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.

 

Yep, It's Thermite! So Much for the "Oxygen" Excuse

page: 11
172
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Jones is just one of many people who are seeking, will seek and prove what really happened. If it came all down to just Alex Jones, I would agree with you.

This isn't about a wining side, not for me anyway.

How many times have you watched the live demolition of WTC 7?

Did you see the squibs go off?

Did you see the crimp in the middle of the building?

Did you compare the other closer more damaged and more burnt out buildings with WTC 7's damage/fires?

How many times have you seen the live news reports on BBC and CNN stating that WTC 7 had collapsed (10 or more minutes before it really collapsed), with WTC 7 in the background of the reporter?

Did you think the BBC, in England showing live footage from New York, scrambled and dropped out just after the building was shown was at all strange?

Did the dust look just like the dust from WTC 1 &2, just on a smaller scale?

What is your explanation of the sat images of the heat from the molten steel at all three WTC sites?

I'm not asking you to change you mind, but just look at the real uncensored and clean evidence again - Starting with the impact of the first plane.

Cheers

[edit on 5-6-2009 by Skyline666]




posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by undermind
 


Wow. Are you done? Do you feel better?

Take a few deep breaths, and try to relax man. I wouldnt want you to to go tell the site owner that I'm being too bossy. But seriously, I'm not really interested in who can type to most trash, so spare me.

There was a lot of babble in your post, but I failed to see how it was relevent to this thread?

Did you have some links to post? Did I read correctly that you stated you educated Dr. Jones? That sounds pretty impressive. Do you have the means to discredit all his findings with your own data? Are you going to share the wealth of knowledge with the rest of us to demonstrate your own ability to prove me or anyone else here wrong?

Or are you simply going to continue waisting all of our time with your opinion?



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston
reply to post by esdad71
 


Perhaps you overlooked the posts in this thread in which F R Greening appeared to be a novice scientist and Jones and others had to correct his science. And I was replying to a post referring to Greening's apparent extensive use of unscientific guesswork on his disinformation website.



No, I read the posts and are aware of the criticism but then again a quick google search can do the same for Jones. Thanks for making sure.

However, why would there be thermite left to test? Would it not have all been used in the slicing of the steel beams? You see, this line of the conclusion I think is a good one...



As measured using DSC, the material ignites and reacts vigorously at a temperature of approximately 430 °C, with a rather narrow exotherm, matching fairly closely an independent observation on a known super-thermite sample. The low temperature of ignition and the presence of iron oxide grains less than 120 nm show that the material is not conventional thermite (which ignites at temperatures above 900 °C) but very likely a form of super-thermite.


first, what is the Known super-thermite they are comparing it against and secondly, they are bending the laws of physics stating that this sample is "different" with a lower ignition temperature and makes it super thermite? If you turned that in as a 10th grade science project you would get a D.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyline666

Jones is just one of many people who are seeking, will seek and prove what really happened. If it came all down to just Alex Jones, I would agree with you.

This isn't about a wining side, not for me anyway.

[...]

I'm not asking you to change you mind, but just look at the real uncensored and clean evidence again - Starting with the impact of the first plane.



I appreciate your reasonable reply.

There are many things that happened on 9/11 that defy people's notion of what would occur when such huge structures are impacted by large planes. There are inconsistencies in the ongoing coverage and follow-up.

These have been addressed painstakingly by not only government approved agencies but by many concerned private professionals worldwide also seeking answers.

For the questions you listed there are qualified but reasonable explanations backed up by evidence even if they may conflict with your expectations.

I am not an advocate of any of these explanations, just someone who accepts the best available until something more substantiated can replace it.
This does not mean I automatically accept everything from authoritative sources and those that concur.

Those who question what happened on 9/11 have legitimate issues. My criticism is only that much of what they put forward as evidence is unscientific and often agenda driven.

No one in the world knows what one of the WTC building hit by a plane compared to one of the same design hit by a plane with explosives to precipitate a collapse would look like. Those who claim they do based on a partial understanding of physics, chemistry, demolition, engineering, etc - are unreliable. Yet so many of them claim superior knowledge and condemn out of hand those who disagree. Science through intimidation.

I find this a problem and impediment to establishing the truth.


Mike



[edit on 5-6-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


I completely understand and respect what you are saying.

I just wanted to know your thoughts on all known evidence regarding WTC 7, and what your theory is to how it collapsed?

If you have posted this before, I will read it.

Cheers,
Chris

[edit on 5-6-2009 by Skyline666]

[edit on 5-6-2009 by Skyline666]



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by turbofan

Originally posted by mmiichael
Maybe he can provide us with edited version these queries and his replies, in the spirit of transparency. Why don't you ask Dr. Jones?


Are you asking me to write Jones about coming here to discuss your
questions, and/or address Woods?


Thought it was pretty clear.

Jones is fielding inquiries from the public.

Can we see those questions and his replies?

If not, why not?

This is not an unusual request.


Mike

[edit on 5-6-2009 by mmiichael]


With all due respect, do I look like your bi*ch?

For the gazillionth time, here is Jones' e-mail. Get your lazy fingers
out from under your butt and write him yourself!

hardevidence@gmail.com



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   

posted by esdad71

However, why would there be thermite left to test? Would it not have all been used in the slicing of the steel beams? You see, this line of the conclusion I think is a good one...



That was postulated in these threads. Chemist Professor Niels Harrit states on Danish TV that nano-thermite is an explosive and an incendiary.

Linda Moulton Howe, "Nano-Thermitic Material in WTC Dust"





Nano-thermite can be mixed with additives to give off intense heat, or serve as a very effective explosive. It contains more energy than dynamite, and can be used as rocket fuel.

It can explode and break things apart, and it can melt things.



Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center

A theory on how the nanothermite red dust particles were produced and where they came from.


posted by TDX



There is one thing which baffles me- the quantity of the unignited nanothermite, it seems to be in rather large multi-ton quantities, standard explanation (that these chips were in close contact with steel, therefore the....) is not acceptable, becuase the surface area of the charges would have to be very large and the ignition temperature (around 430°C) would cause the thermite burn no-matter-what inside the charge.

Instead, I propose that the unignited thermite came from unignited charges

Our preparators had to knock the towers down, but they couldn't be sure with the exact extent of the fire and airplane damage, so what they did was to put far more charges than necessary.

During the last few seconds of the precollapse preparation one of the charges cut the critical column, while the other charges were still burning (the burning couldn't be synchronized, even when using nanothermite), or unignited, then the collapsing floors destroyed the unignited charges and forced the chips into air.

The stream of molten metal (NE corner), which was seen during the precollapse preparation of south tower, but what you don't know is that there was a significant amount of red dust during the first 2-3 seconds of the collapse, the movement of the dust suggests that it consists of relatively small particles, therefore it is not cooling molten metal.

The most probable theory is, that the molten metal came from thermite charges, which were dislodged by the aircraft impact (the charges were originally intended to cut some of the 1000 or 900 row core columns in the building), unfortunately the spacing of the exterior columns prevented the charges from escaping the building, so they remained inside the debris pile, some of them ignited (the yellow molten metal) and some of them didn't go of (the red dust during the collapse).

source



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Sorry SPReston, that is all theory and no proof. I know 'what' it is i want to know what they were comparing it too since it did not act like what they were comparing it to which would negate the experiment.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   

posted by esdad71
Sorry SPReston, that is all theory and no proof. I know 'what' it is i want to know what they were comparing it too since it did not act like what they were comparing it to which would negate the experiment.


Contact your local high ranking US Army General or a Defense Department liason and perhaps they will feed you some pertinent data.

Some of the information you seek is in the 2nd linked thread above. They used a known super-thermite. They did not have access to Defense Department nano-super-thermite to compare against.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston

But allegedly fine particle nano-thermite creates far more energy than ordinary thermite, ...

Please show us the chemistry equation showing more energy for a chemical reaction because you say it has more energy. You can't change chemistry with nano-thermite mubo jumbo talk. It is thermite or it is not thermite and you can't change chemistry because you say there is more heat per pound because you wish it to be so because you think a failed paper of Jones says so.
I will wait for you to post the formula and how you got more energy from a reaction. How do you and Jones change reality to get more energy out of a pound of thermite? This will be good.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by turbofan

Originally posted by mmiichael
Maybe he can provide us with edited version these queries and his replies, in the spirit of transparency. Why don't you ask Dr. Jones?


Are you asking me to write Jones about coming here to discuss your
questions, and/or address Woods?


Thought it was pretty clear.

Jones is fielding inquiries from the public.

Can we see those questions and his replies?

If not, why not?

This is not an unusual request.


Mike

[edit on 5-6-2009 by mmiichael]


With all due respect, do I look like your bi*ch?

For the gazillionth time, here is Jones' e-mail. Get your lazy fingers
out from under your butt and write him yourself!



You obviously can't comprehend what was written by me and others regarding your implorement to contact Jones.

Don't reply to me any more.

As for b*tches, I thought that's your relationship with Jones.

Grow up.


Mike



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyline666

Flight 77 flight path using scientific proof, ...

...the STRANGE scorched hole in the ground where Flight 93 was said to have crashed.


Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon and proof is in the DNA, FDR, and RADAR. There will never be evidence to refute the fact 77 impacted the Pentagon; I have read everything about 911 on 77 since 911. Over 7 years and there is nothing to refute the evidence proving 77 impacted the Pentagon.
Flight 93 impacted in a field in PA proof is in the DNA, FDR, and RADAR. The strange hole for 93 is exactly what an aircraft impact looks like at 600 mph and hundreds of aircraft accident investigators agree; go ask a dozen. Boeing has some of the best in the world. When you get 100 trained aircraft crash investigators to certify 93 never impacted the field you will find they can only support Flight 93 did crash in the field.
What does proof of 911 happening with 19 terrorists doing the deed have to do with Jones having to pay to have his faulty paper published in a pay for publish journal because no reputable journal will peer review publish it. That is the question, you need to ask Jones and his fellow authors; why did they have to pay? Why were they turned down by all reputable journals? There is no proof thermite was used to destroy the WTC towers. This paper proves there was rust and Al in the dust. I have the same stuff in my backyard in my Chiminea.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


It's OK, Mike. I understood perfectly Mike. Even after I asked for clarification Mike. I totally understand that you are too lazy to directly contact Jones and you would rather other people do the research...Mike.

Just like the prior post claims there is no evidence refuting the Pentagon,
yet he's done "all the research"


Get back on topic please. This is thermite at the WTC complex.

[edit on 5-6-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by iSunTzu
 


You obviously do not understand chemistry yourself.

The idea that nanoparticles create a more energetic reaction is NOT something Prof. Jones just made up, it's a basic and obvious fact for anyone who understands chemistry. It's not related to a chemical equation, either, but because of the fact that decreasing the particle size increases the amount of actual surface area that makes contact between the particles.


From a DoD-sponsored magazine:



ammtiac.alionscience.com...


Learn chemistry yourself before you accuse Ph.D. physicists of not knowing it.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by mmiichael
 


It's OK, Mike. I understood perfectly Mike. Even after I asked for clarification Mike. I totally understand that you are too lazy to directly contact Jones and you would rather other people do the research...Mike.

Just like the prior post claims there is no evidence refuting the Pentagon,
yet he's done "all the research"


Get back on topic please. This is thermite at the WTC complex.



I asked politely for no more replies to me directly. You come back with personal insults calling me lazy because I choose not to directly contact Jones.

This contravenes the basic rules of this forum. I genuinely believe you are incapable of understanding what myself and others try to communicate to you.

Everything seems to come down to an implorement to contact Jones. That is not how we operate on these lists.

I don't know or care if this is attention seeking or some other petty agenda.

Just stop it now.


Mike



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


YEs Sir! I gave you a star 'cause nobody else will



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Sorry to tell you but your 'friend' has been pushing the "Oxygen" excuse
which has already been slammed. I think yuo should start reading
information from professional scientists, rather than "pterdine".

If "pterdine" really wants to engage with Jones, I will pay-pal him
$50.00 if he registers on that site with his real info and puts Jones
to rest.

The $50.00 cash incentive is open to anyone that can successfully debate
Jones using their real ID and win their case.



I can't speak for pterdine who is one of many ATS members I consider knowledgeable and informed.

From my experience with the professional scientific world most would laugh in your face at an offer of $50 to debate a scientist whose works they consider fallacious.

Some people do have self-respect. A concept you may be unfamiliar with.

Are you getting a commission?

This is called a rhetorical question.

Please don't reply.

M



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston

posted by esdad71
Sorry SPReston, that is all theory and no proof. I know 'what' it is i want to know what they were comparing it too since it did not act like what they were comparing it to which would negate the experiment.


Contact your local high ranking US Army General or a Defense Department liason and perhaps they will feed you some pertinent data.

Some of the information you seek is in the 2nd linked thread above. They used a known super-thermite. They did not have access to Defense Department nano-super-thermite to compare against.



I know what it is, I want to know what they, Mr Jones, used as a comparison since there are many types of thermite composites? I am sure I could go across the bridge to SOCOM or CENTCOM and ask them since they are head quartered there but I think maybe I will call DARPA and check my contacts there.

So, if they did not have access to the DOD nano-super-thermite, how do we know it is the same that was used on 9/11?



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


The $50.00 was an incentive for all the talkers to step up. I even bumped
the purse up to $500.00, but NOBODY wanted to confront Jones and his
*cough*, "shoddy" work.

Even now at the moment Jones is weakest (as the GL's say) with *cough*
improper DSC test, all of the anonymouns chemists sit back and watch.

YOU see: You now have access to Jones via e-mail. YOu don't need to
write a mutli-page peer reviewed report!

Now your chance, and if yuo act now, I'll even throw in a soup can.
Hurry as this is a limited time offer!

$500.00 and soup can to put Jones to rest.

Still no takers?

LDRD did a test on military grade thermite. THe links have been added to
the first post. This is how they compared the two tests. THis is why
oxygen was used for DSC. This is why we laugh at GL's who make up
lies and excuses.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
I am not an advocate of any of these explanations, just someone who accepts the best available until something more substantiated can replace it.
...

Those who question what happened on 9/11 have legitimate issues. My criticism is only that much of what they put forward as evidence is unscientific and often agenda driven.



Come on, people. mmiichael has already said he doesn't know enough to defend the theories himself, he only watches what everybody else is doing and tries to figure it out. He just feels like we're all crazy, driving some kind of agenda, and don't know what we're talking about. Who cares? You can't argue logically with any of that anyway. Just forget about it.



new topics

top topics



 
172
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join