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: 53
172
<< 50  51  52    54  55  56 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 03:10 AM
link   
Your theory is garbage and here is why...I can't believe I have to
explain this AGAIN:


Originally posted by mmiichaelTheory: Overheated overstressed steel beams in unusually designed buildings failed to support the structures which collapsed.


How does this explain the spheres? Do you realize that not even jet fuel
fires can produce enough heat to create the ball shaped nano-sized objects
in the dust?

When something falls to the ground and ruptures, it smashes into tiny
asymmetrical pieces, odd shapes and sizes. you DO NOT get perfectly
round balls!


With respect to steel: while using gravity as a force, achieving a perfect sphere after pieces of steel crash together toward earth is impossible.

The chips are manufactured. They are not produced naturally, and
certainlly not from a gravity collapse. Only a fool would believe this,
and try to support such a farce...let alone the perfect mix of elements
which have a signature like a known control sample of nano-thermite.


Attested to by a hundreds of thousands of pieces of evidence, forensic, visual, testimonial. 99% of the experts in relate fields worldwide concur.


Besides NIST, show me the balance of the 99% of experts that agree.
Please provide names, links, and references.

Your debate skills are poor at best.




posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Your theory is garbage and here is why...I can't believe I have to
explain this AGAIN:

How does this explain the spheres? Do you realize that not even jet fuel
fires can produce enough heat to create the ball shaped nano-sized objects
in the dust?

When something falls to the ground and ruptures, it smashes into tiny
asymmetrical pieces, odd shapes and sizes. you DO NOT get perfectly
round balls!

With respect to steel: while using gravity as a force, achieving a perfect sphere after pieces of steel crash together toward earth is impossible.

The chips are manufactured. They are not produced naturally, and
certainlly not from a gravity collapse. Only a fool would believe this,
and try to support such a farce...let alone the perfect mix of elements
which have a signature like a known control sample of nano-thermite.

Besides NIST, show me the balance of the 99% of experts that agree.
Please provide names, links, and references.

Your debate skills are poor at best.



Turbo,

You dismiss the Mackey input on the iron spheres out of hand, not even trying to counter his points. Few with specific scientific knowledge would even bother to address these outrageous Truther claims.

So much for the scientific method and peer review. You just turn a deaf ear to anything that conflicts with your belief system. Then you try to summarily dismiss the entire world of scientific research and documentation.

You idolize a handful of marginal performing academics because two or 3 of them have doctorates. In case you don't know, there is a world full of hundreds of thousands who are better credentialled specializing in the areas these guys claim knowledge of. Quite a few have looked closely at the unique scientific phenomenology that happened on 9/11.

If you're interested in the science behind 9/11 - do the homework. There's a ton of stuff out there. Be forewarned - very little is on video or talk down amateur websites.

If you want to remain in the conspiracy netherworld where carnival magicians do some hocus pocus for their audience with nebulous scientific jargon - feel free.

A second hand report of mysterious iron spherules on what to all appearances are paint chips is evidence of explosives? Try that one out with non flaky scientific types and see what they say.

For certain this will evoke outraged indignation, bluster, invective, and name calling. The one thing you excel at.

You really don't want to learn anything. Just be a member of the scientific wisdom boy's club. You have the hidden knowledge 9/11 was an inside job. You're a genius. A standard bearer of the great knowledge that will dethrone the King and bring a new era of Freedom and Justice to the Land.

Don't let it go to your head.

Be seein' ya.


Mike



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 04:04 AM
link   
Once again Mike, you fail to answer the questions...I'm not surprised.

Mackey's theory is just that - a theory. It has no backing, It's his opinion
and it doesn't even make sense!

He is basing his OPINION on the chance that welding slag can drift up
several floors and enter an apartment building. He is banking on the
chance that this same signature can float around and be sampled
hundreds of feet away.

Are you kidding me? You believe that?

Please explain how the welding slag gets into the apartment.

After that, please explain why the chips which are attached to the spheres
do not have zinc, or maganese if from the WTC.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 04:13 AM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


You come here spouting your education and worldly travels, you think this makes you a better person than the rest of us, whom in your eyes are a bunch of half baked f***wits fed purely on the BS that is anything to do with anti government smear campaigns in the guise of conspiracy theorists.

For someone who has travelled the world your knowledge and perception of governments leaves a lot to be desired, you can see by your posts that their hateful vendetta against the basically peaceful loving Muslims has had the desired affect, after all why would any normal Christian born and bred people want to speak out for them?, nutcases the lot of us, we sit here with tin foil hats on speaking of laser turkeys that shoot rays of death from their butts, that is us, like the Muslims, tarnished by those who you cast heart felt shows of honour and loyalty to, ofc anyone who stands against them are Heretics, burn them at the stake like the witches we are.

Is this the knowledge you so proudly speak of, that we should all adhere to as we learn more and be proud of?, ask yourself why politicians stand forth and want to be elected, the chosen one - with thoughts of making the world a better place, their inner desires to build more hospitals, schools, to solve third world poverty and so much more, guys like you think they actually do want this, and vote them in regardless.

But wait, where are their manifests of redemption gone, now they`re in power?, all their promises - vanished, replaced by the newly inherited pangs of power and corruptness that goes with the job, after all did not God make us in his image.... He who must be worshipped and obeyed by his followers, the power to destroy a world at his finger tips, rules to be strictly adhered to, one God to be idolised and followed - ring any bells?.

Watch this without prejudice, this is your governments, this is the way they work, this is how they fuel the hate campaign towards believers of other Gods, in this case Allah, this is an example of why the blind never challenge the hate war against the Muslims, watch it and tell me you are proud....

blandyland.com...

Call us what you want, deep down inside you should be grateful that there are still some of us left that face the mockery and scorn of GL`s, remember this... When the earth dies screaming, it wasn`t us that lit the fuse.

Sleep well.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Once again Mike, you fail to answer the questions...I'm not surprised.

Mackey's theory is just that - a theory. It has no backing, It's his opinion
and it doesn't even make sense!

He is basing his OPINION on the chance that welding slag can drift up
several floors and enter an apartment building. He is banking on the
chance that this same signature can float around and be sampled
hundreds of feet away.

Are you kidding me? You believe that?

Please explain how the welding slag gets into the apartment.

After that, please explain why the chips which are attached to the spheres
do not have zinc, or maganese if from the WTC.


The spheres are found in concrete. When the concrete is disrupted, the spheres are released. The spheres are found in flyash from powerplants. If the baghouses and ESP's don't get all of them, they end up in the environment. They are common.
As you may have noted, some of the analyses show Zn. I remember that one may show Mn. Jones says that these are merely contaminants and that we should ignore them because he wants us to. Why not? Paint formulations change over time, substitutes are used, some contractors may save money by using alternate paints. Basing the argument on a 40 year old paint spec is not rigorous.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh
reply to post by mmiichael
 

your knowledge and perception of governments leaves a lot to be desired, you can see by your posts that their hateful vendetta against the basically peaceful loving Muslims has had the desired affect, after all why would any normal Christian born and bred people want to speak out for them?, nutcases the lot of us, we sit here with tin foil hats on speaking of laser turkeys that shoot rays of death from their butts, that is us, like the Muslims, tarnished by those who you cast heart felt shows of honour and loyalty to, ofc anyone who stands against them are Heretics, burn them at the stake like the witches we are.

Is this the knowledge you so proudly speak of, that we should all adhere to as we learn more and be proud of?, ask yourself why politicians stand forth and want to be elected, the chosen one - with thoughts of making the world a better place, their inner desires to build more hospitals, schools, to solve third world poverty and so much more, guys like you think they actually do want this, and vote them in regardless.

But wait, where are their manifests of redemption gone, now they`re in power?, all their promises - vanished, replaced by the newly inherited pangs of power and corruptness that goes with the job, after all did not God make us in his image.... He who must be worshipped and obeyed by his followers, the power to destroy a world at his finger tips, rules to be strictly adhered to, one God to be idolised and followed - ring any bells?.

Watch this without prejudice, this is your governments, this is the way they work, this is how they fuel the hate campaign towards believers of other Gods, in this case Allah, this is an example of why the blind never challenge the hate war against the Muslims, watch it and tell me you are proud....

blandyland.com...

Call us what you want, deep down inside you should be grateful that there are still some of us left that face the mockery and scorn of GL`s, remember this... When the earth dies screaming, it wasn`t us that lit the fuse.

Sleep well.



That's quite a speech. I'm not American but watched the US get attacked in 2001. By people in the Muslim world who have admitted so.

In the microcosmic world of 9/11 conspiracy, to intimate that Muslims attacked the US is anathema. Often people like yourself deliver long condemning sermons.

I have no difficulty with people anywhere willing to live in peace. That should be apparent. But it is not the case for certain regimes, leaders, organizations. World politics are complex and no single group should be automatically exempt from responsibility. I only judge what I observe and make no blanket condemnations.

It would be pointless and this is not he forum for arguing with someone with your obviously singular views. You seem to think you have all the answers. What people think, and what they should think.


Mike

[edit on 12-8-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
The spheres are found in concrete. When the concrete is disrupted, the spheres are released. The spheres are found in flyash from powerplants. If the baghouses and ESP's don't get all of them, they end up in the environment. They are common.


Are you sure you know anything about chem?


They consist mostly of silicon dioxide (SiO2), which is present in two forms: amorphous, which is rounded and smooth, and crystalline, which is sharp, pointed and hazardous; aluminium oxide (Al2O3) and iron oxide (Fe2O3). Fly ashes are generally highly heterogeneous, consisting of a mixture of glassy particles with various identifiable crystalline phases such as quartz, mullite, and various iron oxides.


This is not the chemical signature of the spheres are per Jones and Harrit!

You also failed to describe how these spheres attach themselves to partially
reacted chips! For crying out loud "Pt", give your head a shake. You can't
even come up with a logical theory to support your belief...yet you brush
aside science that has been proven and answers ALL OF THE ABOVE and more.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 03:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan

Are you sure you know anything about chem?

This is not the chemical signature of the spheres are per Jones and Harrit!

You also failed to describe how these spheres attach themselves to partially
reacted chips! For crying out loud "Pt", give your head a shake. You can't
even come up with a logical theory to support your belief...yet you brush
aside science that has been proven and answers ALL OF THE ABOVE and more.


turbo,

Can we dispense with the insulting lectures and lofty appeals to science - which you seem not to even comprehend. You've had scientific explanations of the iron spherule phenomenon twice in the last couple days and dismissed them out of hand.

Usually your pompousness is amusing - after a while it become grating.

You'll probably never get it, but your academic whore buddies are trying to pull a fast one.

I wouldn't invest so much emotionally in their shaky science.


Mike

[edit on 13-8-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 04:29 AM
link   
Let's see, "Michael" comes back once again with nothing but OPINION.

Why do you fail to answer any of these questions? Let's have a look
and see what substance you bring to this debate:


Originally posted by mmiichaelturbo,

Can we dispense with the insulting lectures and lofty appeals to science - which you seem not to even comprehend.


This quote does not answer the problem about the spheres attaching themselves to paritally reacted chips, nor does it explain the chemical
composition to disprove nano thermite.


You've had scientific explanations of the iron spherule phenomenon twice in the last couple days and dismissed them out of hand.


Scientific? Not a chance. I've already explained why fly ash can't be
within the realm of possibility, and I've already explained why Mackey's
garbage doesn't make sense.

Furthermore, neither submission explains the IRON SPHERES ATTACHING
THEMSELVES TO PARTIALLY REACTED CHIPS!

Sorry that you're not educated enough to realize this. Please stop posting
nonsense, or at least consult with someone in the field before you do reply
in the future.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Turbo,
Given Jones predeliction for finding thermite, he is determined to find ever more. His entire experimental program is biased toward finding thermite and this is not the way to do science. He has shown his technical awkwardness with the selection of a hardware store solvent used to thin paint. He thought that it should dissolve cured paint. It didn't.
He ran the DSC in air, saw combustion and assumed it was reaction. It wasn't. Thermite reaction curves are much different that what he saw and depend on heating rate, sample size, and response times of the individual instrument. He assumed elemental aluminum when he was looking at kaolinite, a clay filler common in paint. This is why he could only publish in a Bentham vanity journal; no actual journal would accept such a poorly written paper.
He estimates ten tons of chips in the dust. Doesn't this raise a red flag? Ten tons of paint-thin material that didn't react sounds like paint and not a demolition component.
All of his claims are suspect because of his bad science. He is not disinterested but rather he is biased toward a specific result. That is why no one with any scientific training and ethics will believe his results. His next paper may be better, but I am not hopeful.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


I was just getting ready to post, wondering if someone has refuted this paper or tested some more samples to see/tell exactly what the chips are.

Reading your post, I'm thinking maybe you should take a shot at it. You seem to sound like you know enough about it.

I have to say though, for the obvious full throttle attack debunkers have been on lately, it seems strange that theres so little counter information available on this subject.

(My fault if a counter paper/article,etc has been linked to already but I haven't had time to read entire 50 page thread yet. Would appreciated being pointed in the right direction.)



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stillresearchn911
reply to post by pteridine
 


I was just getting ready to post, wondering if someone has refuted this paper or tested some more samples to see/tell exactly what the chips are.

Reading your post, I'm thinking maybe you should take a shot at it. You seem to sound like you know enough about it.

I have to say though, for the obvious full throttle attack debunkers have been on lately, it seems strange that theres so little counter information available on this subject.

(My fault if a counter paper/article,etc has been linked to already but I haven't had time to read entire 50 page thread yet. Would appreciated being pointed in the right direction.)



Sorry to answer a question not addressed to me directly.

Somewhere on this thread, or maybe the dozen sister ones on WTC demolition, links and excerpts to the Italian paper online by Manieri, and the deconstruction by Ryan Mackey have been posted.

As the Jones and Harrit papers have yet to be published somewhere that comes to the attention of experts in thermodynamics, structural engineering, demolition, etc - we have seen little feedback on their works. We're told the papers were peer review but await the feedback implied.

People you consider to be debunkers are just asking for solid impartial scientific evidence. That's how science works - building on what's confirmed, dismissing what is not.

Debunking means getting rid of bunk. There's a lot of it floating around in conspiracy circles, and few prepared to call it out. Truthers accept whatever fits their bill with few questions.

I see the deconstruction of self serving bad science as the real truth finally striking back.


Mike

[edit on 13-8-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 03:23 AM
link   
We need to squash posts by GL's such as Michael who continue to avoid
answering questions and cannot grasp the science presented.


Current questions to answer before dismissing the Jones/Harrit paper:

- What is the composition of fly ash vs. the summary shown of the spheres
in the thermite paper? Answering this question discounts fly ash as a possibility.

- How do the iron spheres attach themselves to the red/gray partially
reacted chips?

- Comparing the NIST paint specifications to the chemical analysis by
Jones/Harrit, as well as the DSC graph proves these chips are not
paint. Also see the point above which further falsifies the paint claim.

Age of the paint cannot explain point 2, or the DSC graph exhibiting a
narrow exotherm at high temperatures.

Last but not least the many witnesses, especially Barry Jennings point
directly to foul play.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
We need to squash posts by GL's such as Michael who continue to avoid
answering questions and cannot grasp the science presented.


Current questions to answer before dismissing the Jones/Harrit paper:

- What is the composition of fly ash vs. the summary shown of the spheres
in the thermite paper? Answering this question discounts fly ash as a possibility.

- How do the iron spheres attach themselves to the red/gray partially
reacted chips?

- Comparing the NIST paint specifications to the chemical analysis by
Jones/Harrit, as well as the DSC graph proves these chips are not
paint. Also see the point above which further falsifies the paint claim.

Age of the paint cannot explain point 2, or the DSC graph exhibiting a
narrow exotherm at high temperatures.

Last but not least the many witnesses, especially Barry Jennings point
directly to foul play.



Why don't we write tomorrows script while we're at it, turbo.

I'll say your questions have been answered and you just refuse to accept facts.

You'll say I know nothing about science. Then throw in some red herrings that someone has said disproves the paint conclusion.

I'll say you're being hoodwinked by underachiever con artists who throw around bunk science to the unsophisticated as a sideline business.

And it will start over.


Mike


[edit on 14-8-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
I'll say your questions have been answered and you just refuse to accept facts.


What? Refuse to accept the fact that fly-ash and the iron spheres have
different chemical signatures?

Do you even know the chem. signature of fly-ash "Michael"? If you did,
you couldn't possibly be serious.

I say your opinions are worthless as you cannot explain what you read,
or answer simple questions.

Come on "michael", reply with the composition of fly-ash. Show me
something other than ignorance for once.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 04:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan

Originally posted by mmiichael
I'll say your questions have been answered and you just refuse to accept facts.


What? Refuse to accept the fact that fly-ash and the iron spheres have
different chemical signatures?

Do you even know the chem. signature of fly-ash "Michael"? If you did,
you couldn't possibly be serious.

I say your opinions are worthless as you cannot explain what you read,
or answer simple questions.

Come on "michael", reply with the composition of fly-ash. Show me
something other than ignorance for once.



This a pissing contest?

Do you want to do a real time contest of scientific knowledge but with stuff completely outside your repository of Truther data bunk and instant Google facts?

Pick a time.


M



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 04:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
This a pissing contest?

Do you want to do a real time contest of scientific knowledge but with stuff completely outside your repository of Truther data bunk and instant Google facts?

Pick a time.

M



U2U your contact info. We'll get on the phone and do this. I'll be happy
to record it and post it for everyone to review.

Either that, or post the chemical composition of fly-ash and explain how
your feel it is similar to what Jones found.


You pick the method. I'll be checking my U2U, or waiting your scientific
reply.

[edit on 14-8-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 05:10 AM
link   
Originally posted by turbofan



U2U your contact info. We'll get on the phone and do this. I'll be happy
to record it and post it for everyone to review.

Either that, or post the chemical composition of fly-ash and explain how
your feel it is similar to what Jones found.

You pick the method. I'll be checking my U2U, or waiting your scientific
reply.




You can have my personal contact information. I would never consider performing for internet forums or be party to what I say or do in private being made publicly available. Part of the rules here.

I also don't discuss the composition of things like fly-ash - something only professional chemists familiar with building materials would have extensive knowledge of.

I stipulated real time discussion of real science. Not debating Jones claims. Scientific issues I'm prepared to discuss online as long as it's mutually agreed third party subject choices.


Mike







[edit on 14-8-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

You can have my personal contact information. I would never consider performing for internet forums or be party to what I say or do in private being made publicly available. Part of the rules here.

I also don't discuss the composition of things like fly-ash - something only professional chemists familiar with building materials would have extensive knowledge of.

I stipulated real time discussion of real science. Not debating Jones claims. Scientific issues I'm prepared to discuss online as long as it's mutually agreed third party subject choices.


Mike


You are quite the character "Mike". So I can't talk to you on the phone,
and you wont post why you belive fly-ash can be similar to what Jones/Harrit found?

Well, what do you suggest for a "live" forum then?


I'm on to you "Mike", you don't have to pretend any more. If you knew
the answer, you would have posted it pages and pages ago...if not NOW.


You don't need to be a scientist to know the difference between fly-ash
and the iron spheres as reported in the thermite paper.

In any case, please suggest your form of 'real time', 'live' debate so we
can finally get to the bottom of this.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Originally posted by turbofan



You are quite the character "Mike". So I can't talk to you on the phone,
and you wont post why you belive fly-ash can be similar to what Jones/Harrit found?

Well, what do you suggest for a "live" forum then?


I'm on to you "Mike", you don't have to pretend any more. If you knew
the answer, you would have posted it pages and pages ago...if not NOW.


You don't need to be a scientist to know the difference between fly-ash
and the iron spheres as reported in the thermite paper.

In any case, please suggest your form of 'real time', 'live' debate so we
can finally get to the bottom of this.


Sure turbo, ignore what is written in favour of pushing you agendas, as usual. You say I don't know anything about science and that you do. I'll debate scientific topics I have knowledge of but only when they involve demonstrably real science not someone's questionable claims.

You are determined to get some sort of ammunition for Jones like someone stating they're not sure on something he has said and turning that into inferred credibility. Is he that starved for attention? [LAUGH OUT LOUD]

No one wants to discuss his stuff because no one can tell when he and his cronies are providing properly derived data and when they are fudging it.

And frankly, no one with any self-respect wants to have their names associated with Jones-Harrit et al. Outside the Truther world they're a joke. To date no scientific journal treats their claims as anything beyond an odd footnote.

If you actually do want to debate real science, not rehashes of controlled demolition speculation trying to pass as science, let me know.


Mike


[edit on 14-8-2009 by mmiichael]



new topics

top topics



 
172
<< 50  51  52    54  55  56 >>

log in

join