Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 6
172
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Mike, how do we know it is really you typing in your replies and not your twin sister? How many fingers am I holding up?50


Everything you read on the net can be doubted with the same logic you pose. It takes a while for the data to add up. Should we believe everything? Of course not. That kind of blindness is for ardent Fox News fans.




posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


as you utterly failed to comprehend what i wrote , why bother ?



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by P1DrummerBoy
 


I love your direct, no BS approach to debating...kinda brings a tear to my eye.


Ptredine has officially declined the challege and opportunity to discredit
Dr. Jones on the basis of, "there's nothing worth debating in the latest
paper."



Jokes man, just jokes.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
i have an obvious question - for the proponents of this ` nano thermite claim ` - how the heck did the ` nano thermite ` survive the fire , collapse - post coloapse continuted fire - post collapse application of fire fighting water , post collapse rain etc etc

i have personal experience of the use of " thermate " tm the commercial welding product - and its very VERY sensetive to ` sloppy handling / storage degredation `

leaving the lid off a 500gms container for a bank holiday weekend caused marked reduction in preformance

given that the ` nano thermite claim ` specifies grain size far smaller than any in commercial use - and oxidation rate is a product of syrface area / volume

then the notion that thier was identifiable nano thermite to test - strikes me as odd


What part of this post do i need to RE-ADDRESS, mr. Ape?

My reply on page 2 is more than sufficient to scientifically explain all
that you asked.

Please outline specific parts that I missed, or misunderstood.

thank you.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Jones promises a new paper that addresses the issues. It would be pointless to debate the paper he has out now if a new paper were about to be published, wouldn't it?
Why would you want to see the excuse that he ran the DSC in air because the other guy did it? The other guy knew what he had; he didn't have to prove it. Jones doesn't know what he has and running it in air shows nothing. If it has any reactive properties, it has to be shown under an inert atmosphere. Compare the DSC of the real thermite with the red chips. Do they look remotely similar? Peak shape the same? Onset temperature the same?
Why would you want to hear some explanation of a conductivity test comparing paints? The real answer may be that they had a conductivity meter and nothing to do that afternoon. Because the chips were multi layered, the conductivity may not be of the red layer, alone.
Why do you want to hear about using MEK and not a better solvent? What happened to the FT-IR trace?
It will be a better discussion when more data is available and Jones will be able to better defend his work.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Jones promises a new paper that addresses the issues.


He does? Am I missing some recent news? First I have read/heard about
this.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by turbofan
 


Jones promises a new paper that addresses the issues. It would be pointless to debate the paper he has out now if a new paper were about to be published, wouldn't it?
Why would you want to see the excuse that he ran the DSC in air because the other guy did it? The other guy knew what he had; he didn't have to prove it. Jones doesn't know what he has and running it in air shows nothing. If it has any reactive properties, it has to be shown under an inert atmosphere. Compare the DSC of the real thermite with the red chips. Do they look remotely similar? Peak shape the same? Onset temperature the same?
Why would you want to hear some explanation of a conductivity test comparing paints? The real answer may be that they had a conductivity meter and nothing to do that afternoon. Because the chips were multi layered, the conductivity may not be of the red layer, alone.
Why do you want to hear about using MEK and not a better solvent? What happened to the FT-IR trace?
It will be a better discussion when more data is available and Jones will be able to better defend his work.



If what Jones is saying turns out to be true, will you change your opinion? I mean, what level of evidence is it going to take?

This is I believe something very important, but there are so many circumstantial things that a case can be made for black ops involvment in the whole 9/11 affair.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Another Vodka

Mike, how do we know it is really you typing in your replies and not your twin sister? How many fingers am I holding up?50

Everything you read on the net can be doubted with the same logic you pose. It takes a while for the data to add up. Should we believe everything? Of course not. That kind of blindness is for ardent Fox News fans.



Don't know about Fox News not having watched television in a decade.
I don't know what is true on the Internet. Not much on 9/11 sites I've seen.

Do know if you publish a paper stating you are doing a test on material found in the debris of WTC, the question immediately arises - how can we be certain it really is from the WTC and not been added in the 7+ years since.

What kind of scientist says "Hey ...you gotta trust me."

I'm amazed no one even brings up the most important question.

It will not be answered by anyone here, of course.


Mike



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


The point is just as valid as before. If in fact the methodology is as professional as claimed why does the good Doc not perform one more series in a oxy free environment. So simple it should be automatic. I have only had brief exposure to making thermite back in college chem and it is not a subtle substance. Even in our basic labs an oxy free environment was required for verification of a normal thermite reaction. Thermite is not hard to make, a little iron oxide (rust), aluminum,and a catalyst to start the reaction (we used magnesium strips with a drop of hydrocholric acid) So, it is not rocket science here. If you are in so good with the good Doc ask him to perform the one basic missing test that all early chem students perform to verify the compound. I am ready to accept good and complete data. But is is reasonable to ask for a complete evaluation before evangelizing the results as authoritative.

aside- I do remember its potency, I accidentally cracked the ceramic collection crucible and it fell through the lab table and made a 3 inch puddle in the cement floor. So if verified properly it could take down a building if it got to the support structures. As for placement, it could have been placed on (painted in this case) the superstructure and left for the planes to ignite upon impact. Jet fuel would probably work even better than magnesium for getting things started.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


How can anyone answer that question seeing that the premise is they do not trust the authorities that produced the materials for study?

It still does not excuse a incomplete evaluation.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 01:06 AM
link   
It's a very interesting idea, I don't understand the science well enough to judge if he is correct or not, it will be curious to see how many people get behind him, many of the 'experts' in the past making claims about 9/11 have not been taken too seriously. Jones seems sincere, but I will have to wait a few months, and see if mainstream science accepts his theories before I can really accept it though.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan

Originally posted by Fremd
reply to post by turbofan
 


So are we supposed to take your word for it that you contacted the scientist directly and that is his real legitimate response?

I'm not trolling here, i believe that it's a real good question.

For a group of people who say "open your mind" a lot of people in this thread seemed to have bought into your story without any evidence what so ever....


One only need to take 5 minutes to follow the links in the official post to
prove otherwise. Unless you believe I found the LRDR report; and the
forum where JOnes debates Nilsen?

Let's say I'm half psychic then, here are a couple of screen shots from myu
inbox:

procision-auto.com...

(large image, takes a while to load)
procision-auto.com...

Still want to derail and doubt? Why don't you take 5 minutes and drop
Stevie a line? Ask him the same questions I did...you know research...
and also ask him if he wrote "Tino" today.


pretty hostile there don't you think? For my two cents, anyone who's legit will bring their evidence and not get so defensive when it's requested.

I could come in there tomorrow and claim that George W. Bush emailed me personally, that wouldn't make it true. I could then delay my response so that i could create a phony email address and pretend that i was right.

Still wouldn't make it so.

The fact still remains that these scientific experiments you're talking about haven't been conducted in a fully scientific manner. they've been politicisized and destroyed. A purely scientific manner would be to perform the experiments without prejudice and without speculation. Do it in all ways, free of oxygen or whatever.

Personally, i think 9/11 was committed by a bunch of angry arabs...i subscribe to occam and his wonderful razor...but i'm still open to ideas.

i just ask for evidence when those idea's come to light.
Anyone who get's angry, defensive, and childish when i ask for those things, can very easily be ruled out as false.

No evidence = no credibility.

You might not be concerned with proving yourself or your story to me. But i, for one, would think that proving it to a skeptic who's only asking for proof would be quite easy....considering the possibility that this proof actually existed?

calling me names and attacking my credibility doesn't really do much for your argument.....

the fact that so many people starred and flagged your post on your word alone is proof enough that too many truthers don't require proof, just information that makes them feel good. I'll patiently wait for proof. I've read over everything you've posted and nothing proves anything yet.

Prove me wrong. If you're right, it shouldn't be too hard.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael


Do know if you publish a paper stating you are doing a test on material found in the debris of WTC, the question immediately arises - how can we be certain it really is from the WTC and not been added in the 7+ years since.

What kind of scientist says "Hey ...you gotta trust me."

I'm amazed no one even brings up the most important question.

It will not be answered by anyone here, of course.





Actually the provenance is the first thing discussed in the paper:


1. Provenance of the Samples Analyzed

for this Report In a paper presented first online in autumn 2006 regarding anomalies observed in the World Trade Center destruction [6], a general request was issued for samples of the WTC dust. The expectation at that time was that a careful examination of the dust might yield evidence to support the hypothesis that explosive materials other than jet fuel caused the extraordinarily rapid and essentially total destruction of the WTC buildings. It was learned that a number of people had saved samples of the copious, dense dust, which spread and settled across Manhattan. Several of these people sent portions of their samples to members of this research group. This paper discusses four separate dust samples collected on or shortly after 9/11/2001. Each sample was found to contain red/gray chips.

All four samples were originally collected by private citizens who lived in New York City at the time of the tragedy. These citizens came forward and provided samples for analysis in the public interest, allowing study of the 9/11 dust for whatever facts about the day might be learned from the dust. A map showing the locations where the four samples were collected is presented as Fig.
A map showing the locations where the four samples were collected is presented as Fig.


Page 2 from 25.

At some point you have to trust that what is being tested is genuine. You could doubt ANY result of ANY scientist on ANY matter or field, including forensics, where samples are used to prove a point . I mean, who's to say that the samples used are genuine?? I think it is telling that all samples sent in contained this matter. This is not the only scientist that got samples of dust so the phenomena has been reproduced independently.


[edit on 4/6/09 by Lebowski achiever]

[edit on 4/6/09 by Lebowski achiever]



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Fremd
 


What more would you like from me? Some cart wheels and a bag of chips?

I gave you screen shots of my damn inbox including the header with
date and time stamp.

I gave you the souces quoted in the e-mail that mirror word for word
what Jones stated in his reply to me directly.

I offered you to write Jones directly and ask him if he wrote "Tino".

Are you that damn lazy and hard up that you can't believe that Dr. Jones
replied to a message?

I've already proven myself to you. There's nothing more I need to show
with respect to Steven's message.

If you weren't so thick, I wouldn't have to be so harsh.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by cliffjumper68

How can anyone answer that question seeing that the premise is they do not trust the authorities that produced the materials for study?

It still does not excuse a incomplete evaluation.



The so-called authority, claims he was given a box of debris stored by an artist, if I recall, these past 7+ years.

Does Jones have a history of questionable procedure related to his WTC research?

His previous employers thought so.



www.bloggernacle.org...

[Brigham Jones] University is aware that Professor Steven Jones’s hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU’s own faculty members.

Professor Jones’s department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review. The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones.



M



[edit on 4-6-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by FremdThe fact still remains that these scientific experiments you're talking about haven't been conducted in a fully scientific manner.


Says the anonymous kid with his mighty internet account.


A purely scientific manner would be to perform the experiments without prejudice and without speculation. Do it in all ways, free of oxygen or whatever.


What is the point really? Do you understand that there are unreacted
traces of this thermite in the dust, along with reacted portions?

Do you understand that the oxide from the iron oxide has been used
in a chemical reaction and formed spherical balls of mostly iron?

How do you supposed the iron oxide was spent if not by chemical
reaction?

Do you understand that the known control sample also tested in
oxygen is less potent than these nano-sized chips?

What do you think these chips may be if not some form of thermite?

Do you understand that the chemical signature of these chips contain
similar elements to that of the known thermite sample?

How is this possible in a nano-sized particle due to a collapse of a tower?

Do you understand that these chips contain perfect ratios of each
element in order to produce an output which is more energetic than
the known control sample?

Again, how is this possible from a tower collapse?



Anyone who get's angry, defensive, and childish when i ask for those things, can very easily be ruled out as false.


Right...but anyone flapping their beak and avoiding the opportunity to
write, or debate Jones directly is more credible huh?




the fact that so many people starred and flagged your post on your word alone is proof enough that too many truthers don't require proof, just information that makes them feel good.


More like, truthers actually read and research links and don't live in denial.


I'll patiently wait for proof. I've read over everything you've posted and nothing proves anything yet.

Prove me wrong. If you're right, it shouldn't be too hard.


I've already proven that Steven Jones replied to me. If you don't believe
the screen shots, and links, then I can do nothing more.

If you're too lazy to write Steven at:

hardevidence@gmail.com

Then you're missing the big event to expose me as a liar.

Please, let's stay on topic now? Still no takers for the $500.00 challenge.

How typical.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 02:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Fremd
 



the fact that so many people starred and flagged your post on your word alone is proof enough that too many truthers don't require proof, just information that makes them feel good.


That is not proof enough! Most of these people who star and flag this post have been following 911 updates and simply do not believe in the OS fairytale. Just because you choose to ignore the facts in Jones report doesn’t mean it is wrong.


I'll patiently wait for proof.


What proof are you waiting for? Proof of what?


I've read over everything you've posted and nothing proves anything yet.


Maybe you need to reread it again, and try not to be so negative. You have to understand, getting the truth out is not easy, and it is hard for anyone to except the possibility that a part of our government might be involved.

Anyone who really sits down takes a few weeks, read the NIST report, then read Professor Steven Jones report, and then watch the videos from the News of the WTC exploding to bites. One would realize that the NIST report is a cover-up and it is base on phony science. Jones report “does fit the observation” of the WTC coming down, however, NIST does not.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 02:04 AM
link   
Thermite requires Sulpher and Aluminium to be present.

Guess what ?

United Airlines flight 175 had 4.5 tonnes of sulphur in it's fuel and 160 tonnes of aluminum.

Fancy that. All the ingredients needed for a thermite fire. Ah well there goes another conspiracy theory.

What a pity for all those people who wasted years of their life trying to prove a conspiracy.





[edit on 4-6-2009 by sy.gunson]



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by sy.gunson
Thermite requires Sulpher and Aluminium to be present.

Guess what ?

United Airlines flight 175 had 4.5 tonnes of sulphur in it's fuel and 160 tonnes of aluminum.

Fancy that. All the ingredients needed for a thermite fire. Ah well there goes another conspiracy theory.

What a pity for all those people who wasted years of their life trying to prove a conspiracy.


Yup, and all that sulphur and aluminum magically compacted itself into
nano-sized chips with perfect ratios along with iron oxide, barium, etc.



You loyalists kill me!

[edit on 4-6-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 02:19 AM
link   
reply to post by sy.gunson
 


Well, the WTC towers themselves had iron oxide and aluminum all over them, so according to you I guess they should have melted themselves.





new topics

top topics



 
172
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join