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.
Thermate-TH3 (in military use) is 68.7% thermite, 29.0% barium nitrate, 2.0% sulfur and 0.3% binder (such as PBAN)
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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??
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?
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.
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.
It is obvious that a basic knowledge of chemistry is lacking on the Jones team.
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.