Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 5
172
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by P1DrummerBoy
 


Excellent Post!

We now have a means to debate and discredit Jones directly without filing
a peer reviewed paper.

It's time for all of the clowns to step up and either debate Jones, or crawl
back in their corner.

There is no reason to believe any of these kids - They haven't tested the
dust samples and they cannot form a theory for an alternate 'product' which
satisfies:

- nano sized particles
- correctly mixed ratio of elements
- chemical signature of a form of thermite
- energy release greater than a control sample of nano-thermite
- iron-rich spheres (some still attached to unreacted chips)

It's time to separate the men from the boys. Trebor, GenRadek and Pterdine
have all shot off without proof. Do any of you want to step up and challenge
Jones?

The stakes are higher now. I'll put up $500.00 via paypal
if anyone of you can successfully win your case.

Any takers?

[edit on 3-6-2009 by turbofan]




posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by BlackOps719
 


I would be amazed if any of the OS believers even bother to answer your question.


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.

There is no science that supports the OS. If the debunkers want to use NIST let them, it has been proven false. The NIST report cannot stand up to real science.

It is simple, just using logic, a few firers on several floors could not bring a 47 story building down, breaking every floor joist on every corner of the building simultaneously, THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE! Scientifically impossible.

If the debunkers go with the theory that one of the WTC debris fell on WTC 7, then I have yet to see any of the evidences that supports this claim and furthermore, I have not ever seen a photo of this allege gash in WTC 7.


THE OFFICIAL COLLAPSE STORY IS

NOW A PROVEN LIE!





[edit on 3-6-2009 by impressme]

[edit on 3-6-2009 by impressme]

[edit on 3-6-2009 by impressme]

[edit on 3-6-2009 by impressme]

[edit on 3-6-2009 by impressme]



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 10:00 PM
link   
I don't see a reason why people like us should resort to name calling about this issue. I'd like to understand the "hows and whys" of all of this but is that so important? The 2 results of 9/11 WAS the war on terror and the invasion of Iraq. Those are the obvious ramifications of that event. One also has to consider the considerable loss of "OUR" rights, as American citizens, that has been far more dramatic. Far too many people are distracted by those events and have lost sight of the FACT that this country has become a police state. Was that their intention all along?



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   
i was doing a search on "thermite 9/11" and this site came up... didnt get a chance to read it

www.debunking911.com...



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrShowBoat
didnt get a chance to read it


"Enuff sed"



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 



The stakes are higher now. I'll put up $500.00 via paypal
if anyone of you can successfully win your case.

Any takers?


It will not happened, because the lie of the OS will not stand up against Jones science furthmore, there is no creditable science that can support the OS and the DEBUNKERS KNOW THAT!
They have tried to beat us down, they have ridiculed us they have they have played every dirty game in the book, but SCIENCE PROVED THEM WRONG! It really feel wonderful to know we all fought so hard to PUSH THE TRUTH I knew our only weapon we had was science, because you can not lie around it. I have read some of the debunkers post who have tried, and all I can do is laugh at their desperation.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by MrShowBoat
 


That web site is nothing but someone’s OPINIONS
This web sit is full of DISINFORMATION! you should pick better reading material if you want people to believe in you.

www.debunking911.com...

It is nothing but someone spewing there anger towards Professor Jones ,because he has proven the OS a lie and the writer of that website just cant handle the truth.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 10:34 PM
link   
I couldn't sleep. I kept thinking about this thermite for three hours. Could not get to sleep for like three-four hours.

I couldn't sleep and then I had this idea, but I don't know if it's a good idea or a really stupid idea because I know nothing about construction or jet fuel.

But I just don't understand why it's so complicated. Why can't we just get some steel beams or trusses or some iron ones or whatever and throw flaming jet fuel at them and see if they melt?

The story is as I heard is they found a crap load molten metal at ground zero that shouldn't have been there because the fire wasn't hot enough. Well, is there anyway the Myth Busters
or somebody could just get ahold of some jet fuel or something and try to melt a crap load of metal?

If it doesn't melt we'll know the gov was full of crap. I'd be willing to donate some money for the test or whatever. If the story is the fires weren't hot enough to melt the support columns well it should be pretty easy to test. Put some weight on some steel. Throw some fuel at it and see if it collapses right?



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by P1DrummerBoy
 


Excellent Post!

We now have a means to debate and discredit Jones directly without filing
a peer reviewed paper.[edit on 3-6-2009 by turbofan]


Thanks. I have a quick question for you - what is the story with debating Dr. Jones? Is he publicly calling out anyone anywhere to debate him on his findings, or is it just something that you are requesting these debunkers to attempt? Is there a site that I missed to get more info?



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Excellent post,OP! S&F for you
I enjoyed reading all the debunker's explanations they seem to be grasping for straws now,it's kinda sad to see.I have read the papers and the science behind it is solid all that is needed is a test with out oxygen.I'm not surprised that Jones has been smeared the way he has it's what happens when you are dealing with various institutions who relies on Government funds.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Jones tested what? Something he claims is from the debris of WTC? The debris was picked up by an artist 7+ years ago?

Is there any way to verify that all the debris is only from WTC ?

Is there any way to verify nothing has been been added by the artist or Jones?

Is there any way to verify what Jones is testing came from the debris of WTC?

YES or NO sufficient answers to any of these questions.


M



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by tinfoilman
 


Well, UL already tried to deform structural beams with load and thermal
testing.

Guess what? They failed with all their might.


We shuoldn't have to prove anything more to these GL's. It has been
done. It's time to sweep their excuses under the rug and pass this
information along to friends, family and others.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

Jones tested what? Something he claims is from the debris of WTC? The debris was picked up by an artist 7+ years ago?

Is there any way to verify that all the debris is only from WTC ?

Is there any way to verify nothing has been been added by the artist or Jones?

Is there any way to verify what Jones is testing came from the debris of WTC?

YES or NO sufficient answers to any of these questions.


M



Again, just like I told your pal Gen, why dont YOU go email Dr. Jones and debate HIM??

If you want to question Dr. Jones' findings, GO ASK HIM. It's not the responsibility of anyone here to continue humoring your questions. Go ask Dr. Jones the EXACT questions you just posted above, and when you have your answers, bring them back here and share your findings with the rest of us...we'll all be more than happy to say "Told you so."

If you have nothing more to contribute to the thread, go away.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by P1DrummerBoyThanks. I have a quick question for you - what is the story with debating Dr. Jones? Is he publicly calling out anyone anywhere to debate him on his findings, or is it just something that you are requesting these debunkers to attempt? Is there a site that I missed to get more info?


Dr. Jones has already invited anyone to debate him on 9/11blogger.com

This recent challenge is my own and I'm willing to put up some money
to see how certain these GL's really can be against a seasoned pro
scientist...actually nine of them (plus those who reviewed!).



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Okay gotcha. Good call man. I'd LOVE to see any one of these guys ATTEMPT to debate a scientist. It's easy to sit behind a keyboard and throw ignorant opinions all over the place, but when it comes to put up or shut up, I notice thay they go into 'evade' mode, and ask more ridiculous questions. Pathetic.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 11:24 PM
link   
Star and Flag, my friend.

I am a little confused at the paint composition, as iron oxide is very heavily used in rust inhibiting primers, and the other elements/compounds that are noted would normally be used in protective coatings for other substrates. This leads me to thinking that the NIST report may have confused some data. If they are saying that zinc (a wonderful primer for plaster), chromium (used to make many paints white, and Magnesium (?) were used for iron rust inhibiting, there's something amiss. Personally, I'd use iron oxide based primers (as they do on soooo many bridges - which is why so many are red). I don't know the make up of the fire retardents used in the upgrades to the WTC, so I cannot comment there. Somehow, these ingredients don't immediately spring to mind. I'm speaking from experience in high performance coatings in Europe, so I have no expertise in the US on what is used. That said, I'd never recommend a zinc or magnesium for corrosion resistance. Good ol' Iron oxide is a tried and true rust inhibitor. I thought zinc only really worked for corrosion inhibition where galvanizing is used (the zinc sacrifices itself for the good of the iron).

I'm just thinking out loud here....

Regardless, the above correspondence does seem to indicate incredibly compelling evidence.

It's a shame that the OS is so "case closed" and not open to further discussion!

Well done for digging a little deeper than most. This is a perfect example of the "deny ignorance" motto.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 11:25 PM
link   
Well boys and girls, here is my latest message to Dr. Jones (we're on a
first name basis now
)


Dear Steven,

I realize you are a busy man, and do not have time to cater to everyone
in "internet land", however I have a suggestion/question:

There are many who still can't accept your study, and still cry about the
'oxygen' even after your explanation and other criteria supporting a
thermite signature.

How difficult would it be for your team to peform a DSC test without
the presence of oxygen?

Maybe this is something that can be added as a suppliment to your
paper?

In any case, thank you for your guidance and sincere replies.

Tino


I will post the response as always (it may take a couple of days).



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by P1DrummerBoy

Again, just like I told your pal Gen, why dont YOU go email Dr. Jones and debate HIM??

If you want to question Dr. Jones' findings, GO ASK HIM. It's not the responsibility of anyone here to continue humoring your questions. Go ask Dr. Jones the EXACT questions you just posted above, and when you have your answers, bring them back here and share your findings with the rest of us...we'll all be more than happy to say "Told you so."

If you have nothing more to contribute to the thread, go away.


I asked a basic question. Is there any way to tell if what Jones is testing actually came from WTC debris or if he's selected material that produces the results he wants?

You can't answer, I don't expect Jones to tell the truth if he's done a bait and switch. We still have open the question - how does anyone know where the material he is testing really came from.

But it is expected proper procedure and transparency doesn't count when it comes to Truther science.

Personal insults I can handle. Insults to my intelligence - No.

Nothing else to contribute to this thread.


Mike



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by P1DrummerBoy

Again, just like I told your pal Gen, why dont YOU go email Dr. Jones and debate HIM??

If you want to question Dr. Jones' findings, GO ASK HIM. It's not the responsibility of anyone here to continue humoring your questions. Go ask Dr. Jones the EXACT questions you just posted above, and when you have your answers, bring them back here and share your findings with the rest of us...we'll all be more than happy to say "Told you so."

If you have nothing more to contribute to the thread, go away.


I asked a basic question. Is there any way to tell if what Jones is testing actually came from WTC debris or if he's selected material that produces the results he wants?

You can't answer, I don't expect Jones to tell the truth if he's done a bait and switch. We still have open the question - how does anyone know where the material he is testing really came from.

But it is expected proper procedure and transparency doesn't count when it comes to Truther science.

Personal insults I can handle. Insults to my intelligence - No.

Nothing else to contribute to this thread.


Mike


Right..so you don't expect the SCIENTIST to tell the truth, but then, you are potentially willing to believe the members of this forum, who you already argue with?

Get real.

Insult you intelligence? Who did that? A little too sensitive I think. In any case, an intelligent person can see all the evidence that has been brought forward and CLEARLY see that the original story is BS.

Don't blame us man, you're the one who can't see the truth.

If you want to know the answers to your questions, go to ae911truth.org and watch their full 2 hour presentation. All your questions, and a lot more, will be answered there.

Of course, you wont watch it anyway, and as I stated earlier, when its time to put up or shut up, you become evasive.

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 

Turbo,
I already said that I would wait for the latest paper and critique it because it would be pointless to debate what has been published, so far.

Save your money for something important.





new topics

top topics



 
172
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join