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: 22
172
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 10:19 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.




posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
I'm definitely not a legitimate source.


Well I'll stop right here and say that regardless of what you say, you are the only credible person on this forum who's beliefs are different than mine. No one on the OS side has shown even a fraction of the level of knowledge you have. If YOU aren't legitimate, where does that leave poor Cameron??


My issue with the paper is as I stated, I don't feel Jones et al really conducted their experiments with the intention of eliminating other causes, and instead decided to declare that it was definitely thermite, even though quite a lot of doubt remains.


That's fair. It's apparent that we need to wait for this new paper to be 100% sure.


'thermite' ignites at 400-500C, and it was to be used as a fuse
Why didn't they use regular fuse, which is surely cheaper, harder to detect and more reliable


I don't know what you would consider a 'good' answer to this, but I believe he only stated that it MAY have been used as a fuse, not that it WAS with certainty used in that fashion.


How did it survive aircraft impacts, which undoubtedly produced temperatures very much in excess of 500C?


That's a very good question. However, my response to that would be that in the event that this WAS setup, obviously whoever was flying/remote controlling those planes HAD to of known ahead of time where they were going to hit the towers, and surely they would not have any thermite/explosives of this type in that area, but below it.

If anyone thinks its impossible for the hijackers to hit the towers with that accuracy, lets not forget how impossible it already is that they were even able to hit the towers as they did to begin with. It's been argued that what these hijackers did that day was nothing short of amazing. Even more so, think of the skill it required to hit the Pentagon. You may not like John Lear, but if THAT man can't do it, I don't think anyone could. Point is, if anyone argues how its possible that the hijackers did all the amazing stunts they did that day, you cant argue that they also hit the towers with enough precision to avoid the apparent thermite/explosives.

Or am I delusional?



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by P1DrummerBoy

If anyone thinks its impossible for the hijackers to hit the towers with that accuracy, lets not forget how impossible it already is that they were even able to hit the towers as they did to begin with. It's been argued that what these hijackers did that day was nothing short of amazing. Even more so, think of the skill it required to hit the Pentagon. You may not like John Lear, but if THAT man can't do it, I don't think anyone could. Point is, if anyone argues how its possible that the hijackers did all the amazing stunts they did that day, you cant argue that they also hit the towers with enough precision to avoid the apparent thermite/explosives.

Or am I delusional?


You're not delusional. At worst you've read too many disinformation websites.

Demonstrated much better than I could hope to, flying once an airplane is aloft is not as difficult as many think. Landing, take-off, and dealing with unusual conditions are the really intensive knowledge based things that require training and experience.

In a few emergency situations young inexperienced adolescents have flown already in the air planes. Hundreds of Japanese teenagers were given simulation only training during WWII and managed to successfully fly their Kamikaze planes into much smaller moving targets like battleships.

But we shouldn't deviate further from the original topic.


Mike



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by P1DrummerBoy
Well I'll stop right here and say that regardless of what you say, you are the only credible person on this forum who's beliefs are different than mine. No one on the OS side has shown even a fraction of the level of knowledge you have. If YOU aren't legitimate, where does that leave poor Cameron??

Well I thank you for the kind words but it doesn't change what I said. When it comes to subjects where experts are available to consult with, it makes my layman's opinion kinda worthless.

Besides I think Cameron does a fine job, people just see him as someone attacking the truth movement but he does know his sources pretty well.


That's fair. It's apparent that we need to wait for this new paper to be 100% sure.

I hope he will take suggestions onboard, but to be perfectly honest my gut feeling is that unless the paper can be used to claim that thermite was involved then we will never see it published. I hope to be proven wrong.


I don't know what you would consider a 'good' answer to this, but I believe he only stated that it MAY have been used as a fuse, not that it WAS with certainty used in that fashion.

That's true, but is one of the problems that I see constantly within the truth movement. Dr Jones was of course guessing, because he has no other information to go on, and this is the case for most of the demolition hypotheses. Very few of these are based on a look at the evidence and analysing the collapse, more based on the author's personal preference for demolition material.

For example, Dr Jones uses Thermite. Judy Wood uses her space beams, Gordon Ross used high explosive. Why do these theories exist, if there is any evidence to go off? Science is a process which gradually refines theories to 'perfection', and that's what we see with the NIST report. Originally a whole load of different failure modes were proposed (Weidlinger column failure, FEMA pancaking etc) but with the application of science and the study of evidence, many of these were discounted and a dominant theory emerged.

This has yet to be the case with the Truth Movement. Even now I see every day on this site completely contradictory claims, there are planers vs no planers, people claiming it fell in its own footprint vs very little fell in its own footprint. I mean now, even today you can find people claiming Marvin Bush was in charge of security, that he had bomb sniffing dogs removed. These are all falsehoods, and 911 truth has been slow to adopt the correct process for eliminating evidence and explaining what remains.

I don't doubt that sooner or later some conspiracy theorist is going to come up with a theory that there isn't any evidence to counter. Dr Greening made a good example a while ago by suggesting a perchlorate mix applied to the steel trusses. Of course there's no evidence for this, and no evidence (that I can think of) against it other than the impossibility of planting it. Still, this is the perfect theory as far as 911 truth is concerned, because the majority of people here seem only interested in proposing theories, rather than eliminating them.

I apologise for the longish reply post, but I wanted to point out exactly where I see the problem in terms of the whole approach to 'truth'. It's not about finding things your opponents can't disprove, it's a case of finding what actually happened. If you've read my posts you know that I think NIST has by far the most complete and accurate theory of them all, and it's going to be tough to shoehorn Thermite in there.



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

That's true, but is one of the problems that I see constantly within the truth movement. Dr Jones was of course guessing, because he has no other information to go on, and this is the case for most of the demolition hypotheses. Very few of these are based on a look at the evidence and analysing the collapse, more based on the author's personal preference for demolition material.

[...]

Science is a process which gradually refines theories to 'perfection', and that's what we see with the NIST report. Originally a whole load of different failure modes were proposed (Weidlinger column failure, FEMA pancaking etc) but with the application of science and the study of evidence, many of these were discounted and a dominant theory emerged.

This has yet to be the case with the Truth Movement.

[...]

I wanted to point out exactly where I see the problem in terms of the whole approach to 'truth'. It's not about finding things your opponents can't disprove, it's a case of finding what actually happened. If you've read my posts you know that I think NIST has by far the most complete and accurate theory of them all, and it's going to be tough to shoehorn Thermite in there.



Thanks for the even-handed articulation of what really needs to be understood. The Truth Movement responds to criticism as an assault rather than an attempt to get rid of disinformation and unsubstantiated speculation.

NIST and FEMA are maligned out of hand as part of the so-called Official Story that is dismissed as government propaganda. As a replacement any theory that implies government complicity in 9/11 is embraced with little questioning.

So the 'Unofficial Story' just becomes a compendium of guesswork and outrageous dot connecting with little to support it in the way of scientific evidence or logic. This only serves to discredit the Truthers as they steadfastly refuse to refine their version of events, eliminating the unproven and impossible claims.

The 'Official Story' by default becomes the only one with any coherence and consistency.

An unfortunate state of affairs as this becomes almost a war based on dogma rather than an attempt to find out what happened on that day and why.


Mike



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by P1DrummerBoy
 



If anyone thinks its impossible for the hijackers to hit the towers with that accuracy, lets not forget how impossible it already is that they were even able to hit the towers as they did to begin with.



You may not like John Lear, but if THAT man can't do it, I don't think anyone could.


With apologies to John Lear, I think he was just talking like that because it supported his pet theory of space-based top secret super weapons!!

If this guy can do it, on a desktop flight simulator, I guarantee it is much easier in real life:


Back when I had some money I was talking to some ATS staff about actually renting a Sim and doing it, with video, for all of ATS to see....then, Lear took his toys and left, so the idea fizzled....



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
If this guy can do it, on a desktop flight simulator, I guarantee it is much easier in real life


That's funny, because the pilot organization has some members with access to much more high-tech simulation equipment, not to mention the number of them who have actually flown jetliners, and they say the opposite, that a passenger jetliner is very hard to control in real life at 500-600 mph because of the various forces pushing the plane to its limits.

The idea that a flight simulator is easier to control than an actual plane just seems ridiculous to me anyway, even though I have never flown a plane.



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

For example, Dr Jones uses Thermite. Judy Wood uses her space beams, Gordon Ross used high explosive. Why do these theories exist, if there is any evidence to go off? Science is a process which gradually refines theories to 'perfection', and that's what we see with the NIST report. Originally a whole load of different failure modes were proposed (Weidlinger column failure, FEMA pancaking etc) but with the application of science and the study of evidence, many of these were discounted and a dominant theory emerged.


Okay, that's fine. But couldn't you say the exact same thing about the final NIST report? Again, I know VERY little about this stuff, but many have said that they had to make up numbers to fit their model. So essentially, they have a theory that wasn't REALLY proven, either.


This has yet to be the case with the Truth Movement. Even now I see every day on this site completely contradictory claims, there are planers vs no planers, people claiming it fell in its own footprint vs very little fell in its own footprint. I mean now, even today you can find people claiming Marvin Bush was in charge of security, that he had bomb sniffing dogs removed. These are all falsehoods, and 911 truth has been slow to adopt the correct process for eliminating evidence and explaining what remains.


Couple things here. Firstly, I don't think there are too many 'Truthers' who are subject matter experts. I'm one of them. Everyone is going to have an opinion of what they think happened...you can't, or at least you shouldn't, throw a flag because members contradict themselves, as for the most part, we are mere messengers in the sense that we dont do the research, we bring it to ATS. Now, if the Scientists doing the research contradicted their own theories, THAT would be a legitimate issue to bring up.

It's still my understanding the Marvin Bush WAS in charge of security up until the 10th of September. If the security and dogs were pulled prior to that, wouldn't he have been the one who made the call? If I'm wrong here, please let me know.

Next, how would you suggest the Truth Movement test it's theories? The FBI took the camera surveillance...all the steel was taken from the scene at Ground Zero...there isnt a whole lot these guys can do. I'd say the fact that they've found as much as they have, WITHOUT all the evidence, is pretty amazing. Imagine what we would know today, if we DID have ALL the evidence??


I don't doubt that sooner or later some conspiracy theorist is going to come up with a theory that there isn't any evidence to counter. Dr Greening made a good example a while ago by suggesting a perchlorate mix applied to the steel trusses. Of course there's no evidence for this, and no evidence (that I can think of) against it other than the impossibility of planting it. Still, this is the perfect theory as far as 911 truth is concerned, because the majority of people here seem only interested in proposing theories, rather than eliminating them.


I don't have a decent response here...most of it is over my head.


...it's a case of finding what actually happened. If you've read my posts you know that I think NIST has by far the most complete and accurate theory of them all, and it's going to be tough to shoehorn Thermite in there.


The NIST report (and this is all from what I've read) has numerous issues in terms of the numbers that were used to satisfy their model. I believe many here fault Jones for not testing in an O2 free environment, because he deviated from from standard practice by not doing that. With that in mind, those who did the NIST report are guilty in the same way, because they haven't provided their numbers or whatever, so that others can verify the results, correct?

One thing we definately agree on is how hard it will be to get the word "Thermite" in that report.



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by P1DrummerBoy

It's still my understanding the Marvin Bush WAS in charge of security up until the 10th of September. If the security and dogs were pulled prior to that, wouldn't he have been the one who made the call? If I'm wrong here, please let me know.


You ask this in a reasonable manner which is great. One of the most common Truther lies always stated as if it were a fact.

The security company Stratasec lost the WTC contract in 1998 and Marvin Bush left his directors position in 2000.


if the Scientists doing the research contradicted their own theories, THAT would be a legitimate issue to bring up.


Interesting you mention scientifi contradictions and NIST. Supposed experts are not always what they're cracked uop to be. An example on the this site, which I recommend as antidote for online Truther disinfo

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

They highlight a member of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, a guy named Björkman who has experience in steel structural structural damage analysis who questions NIST et al.

Some of his more interesting claims:


Björkman claims that no planes hit the Twin Towers or the Pentagon or crashed near Shanksville.

Björkman claims that all evidence of the aircraft impacts is fake and all witness accounts are invalid.

Björkman claims that all photo and video evidence showing severe fires and structural failure in the WTC buildings is fake.

Björkman believes that the authors of the NIST WTC reports don't
exist.



Mike




[edit on 20-6-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Thanks for the even-handed articulation of what really needs to be understood. The Truth Movement responds to criticism as an assault rather than an attempt to get rid of disinformation and unsubstantiated speculation.


I think what you are trying to say is the truth movement responds to assaults as assaults and there is significant runoff from that, on both sides of the debate of course. And if thats indeed not what you're trying to say I apologize for misinterpreting, however I hit the nail on the head. As I pointed out previously, on 09-11-01 there were multiple reports of CD that went undisputed by the same journalists that now use such non-journalistic words as "tin foil hat", "whackjob", and "nutcase".



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 05:04 AM
link   
To those who disagree with the study:

Just wondering if the scientific paper would be 100% accurate in your
opinion if the DSC tests were performed with an inert gas, and
published in a 'reputable' journal?

Are these the only two excuses preventing you from believing the
controlled demolition of the world trade center?



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


No, the DSC in air is only one problem with the paper. Additionally, an exotherm under inert does not prove thermite, per se, but argues strongly in that direction.
The ridiculous conductivity test, the magnetic separation based on what the red coating was attached to, and the use of MEK instead of a stronger solvent to disrupt the organic matrix, followed by the conclusion that if some unknown paint dissolved and the red chips didn't then they can't be paint are also problems with the paper. There are so many types of paint that this is not a logical conclusion. No attempt was made to identify the matrix or to separate and identify individual components of the material by composition or size distribution.
The paper also sets out to prove that the red chips are thermite instead of trying to determine what the red chips are; a bias that forces a conclusion based on virtually no evidence. There is no attempt to compare the red chips with various types of paint to show any differences nor is there an explanation of why thermite would be painted on in a thin layer when it would have little effect on the structure in such a configuration.
The paper was a rush job that came to a predetermined conclusion with poor protocols, no evidence, and little logical thought.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Lets assume for a second that Jones, or whomever, does do this test in an O2 free environment, and this produces the exact same results. It still ignites, we still get the small nano-spheres, etc.

With that in mind, and in regards to your post, are you suggesting that even THIS result still would not be sufficient, because they have no tested other 'paints' in the same fashion, or am I misunderstanding you?

If I AM understanding you, and the above is correct, are you then suggesting that paints will ignite without oxygen?

I'm trying to understand what you are saying, as Im not well versed in this subject.

[edit on 25/6/2009 by P1DrummerBoy]



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Dr. Jones step by step breakdown of science paper. This will put to rest
any doubts and it's a very clear, basic guide for non technical people:

www.911blogger.com...

THis video also discredits pterdine and exposes how very little he knows
about science and thermitic reactions.

[edit on 26-6-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 




Another version of the UC Davis lecture on May 1 2009 Part 1 of 7



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Dr. Jones step by step breakdown of science paper. This will put to rest
any doubts and it's a very clear, basic guide for non technical people:

www.911blogger.com...

THis video also discredits pterdine and exposes how very little he knows
about science and thermitic reactions.



You have made a statement.

Explain to us what information accomplishes the claim in your last sentence.

Explain meaning tell us, not provide a video link saying it's there.


Mike



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Dr. Jones does a very good job of doing it himself. Inform yourself
and watch the video.

I have already made point form lists of how a form of thermite is proven
by iron spheres and therefore confirms a thermitic reaction. 22 pages
of back and forth nonsense and still some of you don't understand.

The video is bullet proof. It smashes all the guess work and details the
paper.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


So why doesnt Jones make public his little slides then? Of the spectra analysis, and the others? We've been waiting for quite a while and the only places I've seen them is barely in the videos. Why hasnt he released his presentation for us to see on our own, so we can compare his results to other tests and other information which could be used to see if what he says is true?



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 

because the SEMS test says it was thermate. SEMS tests are highly accurate and all of the samples confirm the same thing.

In other words, for it to be incorrect, there would have to be a conspiracy from the manufacturer of the thermate down to all of the scientists involved.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
the SEMS test says it was thermate. SEMS tests are highly accurate and all of the samples confirm the same thing.

In other words, for it to be incorrect, there would have to be a conspiracy from the manufacturer of the thermate down to all of the scientists involved.


That's fine as far as it goes.

What is still unverified is the source material. It was said WTC debris was donated. Do we know for sure what has been tested came from these, nothing has been added, and that they are representative?

Will someone be able to reproduce the same results with other WTC debris? Experiments have to be independently reproducible.

Otherwise it's not inconceivable Jones et al could be using a form of thermate to prove it was thermate.

This is, after all, a forensic analysis not just a straightforward chemical test.


Mike


[edit on 26-6-2009 by mmiichael]



new topics

top topics



 
172
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join