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: 29
172
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


marketing and accounting?
another example of your weak research skills.

I wrote Jones again to get the proper answers instead of guessing,
but if their tests were anyting like this:

www.youtube.com...

Well...all of your theories (like the oxygen excuse) will expose you
yet again.

I'm not at all worried. Keep on spewing the garbage though, it makes
you look good.




posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
NIST already said that the pancaking theory had no merit and did away with it. Third, if floors truly were pancaking, it wouldn't sound like "bang, bang, bang" or "boom, boom, boom". It would sound like "bbbbbbbbbbbbbbb". We're talking about roughly 10 floors pancaking per second, you wouldn't hear timed booms or bangs at that speed unless it was from the timed detonations taking out the cores of each building as they were collapsing.

So, in essence, your witness that you quoted was debunked by NIST. Try again?



This is becoming a semantics debate rather than a discussion of the properties of heated steel and their loss of strength. Something you mistakenly put all down to it being a matter of molten steel or nothing. I asked if you understood the weakening aspect and how it was critical. So far avoidance your response is a search of some magic accelerant properties of thermite.

On the pancaking aspect. Well it did happen, even hardcore Truthers can't avoid the fact that floor after floor falling on each other can be described as pancaking. NIST, as a scientific body prepared to correct itself, later attributed this to an effect rather than a prime cause.

Final note, don't know where it is online, but at least one NYC Fire Chief spoke out on one of his crew speaking for 9/11 Fire Fighters with information he considered false.

I tend to trust the word of senior Fire Fighters and on the scene rather than theorists. When a sizable percentage of the profession make it known they consider the NIST report wrong on key points, I'll listen.

Aberrant opinions of a small percent of any fields or discipline is expected. particularly when there's a rebellious social club component.

Notably those professionals worldwide who have looked at the official reports and found them credible are not motivated to form organizations, maintain websites, produce DVDs, post on Youtube.


Mike


[edit on 6-7-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


Yawn


You're getting pretty old "exponent". I'm getting tired of playing circles
with you.

Here are a few stop images. Study them well, and please don't try to
deny the solid visual proof that the top section destroys itself before
the support structure (red line) begins to descend:

procision-auto.com...
procision-auto.com...
procision-auto.com...
procision-auto.com...
procision-auto.com...
procision-auto.com...

Go ahead 'exponent', try to talk your way around the linked photos.
Please explain how gravity smashes the section above the impact
hole, without crushing the 1000 foot of tower.

P.S. If you have been following my logic and watched some of the
video evidence, you would know that I believe there were multiple
sources of energy destroying the towers. Therefore, the explosions
you hear / see in the independent footage would indicate something
more than thermiate was used.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Yes, a covering would hold in heat, but it would not make a fire hotter. In fact, it would make a fire die due to lack of oxygen. Unless................................there was an accelerant to make the fire get hotter



Would an accelerant work in the absence of air?

An accelerant isn't an oxidizer. Or is it?



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by pteridine
 


marketing and accounting? another example of your weak research skills.

I wrote Jones again to get the proper answers instead of guessing,
but if their tests were anyting like this:

www.youtube.com...

Well...all of your theories (like the oxygen excuse) will expose you
yet again.

I'm not at all worried. Keep on spewing the garbage though, it makes
you look good.



Great tact and diplomacy. Insulting a person by saying someone's unproven claims discredits their analysis.

Where are Jones's replies to the points raised?

Instead of acting as Jones's messenger boy, why don't you arrange somewhere online where he can debate issues directly in real time?

We're told he is prepared to discuss his claims. A neutral forum with a mutually agreed upon referee is how scientists debate.

Mike



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

Great tact and diplomacy. Insulting a person by saying someone's unproven claims discredits their analysis.

Where are Jones's replies to the points raised?

Instead of acting as Jones's messenger boy, why don't you arrange somewhere online where he can debate issues directly in real time?

We're told he is prepared to discuss his claims. A neutral forum with a mutually agreed upon referee is how scientists debate.

Mike


Was this reply directed to you? No, I don't think so.

I've shown you in the FIRST post were Jones' replies are. Look it up.

I'm not anyone's messenger buddy; I'm debating my own battles using
a credible source which is more than I can say for you.

By the way, if you were paying attention to any of this thread a couple
of us have offered $1000.00 for anyone with enough guts to face Jones
in the same forum I linked in the first post.

More circles...


I wish you guys would read before posting BS.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
I tend to trust the word of senior Fire Fighters and on the scene

Ooh good. Glad you said that:


Richard Banaciski, 9110253

It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions...


Karin Deshore, 9110192

Somewhere around the middle of the (north tower), there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building.


Stephen Gregory, 9110008

I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.

Q. Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?

A. No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw.

Q. On the television pictures it appeared as well, before the first collapse, that there was an explosion up on the upper floors.

A. I know about the explosion on the upper floors. This was like eye level. I didn't have to go like this. Because I was looking this way. I'm not going to say it was on the first floor or the second floor, but somewhere in that area I saw to me what appeared to be flashes.


Now watch the following video and read the above again:

video.google.com...

See all the flashes going up, down and around the whole building in the video above? Just like as described above by first responders on-scene describing the collapses of the towers.

Now a few more quotes:


Gregg Brady, 9110184

I heard 3 loud explosions. I look up and the north tower is coming down now.


Frank Campagna, 9110224

You see 3 explosions and then the whole thing (north tower) coming
down.


Craig Carlsen, 9110505

I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions.


The above quotes can be corroborated by the documentary called "9/11 Eyewitness" and this link is Part 1. Parts 2 and 3 are there as well. The video is shot from 2 miles away from the WTC so you won't hear the steel beams breaking or crashing through each other. Only the unadulterated sounds of the explosives being detonated.

The video corroborates the first responders testimony above to 3 loud explosions in the north tower before collapse (there were actually more, but 3 loud one's are evident). And from Craig Carlsen above who said there were 10 explosions in the south tower before collapse. "9/11 Eyewitness" picked up 9 of the explosions, I believe, and they even point them out to you so you don't miss them.

The above is just a handful of the hundreds of testimonies given by firefighters, police, EMT and other first responders on-scene. Their testimony is identical to known controlled demolitions and/or corroborated by video recorded of that day.



Originally posted by mmiichael
rather than theorists.

Theorists? Yes because the government's version has been proven, even though the FBI has said there's no hard evidence linking the highjackers or bin Laden to 9/11.
That makes you and everyone else that spouts the "official" version a theorist also.



[edit on 6-7-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan

I'm not anyone's messenger buddy; I'm debating my own battles using
a credible source which is more than I can say for you.

By the way, if you were paying attention to any of this thread a couple
of us have offered $1000.00 for anyone with enough guts to face Jones
in the same forum I linked in the first post.

I wish you guys would read before posting BS.


I read messages. Much not worth commenting on. Just as what I ask gets ignored.

So repeat.

If there's any integrity to this Jones will do it in a neutral online forum in real time. Referee agreed by all parties.

The current offer of having to register somewhere with ID and no agreed terms or referee makes it sound like a PR stunt for Jones's benefit.

This is not about anyone's guts of having balls, it's about being transparent and legit. Not everyone is willing to sacrifice professional credibility debating with Jones.


Mike



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 01:31 AM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Like Jones has nothing better to do than chat with anonymous kids that
don't even know how DSC works, or how to interpret a DSC graph.

The method described in the original post requires the parties to disclose
their identities and contact info. It's not in real time, but it doesn't have
to be. The history of the discussion is there for all to see.

If you haven't checked out the latest in the debate, I think you (*and
others should).

Is there anyone here who is willing to do that for $1000.00? I think not,
but please prove me wrong and step up to the plate.

Oh yes, and for those who STILL think it's 'paint', read here:

stj911.org...

A complete step by step knock down of the paint theory.

For those too lazy, or BIASED to read, here are the references to NIST
and the Paint Used:

wtc.nist.gov...

www.tnemec.com...

You see 'exponent' scientists actually cover all the bases and test
the paint used in the WTC!


[edit on 6-7-2009 by turbofan]

[edit on 6-7-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 01:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan

Like Jones has nothing better to do than chat with anonymous kids that
don't even know how DSC works, or how to interpret a DSC graph.

The method described in the original post requires the parties to disclose
their identities and contact info. It's not in real time, but it doesn't have
to be. The history of the discussion is there for all to see.




Say no more. First you say Jones is prepared to debate, then you say he hasn't got time to chat. You characterize people as anonymous kids. you haven't a clue who you are addressing.

Jones, like his experiments, has to determining conditions and terms.
Things can't be done transparently and open for examination or independent verification. This is not about science.

To me a clear admission it's all BS.


Mike



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 02:07 AM
link   
Here's another interesting paper on this technology:

e-reports-ext.llnl.gov...

From this paper it seems it doesn't necessarily have to be a thin film, but rather they can shape it into different forms. (see figures 4 and 5)(Warning for those on dial-up: it's an 11MB pdf file)

Another thing I find interesting is Figure 6 which shows their DTA trace. I'm not exactly sure the difference between DTA and DCS but their graph shows a much more concise peak. But also interesting is their test procedure which was "performed in room air atmosphere with a heating rate of 20 degrees C/minute," which is what Dr. Jones' people have done. And then in the linked paper these people confirmed it was a thermite reaction by examining what was left, or as they say in the paper, "confirmed by powder X-ray diffraction of reaction products"(pg 12/15). I'm not exactly sure what they had found afterward but this is enough for me to know that Dr. Jones' DCS test is a legitimate method.

I'm also still looking for a free source for the Tillotson DSC trace that was included in Dr. Jones' paper to both confirm it and to hopefully read about his testing method.

Also, at first I did find their test with an oxyacetylene flame a bit crude, but then I ran into this page:

e-reports-ext.llnl.gov...

where they "qualitatively tested the thermite nanacomposites performance by initiation of the thermite reaction with a propane torch." (pg. 9-13) So I guess crude is okay.

So I'm under the impression that Dr. Jones' testing methods are legitimate. Now if only I could confirm or deny what they found is actually what they think they found.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

Say no more. First you say Jones is prepared to debate, then you say he hasn't got time to chat. You characterize people as anonymous kids. you haven't a clue who you are addressing.

Jones, like his experiments, has to determining conditions and terms.
Things can't be done transparently and open for examination or independent verification. This is not about science.

To me a clear admission it's all BS.

Mike


Learn to read "Mike". I said Jones doesn't have time to debate
anonymous kids.

get one of your friends flagging the paint theory to sign up with their
name and contact info. A couple of us have $1000.00 waiting to
see Jones get taken out



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan

Oh yes, and for those who STILL think it's 'paint', read here:

stj911.org...



Hey, maybe they read my earlier post here,

www.abovetopsecret.com...

for their "THERMAL STABILITY OF PRIMER PAINT" section.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 03:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
You characterize people as anonymous kids. you haven't a clue who you are addressing.

Most people in this thread are anonymous. turbofan is not anonymous, he has identified himself.

turbofan is justified to call any anonymous poster exactly what they are - anonymous.


Originally posted by mmiichael
To me a clear admission it's all BS.

I agree. It's a clear admission of BS, that no one wants to publicly identify themselves to debate against Jones for $1000.

All of the government story believers, in this thread, prefer to stay anonymous and snipe from their keyboards.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
get one of your friends flagging the paint theory to sign up with their
name and contact info. A couple of us have $1000.00 waiting to
see Jones get taken out



You've said repeatedly there is an offer of multiple $1000s.

Never specified, is the money just offered or will it be placed in trust with an agreed upon third party?

If it's simply a question and answer session with Jones, it's not even a contest.

Despite it being asked more than once, you've never answered the question: who is the referee?

Who determine who has won and who has not?

Will it be someone mutually agreed on? If not why not?

As I've said before, it just sounds like a prizefight.

Do 10 rounds with 'Killer' Jones and win the Big Prize.

We choose the place, the rules, the referee, decide the winner.

Sounds fixed to me.


Mike



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 05:14 AM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Yes, it has been answered several times. Science will be the ref. and
therefore there will be no bias.

Right now nobody is able to put up a fight for the thermite study.

Some of the lesser theories put forth here thought it was paint, but
now we find that Harrit has addressed that guess with some additional
literature.

If anyone cares to step up with a new theory, you know where to find
me. Once we get an interested party to debate Jones we will define
the details for the funds.

For sake of moving forward, if putting the funds in trust works best,
then that's what we will do.

I'm surprised that all of these big talkers haven't stepped up for the
easy $1000.00 prize and world recognition of killing off nine Ph.D.'s,
while shutting down one the strongest truth movement bodies to date.

Act now, and I'll even throw in a soup can!


Oh wait, you can't act now... the paint theor....guess has been squashed
for good! See here:

Harrit addresses, the "paint theory" June 20, 2009
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 6-7-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 06:07 AM
link   
I have been sitting on the fence on this one for a while now, i am from the UK there is alot of us over here that really do believe that your government did this abomination.
Now im no scientist although i have worked in organic chemistry labs for the past 5 years, to be honest i dont need to be a fully fledged chemical genius to see that this is blatently themite, if it has the right elements, the right mix and the right properties, how the hell can it be anything else!!!! thats even before Jones did his combustion tests.
Even without the thermite explanation, those towers came down in a controlled way, anyone who has seen a controlled demolition knows this is obviously the case. Plus the 3rd tower just basically proves it, no plane, no highly flammable airplane fuel, but still comes down just like the other 2...... in a controlled way!!!!
I feel very sorry for alot of you guys who have the thought on your mind that your own government did this, that must be a terrible feeling, its bad enough me here in the UK thinking that an allied government would be capable of this, but if your from the US my heart goes out to you.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by ukman2009
 


That fence sitting must be doing bad things to your thought processes. Jones has proved nothing and completely botched the analysis. The components of thermite, iron oxide and aluminum, are also components of many other things, such as paint. Thin layers of thermite don't do anything to demolish buildings even if there was some method of application and ignition. The clay filler in the red chips looks remarkably like what is used in paint and would be detrimental to any thermitic reaction which may be a reason why 10 tons of the unburned material was estimated to be in the dust. If you bother to look at a 911 memorial or two, you may come across pictures of WTC structural elements with red paint on them.
No thermite, just paint.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


I have interpreted the DSC and you didn't. The exotherm took four minutes as the binder burned. Four minutes for the so-called thermitic reaction? You have been challenged to interpret the DSC to show differently. I said you couldn't do it and you can't. You don't have the technical skills.
You have been challenged to show that thin layers of the red material could cause any demolition of any steel structure. You can't.
Even bulk thermite cannot be timed in a demolition that would allow anything like the collapse of WTC 1 and 2.
The theory that thermite did the deed is technically bankrupt.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
That fence sitting must be doing bad things to your thought processes.

...

No thermite, just paint.


That lack of reading and being current has done more to your reputation
around here.

Here's another blow to your credibilty:

Harrit addresses, the "paint theory" June 20, 2009
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I will await a reply from my source to respond to your other nonsense.
Right now you are in error since you cannot grasp the fact of Harrit`s
paper pointing to something other than paint.

Time to find another guess `petridine`




top topics



 
172
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join