlier, until the paper is published in a real journal, there is no forum for criticism.

(Bold done by me)

This is horrible debating! Three instances of weasle words in one paragraph!?

Many analytical chemists: Which chemists, where are they, what are their credentials?

We are all either more honest: Where is the proof? If anything Jones is more believable than you. Least we know that he is a scientist, even if you/others think its a faulty scientist.

Real Journal: Ahh so this is a "fake" journal? Where is the research to back this up. And don't say because it is open source (or whatever the term was). I want viable data that says the journal is fake, IE a pending case for fraud (Fraud is what this would be, if this was really a fake journal.)

Furthermore, since you have proof that it is fraud. You better save the scientific community!! Let us laymans, and the 'not-as-smart-as-you' "faulty scientists" know your truth.

Or could it be that you are un-qualified? I think it does, or you would have put Jones in his place.
-----
To the rest of the weasle word users, I will not tolerate that type of behavior in a discussion. I will call it out every time, from here on out. It is a shady way to debate, and it is immature.

If you do not have "real" proof to back up claims, do not make claims.
(Real=Not a fallacy, or weasle words)

PS Still no links


[edit on 4/27/2009 by adigregorio]



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by adigregorio

This is horrible debating! Three instances of weasle words in one paragraph!?

Many analytical chemists: Which chemists, where are they, what are their credentials?

We are all either more honest: Where is the proof? If anything Jones is more believable than you. Least we know that he is a scientist, even if you/others think its a faulty scientist.

Real Journal: Ahh so this is a "fake" journal? Where is the research to back this up. And don't say because it is open source (or whatever the term was). I want viable data that says the journal is fake, IE a pending case for fraud (Fraud is what this would be, if this was really a fake journal.)

Furthermore, since you have proof that it is fraud. You better save the scientific community!! Let us laymans, and the 'not-as-smart-as-you' "faulty scientists" know your truth.

Or could it be that you are un-qualified? I think it does, or you would have put Jones in his place.
-----
To the rest of the weasle word users, I will not tolerate that type of behavior in a discussion. I will call it out every time, from here on out. It is a shady way to debate, and it is immature.

If you do not have "real" proof to back up claims, do not make claims.
(Real=Not a fallacy, or weasle words)

PS Still no links





From what you say, you haven't made the effort to read the now hundreds of posts within which your concerns have been addressed.


No one is obliged to conform to any set of parameters you want to impose
in this open discussion.

No one is obliged to present to you the same information over again because you have not to read what has been written. When you have gone through it all and found mistakes, you will be in a position to question it.

Do not insult the people on this thread who have gone to great lengths to share their scientific insights. Unless you can demonstrate a superior knowledge of the exacting sciences involved, you are not in a position to question the data they have provided or their credentials


Mike












[edit on 27-4-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Really? Then how come I am not the only one calling the "weasle words" on the carpet?


Originally posted by bsbray11
And again you talk about lots of people and consensus. What a shock that the last 3 times I said I don't care about that, you weren't even paying attention. You must not really understand what a "logical fallacy" is, either. History never teaches people like you anything, that's why it always repeats itself. Why are you so arrogant on behalf of a lot of people who have seen little to no evidence in the first place? Have you really seen some kind of "proof" that I haven't?



Originally posted bybsbray11
No, what it always gets back to is people like you mentioning all this overwhelming evidence, but it never gets back to the evidence itself. ...


(Bolding done by me)

There are plenty more, all I want and bsbray11 wants, is for you to back up your claims. Instead, more weasle words, and run-a-round.

ThermAte was used, according to these scientists. You are not a scientist (unless I missed that post). If you are going to refute their claims, you will need to present something that is viable, not an unfounded claim. And that is what it is, until you provide the 'evidence' that there was no ThermAte.

(My guess is you will 'be done with me' like you were with bsbray11 when he wouldn't let you use these 'logical fallacys'.)



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Griff,
There isn't anything to test nor is there any evidence to refute. The only questions are the invalid interpretations of the data and faulty analytical protocols. The paper, as it now stands, is so easily refuted that it is not worth the effort to put any more stakes in its heart. If the response from Jones via Turbofan counters my criticisms, I will proceed with finding evidence to refute any such rebuttals.
I think I have an image of kaolinite that will be helpful to those that like images and videos and will post it when I find it again.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by adigregorio
 


I am happy to hear what you will tolerate and not tolerate and will work unendingly to meet your weasel-free standards, whatever they are. I also remind you that people in Hell want ice water.

Jones' group is now laying low. They do not respond to the emails of many who would criticize them. How do I know? I know who sent notes to them and received no responses, so they are either preparing counter arguments or retreating. Will I name names or provide you with my curriculum vitae so that you can decide if I am qualified? No. No personal info on the boards.
Many chemists do not pay attention to these kinds of things because the issues are non-starters, i.e., they will never be resolved to the satisfaction of many CTer's and the rest of the world doesn't care. I paid attention because I saw bad science and an attempt to distort the truth. If Jones would have found evidence for therm*te, I would have said so. He didn't. Turbofan sent them my criticisms and they have not responded to him, either.
The journal is not a real scientific journal. It is a vanity publication. That means that should you decide to publish a paper on something, you have only to pay a fee. The review is minimal, at best. Find your area of familiarity in their pantheon of journals and write a paper on something and submit it. My bet is that it will be accepted and published, should you provide the fee.
If you do not believe my qualifications after what I have written and explained, that is your problem. I wrote at a low technical level without insulting anyone's intelligence and offered to explain anything I said. As others have done, I did not provide copious links to mountains of questionable material and claim 'proof' because that is not how I do things.

I will happily discuss any issue that involves chemistry and will call things as I see them regardless of where they fall.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by adigregorio
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Really? Then how come I am not the only one calling the "weasle words" on the carpet?


Originally posted by bsbray11
And again you talk about lots of people and consensus. What a shock that the last 3 times I said I don't care about that, you weren't even paying attention. You must not really understand what a "logical fallacy" is, either. History never teaches people like you anything, that's why it always repeats itself. Why are you so arrogant on behalf of a lot of people who have seen little to no evidence in the first place? Have you really seen some kind of "proof" that I haven't?



Originally posted bybsbray11
No, what it always gets back to is people like you mentioning all this overwhelming evidence, but it never gets back to the evidence itself. ...


(Bolding done by me)

There are plenty more, all I want and bsbray11 wants, is for you to back up your claims. Instead, more weasle words, and run-a-round.

ThermAte was used, according to these scientists. You are not a scientist (unless I missed that post). If you are going to refute their claims, you will need to present something that is viable, not an unfounded claim. And that is what it is, until you provide the 'evidence' that there was no ThermAte.

(My guess is you will 'be done with me' like you were with bsbray11 when he wouldn't let you use these 'logical fallacys'.)




To be quite frank I find it very difficult to follow what you're getting at.

I'm not sure what "weasle [sic] words" are, for starters.

You ask for what you consider to be unquestionable "proof" for some of the things I mention. But references to peer reviewed papers are not sufficient substantiation.

That creates a problem as I defer to published expert opinion whenever available.

Trying to keep current on the matter, I've been following a debate thread between scientists on the Jones paper entitled:

"New Scientific Study/Evidence Of Nanotechnology Thermite, Used To Bring Down WTC By Controlled Secret Demolition"


educationforum.ipbhost.com...



A brief sampling of the level of discourse from page 3:




Harrit and Jones et. al. made no attempt to show that their mysterious chips were energetic enough to have damaged the WTC’s frame. Ryan Mackay, from NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratories (quite literally a ‘rocket scientist) crunched the numbers on a JREF thread about the paper and showed them to be quite lacking.


QUOTE

" …there's two things to keep in mind: (1) The thickness proposed by Dr. Jones is roughly 20 microns, no more than that; and (2) a coating over the surface of the steel cannot be focused onto a 1/4 kg section of the steel. The latter assumption is the source of your 2% mass-fraction estimate, and it's a bad assumption.

Running my own rough numbers, if we assume the most vulnerable of all columns -- a minumum thickness perimeter column, which is a box column 356 mm on a side and 6.35 mm (0.25 in) thick -- consider a 20 micron coating of the nanodoubletalk put onto all sides, which is impossible, but let's go with the worst case. The alleged nanostuff has an energy content of about 7 kJ/g (using the highest of his WILDLY varying four samples), and assuming thermite has a specific gravity of about 4, means 28 kJ/cm3.

The total amount of "film" would be 4 x 356 mm x 0.020 mm = 28.48 mm2 per unit length, or 28.48 cm3 per meter of column, with an energy content of 797 KJ per meter of column.

The column, in contrast, has 4 x 356 mm x 6.35 mm of steel per meter, or 9042 mm2 per unit length, or 9042 cm3 per meter of column. At 7.85 g/cm3 this means the column mass is 71 kg/meter.

Steel heat capacity is roughly 460 J / (kg K). So the nanocrap would heat the steel column by (797 kJ/meter) / [(460 J / kg K) (71 kg/meter)] = 24 Kelvins, or 24oC.

Again, this is the optimal case -- thinnest and weakest column, total application on all four sides, most optimistic energy content estimate, and 100% efficiency in applying heat to steel. From this, we reason that in order to be effective, we need at least 16 times the thickness to have any useful effect even on the weakest of columns, even with utterly reliable and efficient ignition and adherence to the column while burning. "

QUOTE

forums.randi.org...





Informative and recommended highly as both pro and con are debated.

I can't say whether it is acceptable to your standards or is just more "weasle [sic] words" We await your assessment and pronouncements after you have taken the time to read through thoroughly.


Mike



[edit on 27-4-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
You ask for what you consider to be unquestionable "proof" for some of the things I mention. But references to peer reviewed papers are not sufficient substantiation.


The only reports with access to the structural documentation and physical evidence were FEMA's and NIST's, and neither of them were peer reviewed.

Even if they were peer-reviewed, just because something has been reviewed doesn't qualify it as "proof." A peer review does not mean everything in a paper is correct, or that the overall theory it argues is correct. It just means other professionals read the article and made sure it wasn't completely off-base. There are peer-reviewed articles on "both sides" of the 9/11 issue, and the only people that don't recognize this are the people that don't understand what a peer review is. It isn't a determination of whether or not the paper is valid science.


That creates a problem as I defer to published expert opinion whenever available.


The problem is that we want to talk about what these experts are talking about, what their proof is (because that is THE proof!), but you won't give it to us. So how are we supposed to argue with someone who can't even tell us what specific evidence supports his theory?


From this, we reason that in order to be effective, we need at least 16 times the thickness to have any useful effect even on the weakest of columns, even with utterly reliable and efficient ignition and adherence to the column while burning.


You forget (or never realized) that there was melted steel taken from WTC7 that was analyzed and found to have melted below its normal melting point by the addition of sulfur and other elements into the steel. So there was something applied to WTC steel that caused it to melt and fail structurally, in this particular case before the rest of the building collapsed. If you've never heard of this, I'm sure someone has a link to relevant information or if not I could probably find one myself.

[edit on 27-4-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Just a quick addressing of two of your points:



Originally posted by bsbray11

... The only reports with access to the structural documentation and physical evidence were FEMA's and NIST's, and neither of them were peer reviewed.




I'm not certain about FEMA offhand, but NIST used external peer review as an additional pre-dissemination review process.






... melted steel taken from WTC7 that was analyzed and found to have melted below its normal melting point by the addition of sulfur and other elements into the steel. So there was something applied to WTC steel that caused it to melt and fail structurally, in this particular case before the rest of the building collapsed.




As far as I know, steel has only been shown to behave this way in reports attempting to prove controlled demolition.



Mike



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
I'm not certain about FEMA offhand, but NIST used external peer review as an additional pre-dissemination review process.


Are you talking about when they were accepting public comment to their drafts?



As far as I know, steel has only been shown to behave this way in reports attempting to prove controlled demolition.


Well then now you know better, right?


Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.


Notice the above is exactly what I was just talking about.

From Appendix C of the FEMA report: www.fema.gov...

They even have plenty of pictures, and talk about similar corrosion seen in samples recovered from the Twin Towers.



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11



Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.


Notice the above is exactly what I was just talking about.

From Appendix C of the FEMA report: www.fema.gov...

They even have plenty of pictures, and talk about similar corrosion seen in samples recovered from the Twin Towers.



You have taken a portion of a quote. What I particularly objected to was this:





So there was something applied to WTC steel that caused it to melt and fail structurally, in this particular case before the rest of the building collapsed.




I do not know the full context. But in isolation, it sounds like a conclusion made to further the controlled demolition claim.


Mike



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
You have taken a portion of a quote.


Let me guess, I took it out of context and it doesn't really mean what it says?

Why don't you read the actual report I just linked you to and tell me it doesn't say AND MEAN exactly what I just posted?


But in isolation, it sounds like a conclusion made to further the controlled demolition claim.


So you're going to dismiss it out-of-hand, despite it being from a federal source, just because of how it "sounds" to you?

This is exactly what people are talking about when they say someone is biased. If it doesn't fit what you already believe, you aren't willing to consider it. You're already looking for ways to discredit it. Let me know when you summon up the courage to look at the FEMA report, or better yet let me know when you come up with a real reply to my post.

[edit on 27-4-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


This is exactly what people are talking about when they say someone is biased. If it doesn't fit what you already believe, you aren't willing to consider it. You're already looking for ways to discredit it. Let me know when you summon up the courage to look at the FEMA report, or better yet let me know when you come up with a real reply to my post.



My reply, real or unreal.

In the course of this thread I asked a number of questions on the logistics and feasibility of planting therma/ite in the WTC buildings. They have been consistently ignored, for the most part. One has to accept that not every query will get a satisfactory response.

I do claim not sufficient scientific background to be able to accept fully or refute knowledgeably every facet of the chemical and engineering components involved in the collapses. But, within reason, I attempt to review with an open mind what is out there, from all sides of the equation.

Where my biases do come in, is the observation of consistently manipulated data and forced conclusions on the part of those advocating controlled demolition. I do not see this in the sources that go to great length to scientifically explain what happened as being a combination of uncontrolled fires and loss of structural integrity.

My admitted prejudice is in accepting demonstrably solid science as opposed to the more dubious strains.


Mike


[edit on 27-4-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 10:12 PM
link   
Some informative posting here amigos.

Just a quick question for Pterdine and Michael.

Do you believe the official story? or

Do you believe the Govt did allowed it to happen? or

Do you believe something else??????

I'm sure you have all heard these quotes before......

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." —Washington, D.C., Sept. 13, 2001

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." —Washington, D.C., March 13, 2002

I am not a scientist, or an engineer or anything like that. I am a tennis coach from a small town in little ol New Zealand.

I have been reading materials from both sides of the fence for about 2 years now and it seems (to me) overwhelmingly obvious that 911 was an INSIDE JOB.

The perfect collapses, WTC7, 930 lies, Bush at the school, Cheneys non evacuation, interception failure, PUT options, Larrys insurance and "pull it",
firemen's statements, steel removal, no black boxes, no pentagon footage, tiny hole in pentagon, no wreckage, hijackers still alive and the list goes on and on.

Either the Govt has made it look like it was them or it was them. I will go for the latter on this one.

One more quick question.........

What do you think is the best piece of evidence that supports the OS???

Cheers guys sorry if bit off topic, peace



new topics

top topics



 
218
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join