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: 56
172
<< 53  54  55    57  58  59 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
Becoming more concerned with objective truth as opposed to reinforcement of what appealed emotionally.


That's funny because I'm usually the one trying to argue objective information over deference to "expert opinion," like we are perpetually arguing about. Or in worst case scenarios, simply saying "it's too complicated; I can't figure this out myself." If it were just me, the only names brought up would be brought up for reference alone and all of their information would be taken as if the authors didn't even exist. So you catch all that? If you want to agree with me that obsessing over facts, data, and pure information is best, that that is literally objective data, next time something Jones published comes up, the first I see in response should not be "Jones is a quack," or anything to that extent, right? But instead, something about any mistakes made in the paper, for example. Right? Will I have to post this again in the future as a reminder?

And I also make it a point, and have for years, to cut back on my emotional attachments to anything, as per Buddhist philosophy. So I am aware of how attached I am to the things I post. Similarly it has made me more aware of others' intentions per their desires and what is apparently important to them.


The whole 9/11 phenomenon is fascinating.


What is fascinating to me is how there are so many people on this world, who think no one else is like them. Who think they must be amongst the few to possess an intellect, or know how to use it. That everyone who doesn't share their opinion on any given issue is simply wrong, and stupid. It's also interesting to me all the things people will think up to cover holes in their ideas as they happen to appear. It apparently happens automatically in humans.


But we're only too human. A lot of us tend to think with our gut rather than our heads. Works as a form of catharsis, but not for learning anything new.


Mike


Coming from a response to sticking to objective data and cutting back on 'ad hom', is this just your funny way of apologizing for all the other 'ad homs' you make, or could you really just not help yourself?

[edit on 18-8-2009 by bsbray11]




posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 11:27 PM
link   




I think a lot of the miscommunication we see is a matter of stylistic approach rather than disagreement. I think of you as someone pushing points further than they merit for the sake of attention. You see me in a different but equally negative characterization. With people you know well, you can dismiss this type of disconsonance as someone being excessively inflexible sometimes. With strangers one gravitates to irritation and dismissal of their information.

In face to face situations I often just look at someone, say "Let's have a truce," proffer my hand, and then reboot a discussion. Not so easily done in cyberspace.

There's a severe misunderstanding of my perceived deference to authority.
I have my own network of friends and associates who have plumbed the 9/11 depths far more than the hobbyist who proliferate these boards. People of all political stripes, generally non-mainstream and critical of accepted wisdom and nstitutionalized thinking. You'd be surprised at the number of radicals and renegades in academic circles.

I don't take their collective word on everything. But having a loose 'think tank' available is useful when you get to information impasses.

Long before I even knew of ATS I put the world out on Prof Jones, wondering about whether he was for real or not. I got back a consensus opinion on his scientific claims. With plenty of detail and elaborations the answer was "Quack, quack, quack." Nothing I have seen has swayed my opinion. This has been reinforced by the weaknesses of his claims pointed out and what I see as his obvious playing to an undiscriminating audience who accept his pronouncements without question.

There is a critical path to looking at 9/11. One has to be able to say the accepted thinking in some areas makes sense and is supported by hard evidence. And one has to also acknowledge there are questions that aren't answered properly. It seems the obvious approach, but there is such a strong tendency to remain firmly in one camp or the other. There are few who remain in the neutral corner.

A conspiracy site tend to attract the dissidents. And we see people as firmly embedded in the naysayer camp as we do in Fox Network. In their own way they are as brainwashed and as much disinformation agents as the prole they criticize.

I'm pretty hard on them. I think they deserve it.

More I could say but have gone on long enough. I appreciate you willingness to meet me in a neutral corner. Hopefully we can benefit mutually on new insights and information exchanges.


Mike



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
Long before I even knew of ATS I put the world out on Prof Jones, wondering about whether he was for real or not. I got back a consensus opinion on his scientific claims.


This is the crux of the very difference between you and me.


With plenty of detail and elaborations the answer was "Quack, quack, quack."


So I take that to mean that you are going to just resort to ad hom again the next reference to any of his work you come across. You still have a few other scientists to get some dirt on, though, unless you just want to go with "they associate with Jones," therefore etc. You have to be consistent in your fallacious logic.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by mmiichael
Long before I even knew of ATS I put the world out on Prof Jones, wondering about whether he was for real or not. I got back a consensus opinion on his scientific claims.


This is the crux of the very difference between you and me.


With plenty of detail and elaborations the answer was "Quack, quack, quack."


So I take that to mean that you are going to just resort to ad hom again the next reference to any of his work you come across. You still have a few other scientists to get some dirt on, though, unless you just want to go with "they associate with Jones," therefore etc. You have to be consistent in your fallacious logic.


If you want to look for hat you consider ad-hom attacks in whatever I post I can't stop that.


I don't take the trouble to analyze patterns in your messages pointing out repeated fallacies, prejudices, fixations, etc. Bringing attention to them will not further our knowledge of the chosen topic.

My ego isn't that frail that this tactic will boost it.

I can call Jones a quack as he has set himself up as an authority actively seeking public attention. There are laws in the US that allow for satire and ridicule of public figures.

Jones I would say deserves the ridicule based on his knowingly attempting to exploit a susceptible sub-culture with pseudoscience.

IF you want to find fault in me for doing so you can.

I think this digression has gone on long enough, particularly as we've had a warning from the mods on degenerating to personal attack as opposed to addressing the topic of the thread.

Which is "Yep, It's Thermite! So Much for the "Oxygen" Excuse." One could call that an ad-hominem attack on someone who discussed the oxygen problem in another thread. But whose enumerating ad-hominem attacks?


Mike


[edit on 19-8-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
I can call Jones a quack as he has set himself up as an authority actively seeking public attention. There are laws in the US that allow for satire and ridicule of public figures.


I never said you couldn't, but actual data should take priority, like you just said earlier. So I am saying in the future I theoretically shouldn't see you responding to any references of Jones with just an ad hom, based on what you just said. Out of intellectual respect for the people you are talking to, you can at least discuss the data with the same number of words you would spend ranting. We skip the rants anyway man, you must think you are preaching to your absent choir.


Which is "Yep, It's Thermite! So Much for the "Oxygen" Excuse." One could call that an ad-hominem attack on someone who discussed the oxygen problem in another thread. But whose enumerating ad-hominem attacks?


Ad hom is directed at an individual, not an idea.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
actual data should take priority, like you just said earlier. So I am saying in the future I theoretically shouldn't see you responding to any references of Jones with just an ad hom, based on what you just said. Out of intellectual respect for the people you are talking to, you can at least discuss the data with the same number of words you would spend ranting. We skip the rants anyway man, you must think you are preaching to your absent choir.



All your points are are well taken.

As for "we" skipping the rants. Well I could add "we" skip the posturing displays of free-thinking rugged individualism.

We always have to make allowances for different personalities. It colours otherwise tedious straight data transfers. And after enough data accumulates, someone has to step back sometimes and say "what do we have here?"

Live and let live.


Mike



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 06:12 AM
link   
You know what I'd finally like to see after 56 pages of excuses?

Some valid theories, and references.

You say Jones/Harrit are wrong, but you can't explain the science!

You can't answer my questions. WHat good is a reply and trying to
put down the thermite paper if you don't have have an alterantive
and cannot explain what you are seeing?

Come on guys? The DSC trace compared to a known nano-thermite
outperforms said substance.

The chemical signature of the chips compared to a known nano-thermite
is near identical.

The behaviour of the before and after reacted chips shows iron rich spheres
which is common for such a reaction.

Samples of dust revealved partially reacted chips with iron spheres attached.

What possible theory, or alternative can Mike, or Ptredine present that
satifies all of the above?

To this day NONE have been put forth. Not even your referenced links
provide a reasonable explanation.


[edit on 19-8-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Turbo-- Because you are scientifically oriented, please explain the increased total energy of the red chips over thermite, as seen in fig 30 of Jones Bentham paper.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


I don't have the paper in front of me at the moment, but I'll assume you
mean the comparison trace of the known sample vs. chip DSC graph?

If so, the total energy available per unit of mass is likely due to a more
efficiently engineered particle(s) which allow a rapid and total reaction
due to their smaller size. It may also have a more perfect ratio of
elements to ignite the mixture than the control sample.

As I learned in chemistry and working on performance cars, combustion
of fuel decreases in duration as the atomized fuel droplets mix with the
proper amounts of air (called stoich. ratio). The atomization (finer, smaller
fuel droplets) create a larger surface area from the same injected quantity
to react with more oxygen.

This is not unlike the smaller nano sized particles and well matched elements
in the chip reacting to create higher energy.

If you are not satisfied with that explanation, I can try getting a reply from
Dr. Jones instead.

[edit on 19-8-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 11:07 AM
link   
I'm not clear what the issue is with the iron spherules.

Their size, state, dispersion. Is it certain they are all pure iron and not another metal? Has it been ruled out they may be from the iron oxide in a primer? Or that they were thrown off from when the steel beams were being cut with welding torches in the clean-up?

Is the implication they are from steel that was melted by nanothermite?


Mike



[edit on 19-8-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


No, it's the graph on page 27 showing energy per unit mass and unit volume for a series of energetic materials and for the red chips, as determined by his DSC experiment. Two of the chips show less energy than thermite and two show about 1.5 to 2 times the energy of thermite. He explains it by saying combustion of the organic matrix could have provided some of the energy because, nano or not, the chips are past the theoretical limit of the thermite reaction.

This is a strong argument for DSC in an inert atmosphere and validates the criticism of running DSC in air.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Come on guys? The DSC trace compared to a known nano-thermite
outperforms said substance.


So all someone has to do is throw together a bunch of stuff (drywall, paint, whatever else), expose it to a certain temperature, and see if they can recreate the substance in question. Then we would have a simple and easy proof that this stuff can just form readily on its own, without human aid. Or find a paint that suddenly gives off a burst of energy greater than nano-thermite.

It obviously has at least a similar chemical make-up to known types of thermite, and can apparently do the same job and better, so for any purpose thermite could theoretically be used for, this stuff seems like it would be a smarter choice. Which says a lot either about thermite and nano-thermite (ie how useless they are, which I doubt considering Los Alamos' and the DoD investigating them in great depth and being able to even use it as a rocket fuel), or about the denial of what this substance really is and how engineered, not random, it is.


Anyway, if we are going to keep wasting so much time and energy about this, why not just throw all the crap together, burn it, and see if you can't reproduce it naturally? If someone can rent machines for such and such chemical analysis and all that, surely they can buy the said materials and just burn them together in a furnace or something?

[edit on 19-8-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Anyway, if we are going to keep wasting so much time and energy about this, why not just throw all the crap together, burn it, and see if you can't reproduce it naturally? If someone can rent machines for such and such chemical analysis and all that, surely they can buy the said materials and just burn them together in a furnace or something?


This is beyond you, BS. Stick to logical fallacies, "or something."



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by bsbray11

Anyway, if we are going to keep wasting so much time and energy about this, why not just throw all the crap together, burn it, and see if you can't reproduce it naturally? If someone can rent machines for such and such chemical analysis and all that, surely they can buy the said materials and just burn them together in a furnace or something?


This is beyond you, BS. Stick to logical fallacies, "or something."


Since I'm the resident moron, can you explain to me why he is wrong?

If everyone says that this stuff is natural, or at least not engineered, than surely we should all be able to take some wood, concrete, paint, etc, throw it in a barrel, light it up, and get the same dust from the WTC.

Im not trying to be a smart ass either. I think he has a point.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by P1DrummerBoy
 


I have pteridine on ignore so I don't even have to bother considering whether or not to honor remarks like that with a response.

Objective science is all about being able to reproduce something, to demonstrate a theory. Otherwise all you have is the theory itself, which is nothing. You can say this stuff formed naturally in the debris, or it was paint, or what have you, but then so you should be able to prove that for your theory to have any legitimacy. Because for one thing, we don't really know the sources of the material or how feasible it would even be to get such tiny particles of sulfur from drywall, etc. No references. These are tiny particles that have penetrated the grain boundaries of the steel and formed a eutectic reaction inside them, according to FEMA's appendix C, and they say themselves that this penetration by such small particles is exactly what caused the reaction to be as corrosive as it was. This should be a no-brainer for any one of who you has honestly studied the DoD applications of nano-energetics. Nano-sized particles have more common surface area than coarser particles and react more energetically.

I have seen 0 evidence so far for any theoretical way sulfur would be extracted in such small particles from drywall. Is it possible? Who the hell knows? That's why I'm saying you people should crush up some drywall, whatever obvious explanation you think there is for it, throw some paint on it and whatever other chemicals you want for good measure, any way you want to try it really, and put it in a furnace or something. And see how long you have to do this before you get anything even resembling a nano-thermite compound, please. If it sounds ridiculous it's because this explanation of chance formation sounds ridiculous. It's not my theory so until someone actually does something like this, I'm not worried about it, because in my educated opinion nano-sized particles of sulfur don't have a reasonable way to come out of the drywall without all the other constituents coming with it in the correct ratios. Ie drywall dust, not a compound resembling thermite. There is a difference. Or to form the proper mixture with iron, copper, and the other major ingredients in the eutectic mixture FEMA studied.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I have pteridine on ignore so I don't even have to bother considering whether or not to honor remarks like that with a response.


Wow. Can't believe you're talking about chemical composition in the WTC soup here yet choose to ignore pteridine's contributions. He's the one supplying reliable chemistry.

Just supply your own ad-hominem attack. And put me on ignore too.

This stuff has been gone over by people who do know what they're talking about and looked at the data accumulated.


goldismoney.info...
Jones makes much of finding "uncommon chemical elements in abundance", however we can't help but wonder why this is any surprise. The destruction of more than 250 floors of office building, and subsequent fires burning for months might surely be expected to produce many different chemicals. And sure enough, that’s exactly what it did.

A USGS survey, for instance, listed the following major elements that it discovered in samples of WTC dust: Silicon, Calcium, Magnesium, Sulfur, Iron, Aluminum, Carbon (organic and carbonate), Sodium, Potassium, Titanium, Manganese, and Phosphorus. Four of these are flagged by Professor Jones as possible indicators for thermate (Sulfur, Potassium, Titanium, Manganese), yet the authors of this study don’t seem to require any special explanations for them at all.

The total element compositions of the dust samples reflect the chemical makeup of materials such as: glass fibers (containing silicon, aluminum, calcium, magnesium, sodium, and other elements); gypsum (containing calcium and sulfate); concrete and aggregate (containing calcium and aluminum hydroxides, and a variety of silicate minerals containing silicon, calcium, potassium, sodium, and magnesium); particles rich in iron, aluminum, titanium, and other metals that might be used in building construction; and particles of other components, such as computers, etc. Organic carbon in the dusts is most likely from paper, wallboard binder, and other organic materials.

The trace metal compositions of the dust and girder coatings likely reflect contributions of material from a wide variety of sources. Possibilities include metals that might be found as pigments in paints (such as titanium, molybdenum, lead, and iron), or metals that occur as traces in, or as major components of, wallboard, concrete, aggregate, copper piping, electrical wiring, and computer equipment. Further detailed SEM studies of dust and beam coating samples are needed to develop a better understanding of the residences of metals in the samples. A detailed review of the materials used in construction, and the elemental composition of materials commonly found in office buildings would also be useful to understand more completely the potential sources and compositions of the materials in the dusts.

pubs.usgs.gov...

And another takes a similar approach:

The levels of many of the elements are consistent with their presence in building materials, including chromium, magnesium, manganese, aluminum, and barium. The very high levels of titanium (> 0.1%) were due to their presence in paint, especially white paint. The lead levels are elevated due to the use of lead-based paint on metallic surfaces during construction of the building. The detected lead dust concentrations were lower than would be found outdoors in older cities affected by tailpipe emissions from leaded gasoline...

www.ehponline.org...

Neither study involved analysing metal samples, so can’t be directly compared with that part of Professor Jones research, but still, this does illustrate that many of these elements aren’t as uncommon as might be suggested. And is seems there are other possible sources at the WTC site.



M

[edit on 19-8-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Because for one thing, we don't really know the sources of the material or how feasible it would even be to get such tiny particles of sulfur from drywall, etc. No references. These are tiny particles that have penetrated the grain boundaries of the steel and formed a eutectic reaction inside them, according to FEMA's appendix C, and they say themselves that this penetration by such small particles is exactly what caused the reaction to be as corrosive as it was.



See, now THIS is a reasonable question.

To my understanding of the situation though, plastics, carpet, wood, etc, contain elemental sulfur. The burning of these produce sulfur containing gases.

So it's not "particles" that peneltrated, but gases.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


But what Jones found was a very specific composition, right? Even if all the elements in his samples were also found is various item within the WTC, they wouldn't magically come together in this very precise composition would they? What am I missing here..?

Also, I don't think that anything you posted is able to explain the nano sized spheres. Maybe I should quit thinking..?

Just curious.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11...Objective science is all about being able to reproduce something, to demonstrate a theory. Otherwise all you have is the theory itself, which is nothing...


Forgot to touch on this. Bsbray brings up another good point here. Turbo has posted in another thread (or maybe it was this one...??)the fact that other scientists, from two different parts of the world if I remember, have duplicated Jones' tests with the same results.

I'm curious as to the thoughts on that. Do you guys think these scientists, or whatever they are, are also liars/shills/loonies/etc.?

If the science has been duplicated, I really don't see what the argument is.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by P1DrummerBoy
reply to post by mmiichael
 


But what Jones found was a very specific composition, right? Even if all the elements in his samples were also found is various item within the WTC, they wouldn't magically come together in this very precise composition would they? What am I missing here..?

Also, I don't think that anything you posted is able to explain the nano sized spheres. Maybe I should quit thinking..?

Just curious.



Never quit thinking.

I expect this will routinely get savaged by the angry mob.

We're not sure whether there are really engineered nano particles in the Jones Boys samples or they are just trying to quantify them as such. It looks more like the latter.

There are highly specialized nanothermitic compounds in development around 9/11. There is an appeal to mystery and intrigue that these were secretly used by the government to bring down the towers.

Despite relatively high energy yields and enhanced functionality of these materials, we still are talking about thin chips that don't seem to be capable of much in the way of explosiveness.

And there remains the same problem of complete lack of supporting evidence for any controlled explosions.

Hope this explains things a bit better.

Mike



new topics

top topics



 
172
<< 53  54  55    57  58  59 >>

log in

join