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.
Originally posted by mmiichael
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.
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.
Originally posted by turbofan
Jones/Harrit/Farrer did not pull their assumptions out of a hat. They used precision equipment to analyse the particles and perform tests.
High power magnification, backscatter, DSC, etc. Guess what? It all
points to thermite because the SAME tests were used on a known control
sample and they MATCH.
Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
Did you not see the control sample analysis performed by an independent lab? Are you trying to say this test was fudged as well?
Once again you have replied without suggesting an alternative theory
to "Thermite". Where are all of your tests and results to support say...
"Fly-ash", or "Paint"?
I don't see any independent studies showing such a thing. What I do see
are two new scientists duplicating the results of Jones/Harrit/Farrer.
Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by mmiichael
You defend pteridine like you two are married. Actually I take that back because if you were married, you would probably have argued by now and so know exactly why I have him on ignore. You admitted yourself earlier you have had inclinations of being sarcastic, insulting, etc., but I never did put you on ignore.
I don't suppose he ever elaborated on why reproducing the theoretical mechanism that produced this crap at Ground Zero wouldn't work? If the answer is "no"... Enough said? Mr. Canoli even thought it was a reasonable idea to test your fracking theories.
If we just agree with you that there is a majority consensus at this point in time that the towers came down from fire and impact damages alone, could we just agree with that and leave it alone? You seem pretty candid about the fact that not everything is known, that we don't really know what this substance is, etc., etc., so why not just leave it at that? That we need more information, further investigation, but the majority of people at this time would probably not agree with these theories. Fair enough, right?
Originally posted by mmiichael
Wow, after all that righteous indignation - ad-hom rules.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by mmiichael
Wow, after all that righteous indignation - ad-hom rules.
So which sentence was the ad hom? Did I call you "insane"? The worst I can see is asking if you and pteridine were married. I'm all for gay marriage, too, so where is the ad hom my friend?
Originally posted by mmiichael
Ask Mr Canoli (love those Siciliano pastries) what he thinks of controlled demolition claims. He, pteridine, Genradek, and a couple others, consistently provide solid scientific input.
If you want to comment on what pteridine puts forward do it directly. This talking about someone you have on ignore is just petulant child behaviour. But typical.
Originally posted by bsbray11
I would appreciate it if you stopped trying to make a case for pteridine being a martyr on his behalf. Unless you two do have some kind of relationship, it's a personal thing between me and him, though you are apparently trying to use it as a way to attack me personally yourself. If he is REALLY posting hardcore evidence then all you have to do is mention it to me yourself and I will see it.
Originally posted by mmiichael
This talking about someone you have on ignore is just petulant child behaviour. But typical.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Remember, I only said the theory you guys are pushing can and should be tested with some of the time and energy going around by independent professionals. You don't honestly disagree with that do you?
Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by mmiichael
No, this is what I am interpreting as a personal attack:
Originally posted by mmiichael
This talking about someone you have on ignore is just petulant child behaviour. But typical.
Ie ignoring pteridine is "child behavior" and is typical of me. Not a personal attack to say I behave as a child? I suppose this is a documented fact and you are going to link me to a peer-reviewed paper?
So no, not a mood disorder. I don't get emotional at the keyboard, I am simply pointing out what you are doing.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Remember, I only said the theory you guys are pushing can and should be tested with some of the time and energy going around by independent professionals. You don't honestly disagree with that do you?
No comment?
Originally posted by mmiichael
Originally posted by bsbray11
No comment?
Comment. You disparaged pteridine's science yet admit you have him on ignore. Than you said something like "Are you two married. No, because you never fight."
Then you get insulted when I lightly upbraid you acting like a petulant child.
I don't want to go against the rules around here. I don't want to get angry. I don't want to say what I really think. Not on a public forum.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Do you or do you not need to prove something before you will spout it as fact?
Originally posted by mmiichael
Originally posted by bsbray11
Do you or do you not need to prove something before you will spout it as fact?
It comes down to the context.