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: 14
172
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


I am willing to add another $500.00. That makes it $1000.00 US.

I want to see the GL's on here try and disprove Jones, they all know they can't.

I know some of the GL's are waiting for Jones' new paper, that is fair enough, -

Other Scientists who havn't already, in time will support a controlled demolition.

We all know it, it's just a matter of time.


[edit on 6-6-2009 by Skyline666]




posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 01:20 AM
link   




You haven't established your criterion for disproving Jones. He is essentially being confronted on your terms. You retain the option of saying "You still haven't disproven his case."

I repeatedly have asked:

Who judges what is success or failure here? Yourselves?

When and if you deposit your money in trust with an third party, and participants mutually agree on an uninvolved arbitrator, who can make the final decision, you are making an offer.

Not before.


M



[edit on 7-6-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   
turbofan: I tried to U2U you, but I'm new here, so couldn't.

I have emails from Harrit, Jones, Keogh, et al I'll be happy to forward to you. If interested, please provide me with a means of doing so. I'd also like to discuss an idea I have that you may be interested in.

[edit on 7-6-2009 by beReal]



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Awesome, of course I'm interested.

Try my hotmail account:

lasbrat [at] ...



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


As stated before: science will determine whether or not you are able
to 'bring down' Jones.

You GL's will have to come up with a scientific response as to why the
study submitted cannot be military grade nano-thermite.

You will also submit a response as to what this mixture/chip 'item'
might likely be, along with supporting science to prove your theory.


OF course, this should be a no-brainer as you all have figured this out
and are clearly yapping off on this message board and claimin JOnes'
science is incorrect.

So let's see the 'beef' boys!

Those who are interested (like Ptedine) will contact me with their
real info and I'll be in touch to set up the debate.

[edit on 7-6-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyline666
 


Good stuff. Let's make these guys show their worth. No more of this
anonymous bench racing.

They will soon come face to face with reality and either prove Jones wrong,
or accept the fact that they have been wrong all along.

I'm soooooo anxious to see these scientific reports from our lovely friends
here at ATS



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by mmiichael
 


As stated before: science will determine whether or not you are able
to 'bring down' Jones.

You GL's will have to come up with a scientific response as to why the
study submitted cannot be military grade nano-thermite.

You will also submit a response as to what this mixture/chip 'item'
might likely be, along with supporting science to prove your theory.


OF course, this should be a no-brainer as you all have figured this out
and are clearly yapping off on this message board and claimin JOnes'
science is incorrect.

So let's see the 'beef' boys!

Those who are interested (like Ptedine) will contact me with their
real info and I'll be in touch to set up the debate.


I'm sort of burning out on all this seeing rhetoric but no movement. The basic question is avoided. Who arbitrates on what's good or bad science?

I see this as an attention seeking promotion more than an attempt to examine the scientific issue.

The cards are stacked. To his audience Jones is automatically the winner. No matter how much he circumvents control procedures and methodology he is accepted at his word. This is faith not science.


Mike



[edit on 7-6-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   
So, if I email, will he send me a portion of this control so that I can test it? All i need is a butane torch. If I put the torch to it I should experience a thermic reaction. I will even pay for shipping.

This whole money to debunk is ridiculous but honestly, I will mail him and see what he says. Then, we can take this to another thread were I can post findings. I mean, have none of you thought of that? Get a sample and VIDEO the violent thermic reaction.

I'll match money that NOTHING will happen.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


Good idea, and along those lines, everyone that thinks the sulfur came from drywall, and all those sorts of things, should put a bunch of drywall dust on a column and try to light THAT, see if THAT corrodes the steel worse than thermite does in a violent eutectic reaction.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by esdad71
 


Good idea, and along those lines, everyone that thinks the sulfur came from drywall, and all those sorts of things, should put a bunch of drywall dust on a column and try to light THAT, see if THAT corrodes the steel worse than thermite does in a violent eutectic reaction.


The sulfur most likely came from drywall. Increased calcium concentrations in parallel with the sulfur [figure 14 Jones paper] indicate such and Jones' paper so states. The amount of calcium sulfate in the buildings was exceptionally large; hence the 'whte dust' that was everywhere.
Generally speaking, reactions are not described as 'eutectic.' Mixtures are eutectic.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
So, if I email, will he send me a portion of this control so that I can test it? All i need is a butane torch. If I put the torch to it I should experience a thermic reaction. I will even pay for shipping.




Oh my god, is this some sort of joke?

You are going to torch some dust and prove what again? That you have no
idea what you're doing?


How are you going to measure the energy release?

What is your control sample going to be? YOu haven't provided an alternative
theory as to what this substance might be?

You think it's paint? Well, find a paint that follows the DSC graph. Find a
paint that contains the elements shown in Jones' study.

At that point, maybe you can start to become a player.

Lighting crap on fire with a torch proves nothing other than you can operate
a torch and video tape a flame.

It's no wonder these GL's have no clue about the study, they have no idea
what they're reading or how to debate it!


You want Jones to send you some of this dust so you can waste it huh?

I'd love to read his reply. I'm sure he'll ask similar questions to mine, and
then some before even giving you the sweat off his brow. I'll be surprised
if he even replies!

Drywall, that's a good one too! Is that you're final theory Pterdine? When are you going to U2U your contact info? I"d like to set the stage with
Jones for when he produces the next paper.


[edit on 7-6-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


I think he just wants to see if it will "go off."

If there ARE any samples big enough to light and watch, I'd be interested to see what exactly they do myself. Someone could tape it.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 10:38 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 11:16 PM
link   
I'm at a loss here...what in the world was that?



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


I have access to lots of equipment. My uncle worked for Martin Marietta for years in Optics/TADS as well as work with the Patriot missile system. A geek friend of his has a cool lab with alot of equipment that I have used or been there when they were experimenting since I was about 8 or 9. Alot of what they did was with optics, lasers and metallurgy/crystals.

All I need to do is recreate the test that was performed. I read the article. The main piece that is referred to is that they 'heated' the chip and there were pieces supposed ejected and also created small "balls' of the material. This was supposed to prove a thermitic reaction.

So, I would like to know if I can have some of the control that was used during the test. I would like to see it and video tape it. Maybe I will see something...or maybe I won't. I do not want to discredit it till I can see it because based on the findings of that report I an not convinced.



[edit on 7-6-2009 by esdad71]



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


TF,
Jones paper, page 17, column 2, lines 12-14, "The large Ca and S peaks may be due to contamination with gypsum from the pulverized wallboard material in the buildings."
Gypsum, CaSO4.2H2O, is the most abundant single chemical compound in the towers, by far. Where do you think the calcium and sulfur came from in the EDAX trace in figure 14?
Use your vaunted technical skills and provide an explanation.



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 05:37 AM
link   
Here are some more people of interest still in the loop, that have and will continue to support Jones about the Thermite, and the whole 9/11 truth.



You may have seen it, but here is the link.

We are having some interesting people, including Jones and Richard Gage coming to Sydney, Australia on November 14th and 15th for the AE9/11 Convention.

www.911oz.com

Lets see how many other Scientists, Architects, Structural Engineers, Mental Health Professionals, ex intelligence officers and ex-military, that will support Jones by this November.

P.S sorry about all the edits - can't get a link to work .

Cheers,

Chris







[edit on 8-6-2009 by Skyline666]

[edit on 8-6-2009 by Skyline666]

[edit on 8-6-2009 by Skyline666]

[edit on 8-6-2009 by Skyline666]

[edit on 8-6-2009 by Skyline666]

[edit on 8-6-2009 by Skyline666]

[edit on 8-6-2009 by Skyline666]

[edit on 8-6-2009 by Skyline666]

[edit on 8-6-2009 by Skyline666]

[edit on 8-6-2009 by Skyline666]

[edit on 8-6-2009 by Skyline666]

[edit on 8-6-2009 by Skyline666]

[edit on 8-6-2009 by Skyline666]

[edit on 8-6-2009 by Skyline666]

[edit on 8-6-2009 by Skyline666]



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by benoni
I noticed none of our in house chemistry boffs has an answer for how massive clumps of steel were propelled outwards for 500ft + when the official word is the WTC's collapsed...

Anyone??

Impossible i say......

....and to say"we dont know cos this hasnt happened so we have no comparisons..." is just BS..

something caused it, and it wasnt gravity....so what??



Once again, basic physics explain this, as this would be taught to students in at least high school physics and even in college. The external beams were not "flung out" by any explosives or magical thermites, but by basic mechanical physics. As the towers collapsed the external columns fell out and away from the rest of the tower. Since the WTC were over a 1,000ft tall, when sections of the topmost columns fall over and away from the rest of the tower, of course they will fall out farther from the base than lower columns. Since the exterior columns were all connected to each other, the fell away in large pieces and broke off at the ends. And thats why the columns appeared to be thrown, when all it was was just basic mechanical physics at work.

To make it even easier to understand for people with ZERO understanding of basic physics, imagine a banana peel that gets peeled open. Pretty much the same idea. The top of the opening peel falls away farther from the base then the lower parts of the peel. Now I know even this basic explanation will be over the heads of some here, but I cannot make it anymore simpler. But for now, I'll just sit back and watch as some of those jump on me and ridicule my basic explanation.



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   
GenRadek, I can't believe you're post got stars. It's laughable to think you are trying to imply there was a continuous column 500ft long that pivoting at the middle of the exterior of the tower.
That is the only thing that would make sense for a purely gravity driven collapse to have landed a piece of column at 500+ft from the towers, however, as we know the columns were not continuous and there is no video or photographic evidence of anything other than pieces flying up and out during the demolition.
I remember seeing the calcs of the energy required to project sections of the massive columns where they landed and it was massive (even if the pieces originated from the very top floor).



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
Once again, basic physics explain this, as this would be taught to students in at least high school physics and even in college. The external beams were not "flung out" by any explosives or magical thermites, but by basic mechanical physics. As the towers collapsed the external columns fell out and away from the rest of the tower.


Wow, you never had basic physics, did you?

Can you tell me what a vector is, or a "component" of a force? Or what a force is in the first place, or how any physical object is ever made to move? If these columns just FELL away, they would not move hundreds of feet away from the tower, but only about 12 feet at the farther point, ie not much further than their length. Moving horizontally requires energy to be applied horizontally.

You might want to understand basic physics yourself before accusing other people of not understanding it. You don't even understand force vectors.


Edit: I just saw all the stars too. Everyone who starred his post, is completely ignorant when it comes to physics 101. Yes, you are.

Never seen on of these, have you people?



It's from an elementary school website.


[edit on 8-6-2009 by bsbray11]



new topics

top topics



 
172
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join