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: 24
172
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 09:23 AM
link   
brand name...

Thermate-TH3 (in military use) is 68.7% thermite, 29.0% barium nitrate, 2.0% sulfur and 0.3% binder (such as PBAN)


what Jones, and the other scientists found was a manufactured substance that serves the exact same purpose as military thermate.

Saying its not thermate is like saying amatol is not TNT. Its very similar in structure and serves the same purpose.

The chips that were found are capable of melting steel and do not occur naturally. You can call it thermate or chemical X, or whatever you want. Its a superior grade incendiary hands down. A rose by any other name after all...




posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 

Jones and crew found no such thing. There is no additional oxidizer or sulfur in the compostion. They haven't even proved reaction in the absence of air. They have not shown that it melts steel; they don't have enough sample to show that it melts steel.
They failed to remain objective in that they set out to prove that the sample was thermite rather than to find out what the sample was. Failure to use the scientific method by being biased from the start further skewed their poor analytical protocols and made all their results suspect. This failure casts doubt on all previous and future work by this team and the PI's.



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 11:07 AM
link   


Jones and crew found no such thing.
Peer reviewed and confirmed, i trust that process over your claims.
There is no additional oxidizer or sulfur in the compostion. They haven't even proved reaction in the absence of air. They have not shown that it melts steel; they don't have enough sample to show that it melts steel.
It burns hot enough to melt steel
They failed to remain objective in that they set out to prove that the sample was thermite rather than to find out what the sample was.
thats your opinion. The original question was "what is this substance?".
Failure to use the scientific method by being biased from the start further skewed their poor analytical protocols and made all their results suspect. This failure casts doubt on all previous and future work by this team and the PI's.
Back that claim up please

NIST admits to not using the scientific method in their non peer reviewed work. They do so in many ways other than preconceived bias. If you can show any evidence that Jones set out to prove the chips were thermate I'd like to see it. After all the most logical conclusion is controlled demo since it meets 10/10 criteria.



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


Please explain why you think thin layers of a material have anything to do with the demolition of a large buiding. Jones is either analyzing paint or there are many tons of thin-layered, unreacted thermite in the dust.
Jones paper was poorly written and reviewed. It was published in a vanity journal. I have pointed out its many flaws many times in various threads on ATS. I have explained things simply so that even non-scientists can see the faults. As it stands, it is not worthy of serious consideration.
If you are of the Jonesian faith, you may believe based on dogma. I and many others have higher standards for scientific proof.



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by esdad71
 


I'm a bit confused as to what you mean by "the exact same thing happened" as you have posted no evidence presented by his peers that he is incorrect this time around.

Using your logic it can be concluded that anyone who was proven once wrong is always wrong. That is unless you can back it up.


You are not using my logic but your own. You have a very good way with words and I commend you for that. What i am implying, is that again, without peer review, he is coming forward with pretty fantastic claims.

I read his report when it was first published and I find it quite humorous that people are still arguing the scientific portion of this. It all comes down to one thing. We know he is a scientist. We know he has at least some cred based on his BYU work. However....

He was given samples that we are to believe are directly from ground zero. Ok. I can accept that. Now, we are then expected to believe that he takes these small(very small) samples and applies heat in a sterile environment for testing these particles. After that, he observes "small metal spheres" and this is supposed to prove use of thermite???

I mean, we all understand that thermite is a reaction and not a "industrialized weapon" created in a lab. I think some of you do not. This still proves nothing. Also, counting the people in attendance at one of your conferences is not applicable to saying 150 industry people also believe the theory...it just means some people were there to listen and form opinion based on their own studies and his.

Now, if a thousand pounds of thermite did not cut through the roof of a truck then how could it cut through the beams of the WTC?

LINK TO VIDEO





[edit on 27-6-2009 by esdad71]



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by jprophet420
 


Please explain why you think thin layers of a material have anything to do with the demolition of a large buiding. Jones is either analyzing paint or there are many tons of thin-layered, unreacted thermite in the dust.
Jones paper was poorly written and reviewed. It was published in a vanity journal. I have pointed out its many flaws many times in various threads on ATS. I have explained things simply so that even non-scientists can see the faults. As it stands, it is not worthy of serious consideration.
If you are of the Jonesian faith, you may believe based on dogma. I and many others have higher standards for scientific proof.


I will tell you exactly why. Because they tested the substance in paint thinnner and it did not disolve in paint thinner after 55 hours. The substance did look like paint at first and so it was scrutinized heavily. It was manufactured to the highest degree of technology. 40nm aluminum plates do not occur naturally, sorry.

You can scrutinize "Jones" work all you want, there were 8 scientists on the paper, and it was peer reviewed. The NIST documment was both written to a lower standard and not peer reviewed. If you are not a member of any peer review board I simply take more weight in their conclusion than yours.



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 

To answer your question good sir, there is no reason for this material to be there, it is not paint, it is not any naturally occurring substance. It is an anomaly, and there cant be any anomalies in a theory. It means the NIST report is 100% null and void until they can explain this. I see people on the internet try to explain it every day, but no professional or government organization has even tried.

You don't print a paper and leave out evidence and expect it to be taken seriously.

I would LOVE for the government to come out with video of a plane hitting the pentagon, an analysis of the steel, an explanation for molten pools of steel, and a chemical analysis of the red/gray chips that show how this substance came to get into ALL of the chain of custody controlled samples as well as the others.

I'm not going to come out and say that will never happen, but after 8 years the fact that they haven't proves blatant mismanagement at the very least, and I mean on a criminal level.

And as far as my use of words, I could have simply said what I always say, "character assassination is a logical fallacy', but that gets old here real quick.

Cheers, JP.



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


Paint thinner dilutes paint before it has cured. After it has cured, paint thinner may or may not dissolve the organic matrix. An example would be a cured epoxy coating that is resistant to many solvents. The fact that the matrix was not completely dissolved does not prove that it was not paint.
Much better solvents are available to disrupt organic matrices and the fact that they were not used is a further example of the lack of chemical knowledge on the part of Jones' team.



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by jprophet420
 


Paint thinner dilutes paint before it has cured. After it has cured, paint thinner may or may not dissolve the organic matrix. An example would be a cured epoxy coating that is resistant to many solvents. The fact that the matrix was not completely dissolved does not prove that it was not paint.
Much better solvents are available to disrupt organic matrices and the fact that they were not used is a further example of the lack of chemical knowledge on the part of Jones' team.

Im sorry but your theory is hot garbage. There was no layer of epoxy.

Could you please illustrate for us what chemical was used, why it was not the proper chemical, and what chemical should have been used instead? If you cannot then concede please.



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


Did you read what he said? An EXAMPLE would be epoxy. He did not say epoxy WAS used in this sample. Way to twist and add words into his mouth.



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by jprophet420
 


Did you read what he said? An EXAMPLE would be epoxy. He did not say epoxy WAS used in this sample. Way to twist and add words into his mouth.


Examples don't debunk, and examples without any relevance to the case in point probably shouldn't be pointed out unless you want to be labeled a total clownshoes by your adversaries. If the chips had epoxy on them than that would be a legit reason for them not to dissolve in certain solvents. You would need to show what epoxy was resistant to what chemicals and show those chemicals were used.

However none of the chips had epoxy on them so why even mention it? Epoxy on the mystery incendiary chips is not an issue, and never has been. anyone who researched it knows this.

I asked him to provide some simple information, what chemical was used, and why it would not disolve the chips in question. Neither of you are capable of providing this information. I will concede if you can.



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


The epoxy was an example to help you understand that a cured coating is different than an uncured coating.
Jones erroneously used MEK [methyl ethyl ketone; behaves like acetone]. He should have used methyene chloride, dimethyl formamide, or dimethyl sulfoxide to disrupt the matrix. With the matrix gone, he could have used other methods to determine what the other components were. For example, x-ray diffraction would have proven kaolinite, or similar, that appears in the SEM images.



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by jprophet420
 


The epoxy was an example to help you understand that a cured coating is different than an uncured coating.
Jones erroneously used MEK [methyl ethyl ketone; behaves like acetone]. He should have used methyene chloride, dimethyl formamide, or dimethyl sulfoxide to disrupt the matrix. With the matrix gone, he could have used other methods to determine what the other components were. For example, x-ray diffraction would have proven kaolinite, or similar, that appears in the SEM images.


I apologize for assuming you weren't familiar with the work. However if it was paint, the MEK would have shown this. Please finish answering the question.



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


I thought that I did answer the question. Please read my response. I stated that MEK was like acetone and stronger solvents that would have disrupted the matrix would be methylene chloride [dichloromethane], dimethylformamide [DMF], and dimethyl sulfoxide [DMSO]. Methylene chloride is commonly used in paint stripper; MEK is too weak to strip cured paint consistently.
It is obvious that a basic knowledge of chemistry is lacking on the Jones team.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by P1DrummerBoy
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.

Not really, the only cases people have highlighted where NIST have "made up" numbers is where we don't know the numbers to begin with.

For example, we know for a fact that a large area of the towers where fire was burning was full of paper and flammable contents. How full was it though? NIST conducted interviews with the people responsible for this, they attempted to determine the products used, and in what quantities, and then constructed a recreated section out of these materials and burned it, to find out the range of values to expect, and the ability of their computers to simulate it accurately.

But is this actually making up numbers, or is it deducing them? Another example would be what was discussed earlier, the 'mass loss fraction' during tower collapse. We have absolutely no reliable way to analyse this as the videos of the event are poor quality and lack the definition. As a result a process is carried out which is known as 'parametric tests', you may know it as a sensitivity study. Basically they try their equations with a range of values to determine what effect it has on the outcome. In this case, they found that values up to about 0.5 agreed with their equations and the collapse time, and this is a reasonable value. It agrees with the geometry of the towers, the mass distribution and obviously the collapse times.

My point is that this is a valid method for determining unknown quantities, and in all cases afaik NIST conducted the appropriate studies to understand how much would be affected if they were wrong, and how great these effects would be.


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 are, he wasn't ever in charge of security, just on the board of the security company, and they were dismissed from their contract well before 911. I don't blame you for thinking that he was, because you have likely fallen into the trap of only researching using websites which promote various 'truther' theories. However, the information is out there to help you find out the truth, but I will leave that as an exercise for you



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??

But what exactly have the truth movement found? I mean even on this, the largest conspiracy forum I have ever been on, theories are simply put forward, rather than being debated. For example, what singular piece of evidence favours a high explosive demolition theory over a thermite one? Can you name one? I doubt any truthers can. They may be able to extrapolate one, such as thermite potentially being ineffective at cutting columns, but there will be no study of the evidence to conclude this, just speculation.

911 Truthers can test their theories through the normal scientific method. Come up with a hypothesis (say a high explosive demolition). Gather what information is available about the structure (there is a lot available, even if the steel is not) and use simulations or (gasp) even common sense to start figuring out what parts of this theory are plausible and what are not.

This never happens as far as I can see. Every group that has been set up to ostensibly 'investigate' has resulted in essentially an advocacy group. I may give special mention to CIT here as before they began their investigation I don't think they promoted any theory, but of course once they had formulated it they have now declared it a fact, and unassailable. This is the behaviour of every other group i'm aware of.

I mean, look at the donation drives, how many can I come up with off the top of my head?
Alex Jones Moneybomb
AE911Truth sponsorship
AE911Truth take an architect to lunch
Pilots for Truth office remodelling
Loose Change merchandise

I am sure I could come up with many more, but out of all of these, I have yet to see the "911 Simulation Fund" to pay for ANSYS or LS-DYNA software. I have yet to see the "911 Investigation Fund" to attempt to privately fund a new investigation? Some truthers will claim that greater than 50% of Americans support this cause. If this were the case, $1 each would result in a fund of over $150,000,000. This is way more than NIST had to investigate.

My point here is that in an ideal world, being a 911 truther would not be something with a stigma attached, it would be an honest investigation into the facts, supported by as much rigorous evidence as the NIST report (much can be used from the report in any subsequent investigation). However this is not the reality we live in, and unfortunately there are all manner of groups simply looking to promote themselves and ensure they have a healthy income, despite the massive differences in opinion within their own movement.

I don't want this to sound too scathing, because after all I do in principle agree with the cause. We should be looking for the truth in everything, and we should be sceptical about NISTs results, and about the data they use to verify these results. But this is not what happens in the truth movement, and I very much doubt it will happen in the near future.


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?

Sorta, NIST provides a lot of their details, but their report is already 10,000 pages long and it's mostly intended to inform you about the models, rather than give you the models specifically. Various people have filed FOIA lawsuits to have data released, many of this will be at no charge (for the smaller stuff). Recently AE911truth raised enough money to have NIST release their LS-DYNA models (I point out this was a separate donation drive and they barely made the deadline) and so we should see those soon. Basically it's just a case of finding what numbers you want, shooting NIST an email, and them telling you if it will cost you (they have to search, extract, collate these details etc) and if so how much.

When a refusal happens, now that's something you definitely can criticise.

Anyway, this is a long enough post, only 1000 characters left, but I wanted to apologise for taking so long to reply. I am off and on with 'debunking' at the moment, as there are many people here (no names!) who's rhetoric is grating. You are not one of them, of course.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
... what exactly have the truth movement found? I mean even on this, the largest conspiracy forum I have ever been on, theories are simply put forward, rather than being debated. For example, what singular piece of evidence favours a high explosive demolition theory over a thermite one? Can you name one? I doubt any truthers can. They may be able to extrapolate one, such as thermite potentially being ineffective at cutting columns, but there will be no study of the evidence to conclude this, just speculation.

911 Truthers can test their theories through the normal scientific method. Come up with a hypothesis (say a high explosive demolition). Gather what information is available about the structure (there is a lot available, even if the steel is not) and use simulations or (gasp) even common sense to start figuring out what parts of this theory are plausible and what are not.

This never happens as far as I can see. Every group that has been set up to ostensibly 'investigate' has resulted in essentially an advocacy group. I may give special mention to CIT here as before they began their investigation I don't think they promoted any theory, but of course once they had formulated it they have now declared it a fact, and unassailable. This is the behaviour of every other group i'm aware of.

[...]
... in an ideal world, being a 911 truther would not be something with a stigma attached, it would be an honest investigation into the facts, supported by as much rigorous evidence as the NIST report (much can be used from the report in any subsequent investigation). However this is not the reality we live in, and unfortunately there are all manner of groups simply looking to promote themselves and ensure they have a healthy income, despite the massive differences in opinion within their own movement.

I don't want this to sound too scathing, because after all I do in principle agree with the cause. We should be looking for the truth in everything, and we should be sceptical about NISTs results, and about the data they use to verify these results. But this is not what happens in the truth movement, and I very much doubt it will happen in the near future.


Thanks for the well thought out points on this critical issue. One is constantly confronted with accusations of accepting the so-called "Official Story,' NIST, MSM reporting, etc as ignoring the real truth.

But I have yet to see an 'Unofficial Story' and little in the way of consolidated alternative explanations of what went on during 9/11.
I'm told there is mountains of conflicting evidence. But links to so many sites show such glaringly faulty pseudo-documentation, misreporting, wild speculations, deceitful cherry picking of data.

I can only hope some day a group of concerned Americans will sort through the 8 years of claims and independent research and comes up with something that objectively puts it all together.

Mike



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by jprophet420
 


I thought that I did answer the question. Please read my response. I stated that MEK was like acetone and stronger solvents that would have disrupted the matrix would be methylene chloride [dichloromethane], dimethylformamide [DMF], and dimethyl sulfoxide [DMSO]. Methylene chloride is commonly used in paint stripper; MEK is too weak to strip cured paint consistently.
It is obvious that a basic knowledge of chemistry is lacking on the Jones team.


They soaked it in MEK for 55 hours. MEK is not to weak to dissolve paint in 55 hours, sorry. other chemicals may be able to do it faster, but im sure they weren't in a rush.


It is obvious that a basic knowledge of chemistry is lacking on the Jones team.

They certainly have a better knowledge of chemistry than you good sir.

For you to claim to have found an error they made is reasonable, if you provide evidence. For you to throw out a blanket character assassination against 8 scientists proves beyond a shadow of a doubt your are biased and not interested in the slightest at getting to the truth of the matter.

[edit on 29-6-2009 by jprophet420]



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
They certainly have a better knowledge of chemistry than you good sir.

For you to claim to have found an error they made is reasonable, if you provide evidence. For you to throw out a blanket character assassination against 8 scientists proves beyond a shadow of a doubt your are biased and not interested in the slightest at getting to the truth of the matter.



The information pteridine has anonymously been providing is gratis. No acclaim or agenda involved. Anyone with any understanding can see he knows exactly what he is talking about.

You have no knowledge of actual chemistry and are incapable of recognizing it when it's staring you in the face.

You appeal to authority in referring to scientists. There are millions on the planet. So a few are whacked out or hungry enough to attach themselves to a sensationalistic agenda driven project, knowing their audience will lap it up.

999,000 honest scientists, if they ever bothered to even glance at Jone's clownishness would just snicker without even bothering to explain why.

There is a solid scientific world out there beyond the inverted pseudo-science one found on googled conspiracy websites. When someone from it bothers to give you the time of day you are incapable of recognizing it.



Mike



[edit on 29-6-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 12:38 AM
link   
it's NOT paint! Anyone that thinks that after reading the paper and
watching Jones explain the difference is not fit to be discussing science!

Paint does not exhibit a narrow release of energy at the DSC temperatures
shown.

THe Paint used in the WTC (as per FEMA/NIST) contains Zinc and other
elements which are not present in the graphs pre/post ignition of the
chips.

The spheres are attached to paritially ignited chips. How does that happen
with paint?!

Resistance measurements are far too low to be a non conductive primer.
Anyone that has used an Ohm meter should know how this works.

The energy graph outperforms that of a known thermite sample.

Iron spheres are present in the dust which are also attached to chips that
COINCIDENTALLY have the similar chemical signature as thermite.

All of this, and some of you still think it's paint?



This BS about 999,999 scientists in the world is crap. NONE of them have
come forward to expose the paper. If these 999,999 are all correct, let's
see their peer reviewed response to crush Harrit and Jones' bad science!

The lack of logic and misunderstanding of basic science of certain
members is astonishing. LS-Dyna? NIST has access to all of this
amazing FEA software, but they can't reproduce an honest representation
of the video evidence. They wont even release their values so REAL
scientists may check their work. The NIST theory is not even peer reviewed!

The NIST model and calculations for WTC 7 were corrected by David
Chandler! Is this what you call good science "exponent"?

I challenge you and others to answer the following question (gasp) 'honestly':

If the iron spheres which are attached to partially
ignitied chips are not from a form of nano-thermite, then WHAT do you
think this might be?


Please consider all of the above criteria when answering.



[edit on 30-6-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


QUOTE BY exponent:

"If this were the case, $1 each would result in a fund of over $150,000,000. This is way more than NIST had to investigate.

My point here is that in an ideal world, being a 911 truther would not be something with a stigma attached, it would be an honest investigation into the facts, supported by as much rigorous evidence as the NIST report (much can be used from the report in any subsequent investigation). However this is not the reality we live in, and unfortunately there are all manner of groups simply looking to promote themselves and ensure they have a healthy income, despite the massive differences in opinion within their own movement." END QUOTE.



There Will Be An Investigation In The Future. You Don't Just Need The American Public To Contribute $1 or more To An Independent Investigation.

What About The Rest Of Us Around The World?

The Truth Is - The Worldwide Community Are & Will Continue To Help Funding A New Investigation.

Real "Truthers" As You Call Them, Are Not Doing This To Get Rich & Famous Or Make Money. The Goal Is To Show The Truth & Support The Process Of World Peace. -Nothing Else

It's Just A Shame & A Sad Fact That Some In The Truth Movement are Greedy, Ignorant, Inpatient, Uninformed/Uneducated & Lose Control Of Their Focus & Emotions.

Many, Including Me Have Made Past Mistakes In Their Research & Keeping 100% Up To Date With The Real Evidence, Facts & Investigations, But That's Just Human Nature.

However We All Are Getting A Lot Better At Not Making Those Silly Mistakes, So We Can Continue To have A Crystal Clear Insight/Vision & Be Extra Careful When Moving Between The Grey Clouds .

Cheers

EDIT- Spelling, grammar & layout.

[edit on 30-6-2009 by Skyline666]

[edit on 30-6-2009 by Skyline666]

[edit on 30-6-2009 by Skyline666]



new topics

top topics



 
172
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join