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: 57
172
<< 54  55  56    58  59  60 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 12:23 AM
link   

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.


Your speculation is quite bold "Michael". 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?


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.


Are you kidding? 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.




posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


Well according to FEMA it was a liquid eutectic that formed on the columns. Your post is the first I have heard in my life of a corrosive gas attack on the steel. Have any references?



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


BS,
You are confused. Jones has to prove that the chips are thermite and not paint. He hasn't done that.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 12:39 AM
link   
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.

[edit on 20-8-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 12:45 AM
link   
I don't know if you guys have seen this yet. But its a pretty interesting interview with Neils Harrit, one of the Scientists involved with this thing.
www.youtube.com...

He talks about a lot of different things in here and offers some thoughts on the "paint" question as well.

The interview was outside of a restaurant or coffee shop in London.


EDIT: Just to add; here is a list of his publications in very well established Peer Review Journals going back to the early 70's, almost 60 or so.

Publications

[edit on 20-8-2009 by talisman]



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 12:49 AM
link   

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.



With all due respect, all we have to go on for now is the Jones crew reported results. And here's that word you don't like: FORENSIC. This is analysis of a past event, a crime scene in fact. Unique circumstances and combinations of chemistry and physics that can never be reproduced.

Two new scientists coming on board backing up those results? There are millions of people calling themselves scientists. A tiny percent support the controlled demolition scenario and are happy to lend their names. It beats obscurity.

A few not fully understood anomalies in no significant way undermines the vast amount of investigative scientific analysis performed by qualified experts. One may be able to quibble about certain details but not the enormous weight of consistency in their findings. An unique configuration of steel beams losing 50% of their support strength as they approach their melting point. Boom.

Tens of thousands of pieces of confirming evidence of this happening.
If there is equal or better proof of something else that caused those collapses, we still haven't seen it.

Mike



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


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?



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 01:07 AM
link   
I give up on PT and Michael. All these guys do is spin and complain, but
offer no alternative science to explain the chips.

If you want to man up and present a sceintific alternative to disprove
the paper, I'd be interested...otherwise just stop with the run-around.

Go grind up some drywall and office chairs in your home blender and
see what you get.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 01:08 AM
link   

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.



Wow, after all that righteous indignation - ad-hom rules.

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.

As Truthers swarm in packs one can only speculate on the basis of their relationships.

Ignore and deny are your operative words.


[Edit to add]


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?


This came in after the above sent.

What you've just said makes the best sense. We don't know what we don't know. Move on. Maybe get back to it when we have some more to go on.

Still lots of other questions that require better answers.

Mike



[edit on 20-8-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 01:29 AM
link   

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?



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 01:36 AM
link   

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?


Take this kind of ribbing as a sideways indication of respect rather than personal criticism.

Mike



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 01:49 AM
link   
Here is Harrit explaining the DSC experiment and NIST's Paint analysis.

"Michael" and "Pterdine" need to watch this and learn how it all works.

Some excellent logical and scientific replies to the "paint" theory in here.
Just try and pull that one again!


www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

Thank you Talisman for posting these links!



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 02:02 AM
link   
Aw, ok. So a "ribbing" is suggesting I've made ad homs when I haven't. Gotcha.


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.


Then what's the big deal about proving your theories? That's all I suggested for pteridine to apparently attack me. Attacked me for suggesting his theory be proven. Solid scientific input? Like I said, Canoli even agreed with me, and I say that not because I agree with anything else he says but because he is on your "side" of the argument. There IS no logical reason to attack me for suggesting that a theory should be proven. THAT is childish. 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?


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.


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.

[edit on 20-8-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 02:29 AM
link   

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.



At this point, with the incessant flipping back and forth on a dime, interpreting things as personal attacks, I can only assume you have some mood disorder problem.


Mike



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 02:37 AM
link   
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?



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 03:05 AM
link   

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?



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.

Yeah, you're out of line, Mr. Totally. Fill in the next sentence yourself.

Ignore what that you don't want to hear at your peril. Stick to science not personality analysis.

I imagine the mods will relegate this exchange to Cyber Purgatory pretty soon.

Good riddance.


M



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 03:15 AM
link   

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.



I meant a comment about pteridine suggesting you guys don't even need to prove your theories. Do you or do you not need to prove something before you will spout it as fact?

You don't have to call me a child at all.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 04:07 AM
link   

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.

This is a discussion thread on a conspiracy site. Little in the way of rigorousness, despite the affectations. Its as much conversation as data exchange.

When we narrow focus on something scientific and specific we try to supply a citation or reason for believing our assertions.

Serious scientific investigators throw around ideas with each other for feedback. We are sort of doing that here.

If we had to wait for independent validation on everything, and agree on the legitimacy of the sources, there wouldn't be much discussion.


Mike



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 04:13 AM
link   
"Mike",

You need to watch these videos before you reply. Lots of good info
in there for you to learn. If nothing else, at least watch the first one
so you understand the science you are trying to disprove:

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

'Aint Niels just a bit smart?



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 05:20 AM
link   

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.


No, it doesn't. Did you even read what I said? If you are going to spout it as fact, then YES, you DO need to prove it. Fact = proven.

Can you speculate? Sure. Can you throw out whatever ideas pop into your head? Sure. Does that equate to "debunking"? No.



new topics

top topics



 
172
<< 54  55  56    58  59  60 >>

log in

join