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

page: 4
172
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Here is the $100 question that no single debunker or official story proponant has ever been able to successfully answer.


If there was no accelerant and no thermite or thermate used on that day, how exactly do any of you suggest that building 7 was taken down at the rate of free fall speed?


Is it still the old "second hand office fire caused by debris" argument? Keep in mind that no plane ever hit building 7, which means no jet fuel, no rust particles from the plane to even potentially create a thermite like response. There goes that theory.


So what do you suggest brought an entire sky scraper down without it ever being hit?


Think before you respond, I am all ears and would love to hear the explanations that pass for an official story these days.




posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 06:41 PM
link   
Homicide Detectives, when investigating a murder, and evaluating potential suspects always look for "MMO"


MOTIVE - speaks for itself

MEANS - could the person have accomplished this? Example: A little old lady weighing 90 lbs likely did not use the chainsaw for getting rid of the victims body

OPPORTUNITY - speaks for itself


--------------------

try to remember "MMO"

Edit: And familiarize yourselves with LOGICAL FALLACIES When you see these being used KNOW that someone wants to STOP YOUR THOUGHT.

[edit on 3-6-2009 by seataka]



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by mmiichael
Guess even $100 is a lot of money for a professor fired from a Mormon College.

Gotta love when people come in these threads and either post things about something they don't know what they're talking about, or deliberately distorting the facts (disinformation).


en.wikipedia.org...

You should be researched and know what you're talking about before you make posts. I won't go into the purposeful part of you possibly knowing he retired, but you wanted to attack him further by saying he was fired.



and you are not being completely truthful either..
he was not fired per say.. but he was placed on administrative leave by his employer.. both sides are distorting facts.. sometimes by omission..
from your link:


Steven Earl Jones is an American physicist. For most of his career, Jones was known mainly for his work on muon-catalyzed fusion. In the fall of 2006, amid controversy surrounding his work on the collapse of the World Trade Center, he was relieved of his teaching duties and placed on paid leave from Brigham Young University. On October 20, 2006, he announced his retirement. He holds that the World Trade Center was destroyed by controlled demolition during the September 11 attacks.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by GhostR1der
Jeb Bush owned the security company which conveniently removed bomb sniffing dogs a few days leading up to WTC lies.


Jeb? Marvin? Tim? Bubba? Who cares what Bush it is! Accuracy is not a Truther's strong point.

Plus, who CARES that MARVIN left his principle position with Secureacom the summer of 2000.

Plus, who CARES that Jeb was the governor of Florida at that time. I guess a little moonlighting on the side never hurts.

BUT WHO CARES?????

Sure lends a whole lot of credibility to Steven Jones when all your supporters don't know a Marvin from a Timmy from a Jeb from a Bubba.

[edit on 3-6-2009 by trebor451]



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


But they are not thermite chips! The test was flawed so you cannot claim they are thermite chips! Geeze. In fact its already been shown to be more related to a certain type of paint than thermite. Unless you are swinging back to the idea that it was painted on all the columns somehow without a soul noticing. and nano sized doesnt really say anything other than its small. Did you ignore al the the other things others have said about the makeup of the "chips"? Specifically how the spectra was closer to kaolinite? You see, so far you are still stuck in the same hole you thought you drove out of. Thanks to Jones' sloppy work you have no definitive proof of any therm*te, and yet you tout this as proof! Even though its been proven to be very very flawed. And since you are making your assumptions on severely FLAWED data, well then, there is nothing really much to say.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
Jones has not published in genuine peer reviews for the obvious reason. His research methods are not acceptable.


That's incorrect. Unlike NIST's work, the paper appears to have been subject to rigorous peer-review.

As jprophet420 commented, "ad hominem doesn't fly big here". ATS members recognize when the weight of attack is against the messenger, not the message.

Nevertheless, in my view it's regrettable (but understandable) that
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe was published in Bentham Science Publishers Open Chemical Physics Journal.

Regrettable - because the recruiting methods Bentham employed for their online open access venture have tarnished a previously good reputation.

Understandable - because most publications, especially peer-review science journals, recognize that real 9/11 science is political poison.

This publication, as you mentioned, resulted in the resignation of the journal's editor in chief, Marie Paule Pileni. According to Danish science news service, videnskab.dk, she claimed, “I cannot accept that this topic is published in my journal. The article has nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics, and I could well believe that there is a political viewpoint behind its publication. If anyone had asked me, I would say that the article should never have been published in this journal. Period.”

Notably she went on to say that the journal whose editorship she had been leading was "a bad journal" and that "because the topic lies outside her field of expertise, she cannot judge whether the article in itself is good or bad."

That last statement is particularly curious when we study her CV:


CONSULTING EXPERIENCE
1990-1994: Société Nationale des Poudres et Explosifs, SNPE, France (Literally: National Society of Powders and Explosives)"

LABORATORY MANAGEMENT
2001: Laboratoire des matériaux mésoscopiques et nanomètriques, LM2N.
1992-2000: Structure et réactivité des systèmes interfaciaux, SRI. (Literally: Structure and reactivity of interfacial systems)

OTHER ACTIVITIES
1990-1992: Chairperson on workshops related to the French Defense research.
1989-1992: Consultant at the Minister of Recherche concerning the National Defense
1989: Member of the “Institut des Hautes Etudes de Défense Européenne”. [Institute for Advanced Studies for European Defense]

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERSHIP

Journal of experimental nanosciences, Publisher Taylor&Francis.
2006: Accounts of Chemical Research, American Chemical Society.
2002: Journal of Physical Chemistry, Board member, American Chemical Society.



[edit on 3-6-2009 by EvilAxis]



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by turbofan
 


But they are not thermite chips! The test was flawed so you cannot claim they are thermite chips! Geeze. In fact its already been shown to be more related to a certain type of paint than thermite. Unless you are swinging back to the idea that it was painted on all the columns somehow without a soul noticing. and nano sized doesnt really say anything other than its small. Did you ignore al the the other things others have said about the makeup of the "chips"? Specifically how the spectra was closer to kaolinite? You see, so far you are still stuck in the same hole you thought you drove out of. Thanks to Jones' sloppy work you have no definitive proof of any therm*te, and yet you tout this as proof! Even though its been proven to be very very flawed. And since you are making your assumptions on severely FLAWED data, well then, there is nothing really much to say.


I've noticed that you seem to make post after post after post, making various claims on anything related to 9/11, yet you NEVER provide any proof of your claims. Where is YOUR scientific evidence? Hell, where is YOUR phd? YOUR degree? You have so many opinions against anyone who doesnt believe the official BS story, but you cant ever prove your claims. You ridicule Dr. Jones for this reason and that, and you want to split hairs because the "Therm*te" wasnt tested in an o2 free zone, but yet, you havent shown ANY credentials of your own. Maybe you are just blessed with all the answers and we should all believe any nonsense you throw at us.

Please.

Why don't you do what has been suggested already, and take some time to email Dr. Jones yourself, and maybe you can tell HIM why YOU are so certain that he is wrong. Why dont you try to DISPROVE his findings with your own verifiable evidence?

You post unsubstantiated claims all day. Quit waisting our time until you can PROVE that he is wrong. I dont care what your friends tell you, I dont care what you think, I dont care what you believe. Post up UNDENIABLE PROOF that can shut up the whole 9/11 truth movement or STFU. Why do you bother to argue with people on this board day in and day out? If you are so certain that you are correct, then just prove it and be done with it.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
But they are not thermite chips! The test was flawed so you cannot claim they are thermite chips! Geeze.


Save your digital breath, Gen. I went merrily around the maypole with the troothers over on the lamp post thread where one in particular was insistent on making up every variable imaginable to match their theory. Constructing variable or unknown data without bias towards your desired endstate is a lunch-bucket aspect of modeling and simulation as well as estimation, but is no obstacle to the troothers. Same with calling data from a flawed test "facts".

It is for these (as well as myriad other) reasons why these claims will never amount to anything other than wasted internet bandwidth.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by pccat
and you are not being completely truthful either..
he was not fired per say.. but he was placed on administrative leave by his employer.. both sides are distorting facts.. sometimes by omission..

Yes he was put on paid leave pending a review. When Dr. Jones welcomed the review, BYU changed their mind when Dr. Jones elected to retire.

If I was being untruthful, distorting facts or omitting anything, I wouldn't have left a source. Point of the whole matter is he was not fired. He retired, end of discussion.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
...one in particular was insistent on making up every variable imaginable to match their theory. Constructing variable or unknown data without bias towards your desired endstate is a lunch-bucket aspect of modeling and simulation as well as estimation... Same with calling data from a flawed test "facts".


Your criticism applies perfectly to the methodology NIST employed in forcing data to fit their pre-conceived collapse hypothesis.



[edit on 3-6-2009 by EvilAxis]



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


double post

[edit on 6/3/2009 by pteridine]



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Nope, it's not been proven to be thermite. The key experiments haven't been done. The solvent selected was not appropriate. The DSC must be run in an inert atmosphere to prove thermite. Why was kaolinite added to thermite paint? Why wasn't black iron oxide used? What is the gray material? How much energy can a thin layer impart [not much] and how could it have been configured to demolish a building?
The latest paper purportedly addresses issues raised over the first, so it is appropriate to wait until it is published before discussing this further.

[edit on 6/3/2009 by pteridine]



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 07:47 PM
link   
LMAO at the people trying to come with an excuse as to how it possibly came to happen on its own.

throw peanut butter, jelly and sliced bread on a bucket, you got the ingridients but those aren't P&J Sandwiches.


what this other people dont aprove should do its come out with ther own test or they should be the ones to test with out Oxygen to try and prove jones wrong.

Jones already proved something, if thats the explanation of the debunkers or other scientist that dont agree or try to use the Oxygen excuse, they should be the ones to prove Jones wrong.

I think i said that twice somehow.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   
So basically this alleged thermite should be tested under a deoxygenated environment to prove it was actually thermite and not part of the paint or of pieces of the plane (AL) and rusted building/plane material (Fe2O3)?

I find this point to be particularly moot point considering the fact that nano scale pieces of, well you can read this:



The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material.When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic


www.bentham-open.org.../2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM


How hard is it to make nano-scale aluminum power?
www.advancedmaterials.us...
www.navysbir.com...

Obviously, if it took the pressure of a plane running into a building (at 400 mph?) and the heat thus created, this stuff wouldn't be in the hands of the military only. Don't know how much thermite you need to cut any mass of any material, but I'm sure the cost-cut ratio will speak for itself, and I know 2.2 pounds is going to run you $1100. Don't know how hard it is to make an intricate mixture of this stuff with anything, either... but again, the idea probably speaks for itself.


Shows how nano Al structurally forms? (into spherical-esque structures - proof of his examination of the substance):



The aluminum powder of different sizes has different shape and surface morphology, quasi-spherical in shape with rough surface for aluminum particles of micron scale, irregular in shape for aluminum particles of submicron scale, and quite close to a globular or an excellent globular in shape for aluminum particles of nanometer size. On the other hand, the surface of ceramic particle was coated by aluminum particles with maximum thickness less than 10 μm containing nanometer and submicron sizes as a single layer


www.sciencedirect.com... 1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=e8743578a0c54707244733959d61f38a

I just don't see how you could obtain nano-scale materials which just so happen to be the reactants of thermite. That aside, the components are already mixed together, into a ready-to-go mass, being able to be ignited, as was done, and have it follow exactly what thermite is designed to do.

I really want to ask when cats learned to bark, but I could be missing something.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


I asked on the last page but you don't seem to have an answer: what other chemical reactions are eutectic that just happen on their own?

Since we already know the chemical make-up of the eutectic that formed in the surface of the steel, this should be interesting.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 09:15 PM
link   
I've always been troubled by the collapse of the 3rd tower and the way in which all three towers went down in VERY similar fashions. It DOES bother me! Most pundits SAY that it was the aviation fuel that allowed temps to rise to the level of compromising steel and I'd imagine that no AV GAS was present in the 3rd tower. I was watching a program YEARS ago about structural defects in some Hi rise towers in NYC and they had graphics showing what could have happened to them and their surrounding edifices... It was pretty dramatic and nothing like what happened on 9/11. I think it was either 20/20 or a similar show, as I said, this show aired some time ago, (at least 8 years),. The thing that I just don't get is the planes. If I'm to believe that this was staged, what's the reason for that? Anyone could have said that this plot was hatched USING conventional explosives and carried out after months and months of careful planning... I just think the idea of using jet aircraft to hide a ruse seems ridiculous. Still, I'm on the fence, the way ALL THREE buildings came down is just unbelievable. Does anyone remember the MSM show that I was referring to earlier?



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   
He's googling it....give him a chance !!!


Great news OP!!

Well done...you are indeed someone who "walks the walk"...



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Once again I repeat, no plane, no paint chips, no rust particles, no jet fuel.


Building 7 collapses at free fall speed.



Any one of you scientist types care to take a run at it?


Any of you official story pushers want to step onto that snake in the grass?


You won't even try to explain it because you can't.


And just like the 9/11 commission, you will simply continue on and entirely ignore the 10,000 lb flaming, smoking gorilla in the middle of the room as if it was never even there.

The truth is coming friends



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Reactions aren't "eutectic." Low melting mixtures are eutectic.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


I love when anonymous kids pick apart a professional scientist from behind
their keyboard.

Would you like to debate Jones or not? We can set it up. I will also e-mail
him this evening and inquire about the "no air" test...as if it matters.

Did any of these excuse makers notice the chemical signature of the chips?

if it's not thermite...although it contains the correct ratio, and elements,
then WHAT the hell is it?

GenRadek, what is your theory? We have already ruled out paint chips.

Give us your best shot, and stick to your 'expert no dust sampled analysis"
so that we may ask Dr. Jones if your guess is plausible.





new topics
top topics
 
172
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join