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: 20
172
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Just because something is peer reviewed doesn't mean it's true. And I don't accept authorities simply because they assert themselves as authorities, and that includes scientific journals that boil down to nothing but an image and fitting in with a norm imo. In other words you can't win me over by saying by saying "all these people agree with this," but you can win me over by making me agree with their actual reasoning.

Amen. I was going to post this to one of the threads arguing about where the Thermite paper was published, but it fits more exactly with this quote.

Take a look at this link: www.michaelnielsen.org...

His blog software is not formatting the page right now, but the text is showing up so you can read it.

He talks about some of the history of the peer review process, gives some examples of when it failed, and then a summary of what it means in determining what's true in science.

Whenever I see references to peer review on here from now on, I'm going to try to remember his closing statement:

"Many times I’ve had non-scientists mention to me that a paper has been “peer-reviewed!”, as though that somehow establishes that it is correct, or high quality. I’ve encountered this, for example, in some very good journalists, and it’s a concern, for peer review is only a small part of a much more complex and much more reliable system by which we determine what scientific discoveries are worth taking further, and what should be discarded."

Edited to add: This isn't posted in response to exponent's reference to peer review, as he wasn't really making his case based solely upon that. I mainly posted this for the general arguments about something being peer reviewed or not that I run across on many of these threads. With bsbray's quote I thought this would be the most appropriate place for it.




[edit on 13-6-2009 by NIcon]




posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Apologies for the late reply, we had some nice weather over here in blighty and so I spent it destroying myself physically



Originally posted by bsbray11
That's fine and it's pretty incomprehensible to me too, but, you're still not seeing 50% of the total mass in the footprints, or even 25%, so some high percentage of mass like that WAS ejected out of the footprints.

It may have been ejected out of the footprints (although I would argue that in fact you probably do see more than 25% in the footprint) but the question is how much was ejected per floor. If the number starts off at the top of the tower at near 0, it may increase to much higher values lower down as BLBG treat it as a constant for simplicity.

We're still getting back to the 80% figure though. You have defined this as fact, and even though you have no good evidence for it, you believe it unequivocally. Why? What possible reason do you have for being so devoted to this number? As we have discussed so far, there is
  • No plausible reason for doing it
  • No known mechanism to do it
  • No good evidence it was occuring


In this post you even resort to circular reasoning to try and justify it:

Originally posted by exponent
and the fact that this model fits correctly with values from 0.2 to 0.5 is circumstantial evidence in favour of it.


Originally posted by bsbray11
Then I could say the fact that the model can't handle 80-90% of the mass being ejected and produce results that reflect reality, is circumstantial evidence that the model is wrong. And the fact that they had to make a new theory to explain not being able to handle those numbers, is circumstantial evidence of the same.

This is a chain of logic that is based upon the idea 80-90% is the correct result, and then says that because the model can't handle that it's evidence the model is wrong. This is not a reasonable logical approach. I was saying that the model itself gives circumstantial evidence that the values are right, because we do not know the actual values.

I am more than willing to discuss this, but I am going to require some stronger evidence than you deciding that it looks like 80-90% was ejected, especially when you point out you cannot identify how much was ejected per floor until after the collapse.



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
We're still getting back to the 80% figure though. You have defined this as fact, and even though you have no good evidence for it, you believe it unequivocally. Why?


Because of the mass I see left in the footprints. You certainly can't build half a tower with it. I hope we would at least agree there. I also look at it and say you can't build even 25 floors with it.



If you want to just agree to disagree on how much mass you see there, that's fine with me. You can see that it's the lobby level because there are still tree columns.




This is what an actual pancake collapse looks like:



Then again, those have never been known to occur to steel frames.


What possible reason do you have for being so devoted to this number? As we have discussed so far, there is
  • No plausible reason for doing it
  • No known mechanism to do it
  • No good evidence it was occuring


1) Looking at lots of photos with my own eyes and seeing it, is a VERY good justification to me personally. Agree to disagree if you want, like I said, I don't care, I have eyes.
2) That's the point.
3) Anyone and everyone is free to look at the photos and decide for themselves if they really think 50% of the mass of the tower that once stood there, is still within the footprint. I say it is most obviously not there, but what do I know? Believe what you want. Two photos are posted above.


In this post you even resort to circular reasoning to try and justify it


No, circular reasoning is saying, we don't see 50% of the mass still here in the footprints, but we'll assume it landed there anyway and make up a theory as to why it isn't there anymore, just so our models will work out. Because our models obviously should work out, because there were obviously correct from the start. That is circular reasoning.


This is a chain of logic that is based upon the idea 80-90% is the correct result, and then says that because the model can't handle that it's evidence the model is wrong. This is not a reasonable logical approach.


It is when 80-90% is justified, and to me it is.


I am more than willing to discuss this, but I am going to require some stronger evidence than you deciding that it looks like 80-90% was ejected


And similarly I will be waiting for evidence that 50% of the mass landed there and then redistributed itself into the final result that we see scattered all over the complex.



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   
clearly a nerve has been hit. The debunkers are out in force. Some are vaguely rational, others... well... let's just be charitable and not say anything.

If I could request applause for the OP, I would.



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Because of the mass I see left in the footprints. You certainly can't build half a tower with it. I hope we would at least agree there. I also look at it and say you can't build even 25 floors with it.

What you're seeing is just the top of the pile though. The WTC did have extensive basements, and while they weren't completely compacted with debris, they certainly contained quite a lot, it's hard to quantify as even in the image you posted before only the WTC basements are shown and density is not differentiated.


If you want to just agree to disagree on how much mass you see there, that's fine with me. You can see that it's the lobby level because there are still tree columns.

Well you do use a few pics from obviously after cleanup had started, but I am not going to disagree that the pile seems small. It might be worth comparing it to the WTC7 pile as we know that that contained a 47 storey building. It would be fine for us to agree to disagree though, other than this:


No, circular reasoning is saying, we don't see 50% of the mass still here in the footprints, but we'll assume it landed there anyway and make up a theory as to why it isn't there anymore, just so our models will work out. Because our models obviously should work out, because there were obviously correct from the start. That is circular reasoning.

This is not accurate, nobody (i hope!) is making the claim that the models are correct because they use 0.2-0.5 as reasonable mass out values. What is being done is that a model is being developed from first principles to attempt to match the WTC collapse, and then the various parameters the model accepts are tried with varying values to determine how much influence they have on collapse times. Because we know very few parameters with excellent accuracy, this needs to be done to see whether the model is reasonable.

When this is applied to the mass out parameter, it's found to have relatively little effect between 0.2 and 0.5, and obviously its effect becomes more extreme when it goes up much more. They are not using this number to justify the model, they are justifying this number with the model.

It's fine to challenge this number of course, but if your only evidence is that it seems a good approximation to you even though we don't know how much occured until the end of the collapse then I cannot agree.

I guess what should be done next is to read the rest of the paper, see if you can find any other parameters you disagree with. If you cannot, and if NCSTAR 1-6D satisfies the amount of information you need, then I would say you are close to understanding the WTC collapse better than pretty much every truther i've met. Hopefully this will convince you that indeed there is not much suspicious about the collapse and there's quite decent evidence against any sort of demolition.

edit: My English is awful, tiring weekend


[edit on 15-6-2009 by exponent]



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 11:14 PM
link   
With all due respect to those discussing the collapse mechanics of the
towers: Please, let's get back on topic.

I'd love to start a new thread to discuss the post-initiation of either tower,
so unless Exponent, or BsBray care to begin the thread, I will take the
honors.

We're still looking for anyone who wants to confront Dr. Jones concerning
his study via an e-mail response, or online debate.

Anyone that denies the evidence in the paper should:

a. Put forth a theory explaining what the chips represent according
to the chemical signature.

b. Describe what errors the nine scientists made with respect to the
tests.

c. Provide your contact information so that I may connect you with
Dr. Jones to debate the issue.

If I'm not mistaken, the award for successfully proving the nine
scientists wrong is $1000.00

Posting up your opinion within this thread means nothing. Jones has
provided an easy method of debating his science so there's no excuse
for anonymous experts to sit back when the opportunity is here to
shut down the truth movement.

Make me a believer.

Please send any inquiries to: lasbrat at hotmail

We will discuss details off line.

P.S. BsBray, would you like to lead the next thread for tower collapse?

[edit on 15-6-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


The rebuttals and criticisms of the last paper instigated his latest work and rehashing them at this point will only result in replies saying that the new work is in progress. He now knows what he did wrong and has a chance to rectify his errors in protocols and reasoning.
Debate now is pointless.



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



Really? I am unaware.

The only two "guesses" that anyone has put forth have been thrown
out the window; one of them inspiring the creation of this thread.

Let's recap for the record:

1. Oxygen excuse > Exposed.

2. Paint excuse > Covered in the paper and also clarified by Jones as
per link in my original post.

Is there anything else I'm missing?

Some of you may want to read Dr. Jones' clear invitation to debate and explanation of peer review here:

www.911blogger.com...



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 10:46 AM
link   
turbofan: Did you receive the Harrit, etc. emails we discussed?
I sent them to your "lasbrat" address on June 8th and have not received any acknowledgement of receipt.

Sorry I have to post like this - I don't have enough posts here yet to U2U.



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 11:16 AM
link   
No I have not; even checked the junk folder.

Please resend when you have a moment.



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Yes, you are unaware.

Thermitic reactions occur in the absence of air. Running the DSC in air does not prove thermitic reaction, especially since the organic matrix will burn in air. There is no way to show thermitic reaction by Jones' DSC data. Burning the material in air with a torch does not prove thermitic reaction. It shows burning.
There is no evidence for thermite.

[edit on 6/16/2009 by pteridine]



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Is this your final thought? WOuld you like to submit this to Jones for a
response?

If you're not already aware, the lab control sample was tested exactly
the same way. See the original post and links provided.

If not thermite, then what produced the iron spheres? What has the
chemical signature? What substance can be produce in nano form
coming from the towers?

I'd still like to read a theory from anyone here who denies the paper.
Still don't have one...



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 

The control sample was a thermite that was run in air. There was no question of what it was because it was synthesized as a thermitic material and would have also reacted in the absence of air. When we run any other combustible sample in air, it will burn. This will provide an exotherm. That doesn't mean that all samples that burn are thermite. We have to show reaction in the absence of air to show that the chips have such properties.



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by pteridine
 



If not thermite, then what produced the iron spheres? What has the
chemical signature? What substance can be produce in nano form
coming from the towers?

I'd still like to read a theory from anyone here who denies the paper.
Still don't have one...



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


The next paper should determine what the red chips are.

Do they look like thermite? No, they look like paint.
Could they have a composition that produced a reaction? Yes, they could.
Does that mean that they are thermite? No.
Would thermite applied in paint thin layers effect demolition? No.
Does thermite contain kaolinite or other aluminosilicates? No.
If the claim is nano-structured thermite, when was it developed and when were the beams coated with it? Why does Jones now claim that maybe it was fuse material? Why would there be tons of unreacted material?

The theory is that it is a red oxide paint on a layer of gray oxidized iron. The underlying gray material is what was magnetically separated from the rest of the dust and the red layer came along for the ride.



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by turbofan
 


The theory is that it is a red oxide paint on a layer of gray oxidized iron. The underlying gray material is what was magnetically separated from the rest of the dust and the red layer came along for the ride.


I'm going to send this to Dr. Jones and get his professoinal response.

You still haven't accounted for the iron spheres in your 'theory', but that's
fine. There is enough weakness in your reply to expose you.

I'll let Jones do the honours. Sit back and wait for the reply.



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
I'm going to send this to Dr. Jones and get his professoinal response.

You still haven't accounted for the iron spheres in your 'theory', but that's
fine. There is enough weakness in your reply to expose you.

I'll let Jones do the honours. Sit back and wait for the reply.

You're obviously not even trying to take a good look at the evidence here, what sort of good does it use to claim you can "expose" other posters here?

Dr Jones' results have been questioned because he has failed to eliminate other options. The idea that he can somehow say "no it's ok i did it correctly" and you immediately agree is called Confirmation Bias.

Dr Jones needs to repeat his tests, but he needs to do more thorough analysis of the chips and correlate them rather than using different [ed-spelling] ones for different analyses. He needs to confirm that they will burn in an oxygen free environment and that they do not match the red, iron based paint applied to the WTC columns.

Once he's done that, and assuming his analysis does indicate that the material is extraneous, a theory needs to be developed as to how this would be of use. Using it as a fuse does not make sense as it would not allow for timing or good control, why would people who had the ability to plant this not simply use a normal fuse?

[edit on 17-6-2009 by exponent]



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Yes, as far as the title goes I think he hit the nail on the .. Its a very specific thing, the chips are very fine and the thermate side is only nanometers deep. The evidence found could not be found naturally or as a result of a collapse. It's manufacture is very limited and quite specific.



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


Sorry "exponent", it's not bias when nine Ph.D.'s and further peer review
solidify the science.

In case you skipped this part, I'll post it again. This is Dr. Jones' reply
to my question about whether oxygen was a factor in the DSC tests,
and if he would consider doing a sample with inert gasses. Notice
that a thermitic reaction was proven due to the iron spheres being produced.

Do you know of any PAINT that can do that?



The observation of iron-rich spheres after ignition in the DSC demonstrates the thermitic reaction as we explain in the paper. However, I agree that an experiment performed without oxygen would be informative

Give me a break guys, you're just spinning your wheels and wasting my
time. I feel like an idiot bugging Jones again just to expose pterdine
with his "paint" fixation.

For someone who comes across well educated, you're not making a case
for yourself here "exponent".



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
I'm going to send this to Dr. Jones and get his professoinal response.

You still haven't accounted for the iron spheres in your 'theory', but that's
fine. There is enough weakness in your reply to expose you.

I'll let Jones do the honours. Sit back and wait for the reply.


The contrived structure of this continues to stun me.

Scientists debate issues neutrally with the merits of the conclusions derived from their analysis the deciding factor.

This is set up as a prize fight.

Come into our ring with Jones and 9 others, beat them, and win the contest.

We decide the rules, what's right and wrong, and are the referees.

If Jones was prepared to debate this publicly on an open forum with mutually agreed upon third party judges there would be some legitimacy to this.



Mike

[edit on 17-6-2009 by mmiichael]




top topics



 
172
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join