Yep, It's Thermite! So Much for the "Oxygen" Excuse

reply to post by rich23


In between quirky smiles and lip playing, have you bothered to read Jones' paper? It is poorly done for many reasons already brought forward on this and other forums. Since you think so highly of his work, perhaps you would like to point out the strengths of the paper and show how his conclusions are suported by the published data. Certainly, someone of your talents would provide deep insights that many of us have missed.

reply to post by turbofan

Turbo,
Have your sources helped you with the DSC interpretation, yet? You stated that I was incorrect in my analysis and you were going to deny ignorance and show everyone the truth.

How long will we have to wait for enlightenment? I am beginning to suspect that it was you who was incorrect and you do not want to admit it. The exotherm from the red chips took about four minutes. Yes or no?

Still haven't heard back. But, I'll try another source.

Please don't change your answer. You said it, "BURNED" for four minutes
and that the curve was not indicative of "thermite".

See the previous pages for your prior response. There is a difference
between exothermic properties (heat capacity) and combustion.

reply to post by rich23


Get off the conspiracy sites and google Steven Jones + cold fusion and look under news. Go back about 15-20 years and read it yourself.

Mr Jones was also a respected BUSH supporter and republican also but no one seems to mention that. Suddenly, he comes out years after 9/11 with his theories. This is why I feel he is nothing but another disinfo agent pushing an agenda to create conflict and a rift so people do not explore the other parts of 9/11 as close such as all the evidence that points to 93 being shot down.

reply to post by pteridine


Thanks for ignoring all the points I raised. It does seem to indicate you're not interested in serious debate.

Originally posted by esdad71
Get off the conspiracy sites

Like ATS? As a piece of rhetoric that's a fairly spectacular case of shooting yourself in the foot...

and google Steven Jones + cold fusion and look under news. Go back about 15-20 years and read it yourself.

I followed all the links from Fintan "Mr Smear" Dunne and googled a bit more myself. I couldn't find anything remotely substantial. Of course, if there is anything substantial that I've missed you're welcome to link it. But you know how it works here. If you want to make a serious point, you have to back it up yourself.

Mr Jones was also a respected BUSH supporter and republican also but no one seems to mention that.

One of the most trenchant critics of both Bush and Obama is Paul Craig Roberts, who served as assistant treasury secretary under Reagan. PCR is also one of the few mainstream commentators to state a belief that 9/11 was an inside job. Aren't people allowed to change their minds? My political views are different from 10 years ago (not that I'd ever have supported Bush). So what?

Suddenly, he comes out years after 9/11 with his theories. This is why I feel he is nothing but another disinfo agent pushing an agenda to create conflict and a rift

Whom is he attacking? People like Fintan Dunne DO create conflicts and attack people. Personally I think NPT is far more divisive, yet you won't find me attacking its proponents personally.

So, you think he's a disinfo agent simply because he's late to the party?

so people do not explore the other parts of 9/11 as close such as all the evidence that points to 93 being shot down.

That, I have to say, is egregiously poor logic. The idea that the thermite theory, or Steven Jones himself, is stopping people from investigating other aspects of 9/11 is, as far as I can tell, entirely without foundation. Perhaps you can explain how it works. And merely restating that it happens isn't going to cut it.

link this link is not working....I tried...it is not hard to google it and find the articles....

Start here for your cold fusion.

As far as conspiracy sites, let me rephrase that for you. I mean, if you go to sites that are strictly left or right you will never see both sides and that is what ATSNN is for, to allow us to deny our own ignorance, research and see both sides of an argument.

Rich, what did you take away from his non-peer reviewed paper? What part convinced you there was thermite?

Also, using one argument to steer clear of another is called deflection. It is very common. Here is a link if you want to add something....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 9-7-2009 by esdad71]

[edit on 9-7-2009 by esdad71]

[edit on 9-7-2009 by esdad71]

[edit on 9-7-2009 by esdad71]

Originally posted by esdad71
using one argument to steer clear of another is called deflection. It is very common.

Jones as disinfo agent is an interesting theory of yours.

The whole Truth Movement fixation has moved to

red chips = thermite = controlled demolition = govt plot

So the really important issues that need revealing like which foreign intelligences were providing pieces of the puzzles to which US agencies. Who knew what and how much in advance, etc. Just gets sidetracked while ambitious profs sift through the rubble for exploding chips.

The bad guys think it's all one big joke how attention is deflected form them and people are easily misled. And of course they're right.

I think Jones is simply a guy who is having a grand ol' time with all the attention and exposure. He's a celeb in CT circles. According to his bio he was working on projects at Brigham Young like trying to validate Mormon beliefs in an ancient Christian America with carbon dating, etc. A rather daunting task with zero evidence anywhere of Israelites in America 2000 years ago. But shows he's not above scientific investigation of even the wonkiest theories.

After the Cold Fusion mess, and his one rise above obscurity, suddenly, late in life, he's an big shot with people calling from the media, speaking engagements, etc.

One wonders what else one can find in the magic box of debris that could be inflated into something controversial.


Mike



[edit on 9-7-2009 by mmiichael]

reply to post by turbofan


Yes, I remember what I said. The DSC trace shows an exotherm. I said that it was due to the carbonaceous binder burning over a 4 minute time span.

Originally posted by rich23
reply to post by pteridine

 

Thanks for ignoring all the points I raised. It does seem to indicate you're not interested in serious debate.

I didn't see any points related to Jones' paper on thermite that I ignored. Perhaps you could restate those that apply to this thread, sans quirky smile, unless you are not interested in serious debate.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by turbofan

 

. I'll remind you that this exotherm takes about 4 minutes from start to finish so don't think it was evidence of any explosion.

Remember this quote? What you say here is that the sample cannot
be thermite because the exotherm takes four minutes to complete.

By this claim, you denounce the control sample as being nano-thermite
**read: a known control sample of nano thermite** which has a broader
exotherm and lower energy capacity.

Study this post over and over while you wait for a credible answer from
a DSC specialist who can interpret the curve and transition periods of
the test sample.

reply to post by turbofan


How do you know that the thermite in the known sample reacted? It was in air, so the aluminum could have been oxidizing before the thermite reaction temperature was reached.

If Jones is so anxious to demonstrate he has found thermitic material in WTC debris, as a scientist he should be aware of the procedures.

Install controls in his experiments, which would call for the work bring done in a double-blind manner to minimize the effects of experimenter bias. As an activist in the 9/11 Truth Movement he brings admitted expectations into his research.

He may find some correlations in his results, but that doesn’t tell anyone anything about actual causation.

Until his work is independently replicated by qualified scientists doing "double-blind" studies and otherwise following stringent scientific protocols, there’s really nothing to claim.

Jones seems to be ready to chat about his results, but not put them to the test.


M

The form this discussion is taking is very interesting. I want to try to separate some issues here. First I'd like to deal with the accusations surrounding SJ and Cold Fusion.

As I said, I started with Fintan Dunne's website. If he's attacking someone, frankly, that makes me immediately think they must be doing something right. Dunne's website, as I've posted, attacks a number of people and sites that I've found particularly helpful in the past, some of whom I definitely admire. I have no clue as to whether Dunne's website is right or left and frankly, I don't know why you brought that up. It could be deflection, for all I know.

I followed all his links, and all of yours. I still haven't found anything that shows that what went on was anything more than scientific debate. If your logic is, "Steven Jones suppressed cold fusion so he's a shill", then you haven't given me any evidence at all that bears out the allegation he suppressed cold fusion. I asked for specifics, and again, got nothing.

What about all the other scientists around the world who failed to replicate Fleischmann and Pons' work? Are they disinfo agents too?

I did come across this post, though:

Originally posted by esdad71You see, in 1989 Steven Jones was investigated for stealing research for cold fusion during a patent application by BYU.

In that post, you didn't support that rather serious allegation. I've done a cursory search and can't find anything either. Time either to post some links showing where you got this from, or retract it. It's the intellectually honest thing to do.

Back to your previous post in this thread:

Originally posted by esdad71
As far as conspiracy sites, let me rephrase that for you. I mean, if you go to sites that are strictly left or right you will never see both sides and that is what ATSNN is for, to allow us to deny our own ignorance, research and see both sides of an argument.

Where do you get the left-right thing? That's deflection.

Rich, what did you take away from his non-peer reviewed paper? What part convinced you there was thermite?

It's been a while since I read it, and, you know, it made sense to me at the time. If you're going to attack the paper, do so. But actually, you seem to be attacking Jones, not the paper itself. You're accusing him of stealing research, being a disinfo agent, and a poor scientist. You have posted no evidence to support the first two accusations and I'm so far unconvinced by any of the arguments against thermite being involved that have so far been put forward in this thread.

The links that have been established between nanothermite and various members of the NIST board are interesting and, to me, indicative that the real deflection was away from thermite in the first place. This is not to say that thermite was the only thing used: just that the residue is a smoking gun.

Also, using one argument to steer clear of another is called deflection. It is very common. Here is a link if you want to add something....

I may well do. But Jones' credibility has also been attacked in this thread so comments I have are still relevant here.

There's another comment from your thread I find interesting:

We have a winner. This is not going to an extreme but realizing that there was much more to 9/11 then demo'd buildings. It is all deflection to keep us from looking at 93, Flight 587 and the intel failures that led to 9/11.

I'm starting to see what your perspective is on this. You think Al-Qaeda is real and that at worst the US Government LIHOP.

I don't believe in Al-Qaeda. (I know, every time I say that, a terrorist dies. Oops.) I think the situation is much, much worse than LIHOP. This naturally gives me a different perspective. From my perspective, 587 was an accident. Some bright spark in the intel community decided to have AQ take credit for it, but because it was an opportunistic use of a fortuitous (for them) crash, they couldn't control the crash investigation as they did ion 9/11.

The alternative is that AQ did down 587 but then the NTSB covered it up.

That doesn't make sense to me.

From my point of view, therefore, what you're suggesting looks like a really watered-down version of what actually happened (whatever that may have been). In other words, the range of options I find plausible are all a bit radical from your point of view. You just think the government messed up and want to cover their behinds: I find that implausible.

And again you're pushing the idea that just because Steven Jones says he has evidence of thermite, that somehow precludes people investigating or putting time in on completely unrelated aspects of the 9/11 mystery.

This is an absolute nonsense. There are plenty of people out there poking around. Please tell me precisely how Steven Jones' evidence for thermite stops anyone looking into flight 93 or any other part of 9/11.

It doesn't.

And of course, you bandied about the word "truther" in an earlier post. Now you're saying there are things about 9/11 that need looking into? It's not exactly a consistent position.

[edit on 9-7-2009 by rich23]

Originally posted by mmiichael
The whole Truth Movement fixation has moved to

red chips = thermite = controlled demolition = govt plot

If that were true, then every thread on ATS' 9/11 forum would be about thermite. Take a look.

So the really important issues that need revealing like which foreign intelligences were providing pieces of the puzzles to which US agencies. Who knew what and how much in advance, etc. Just gets sidetracked while ambitious profs sift through the rubble for exploding chips.

This is just, as I've already said, a non-argument. If you can explain how Jones' evidence for thermite stops anyone investigating any aspect of 9/11 they like, [iii]please do. Merely restating that it happens is not enough. You have to provide a step-by-step narrative that demonstrates how that can work.

The rest of your post is simply a speculative ad hominem attack on Jones with, again, no evidence to back it up.

Originally posted by rich23
If you can explain how Jones' evidence for thermite stops anyone investigating any aspect of 9/11 they like, [iii]please do

The Jones thermite evidence is part of a broader context I referred to. The fixation on the mechanics of the collapse of the WTC buildings.

Maybe CIA/Mossad/Girl Scouts did plant explosives in those building that made them all the same day.

But let's get back to planet Earth, Sept 11, 2001. WTC and Pentagon were hit by hijacked aircraft, thousands died.

There were intelligence people in a dozen countries who had various parts of the story. They have acknowledged sharing their knowledge with US.

Were there a well organized Truth Movement with knowledge of investigative procedures they would be working day and night tracking down retired, laid off, ex-contracted, disenchanted intelligence people in the US, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Pakistan, Egypt, etc and pumping like mad for leads, info, insights.

Instead practically all I see endless speculation and video analysis of the collapses, the hole in the ground in Pennsylvania, the lawn of the Pentagon. And adulation for underachiever opportunists like Jones, who I consider a snake in the grass (note: ad hominem attack)

It's become a hobby where websites and Youtubes are digested daily in the name of research. A barrage of manipulated data, cherry picked factoids, malign speculation, and outright lies are blended with some actual facts. The response to in depth investigations like NIST are summarily dismissed as govt cover-ups.

An excuse to get all hot and bothered on Internet forums. Discover a new connection with some participant who died in a mysterious plane crash.
Find the disinformation agent in the group. Gather another fact or two to embroider your quilt.

This is what I have observed after a few months of 9/11 discussions.
It's just a pastime now, like watching sports or playing videogames.

"You be the Detective! Find out how your government betrayed you!"


Mike


[edit on 9-7-2009 by mmiichael]

Sure, let's get back to planet Earth shall we? So far Reheat, Exponent,
and Petridine failed to acknowledge this photo (video) evidence by avoiding
the question.

So, how about you Mike? Are you able to figure out how the top section
disappears before the supporting building descends? Here are links to
the stopped frames again:

Originally posted by turbofan
procision-auto.com...
procision-auto.com...
procision-auto.com...
procision-auto.com...
procision-auto.com...
procision-auto.com...

Originally posted by turbofan
Sure, let's get back to planet Earth shall we? So far Reheat, Exponent,
and Petridine failed to acknowledge this photo (video) evidence by avoiding
the question.

So, how about you Mike? Are you able to figure out how the top section
disappears before the supporting building descends? Here are links to
the stopped frames again:

turbo, You start a thread on Jones and his chemical analysis.

Refuse to answer pointed questions on issues raised.

Now it's digging up photos to further deflect from the subject.

Details of how and why the WTC buildings collapsed has been addressed on many ATS threads and sites like this one:

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

Read the appropriate pages. Lots of pictures too.


Still waiting for an explanation of why thin layers thermitic material, even if it were found in debris, would have any significance. Demonstrably unsuitable and insufficient payload as an explosive or even used for ignition.

Ditto my recent missive on double blind procedures and independent replicability.


Mike




[edit on 10-7-2009 by mmiichael]