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

page: 65
172
<< 62  63  64    66  67  68 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


I have already explained the exotherm problem which really sinks the entire concept. It is paint until Jones can show thermitic reaction. He can do so by running the DSC under inert. If he doesn't, his next paper will be as sensless as this one and, once again, prove nothing more than "paint burns".

Please bring in the "Scholars" back up team to help you out. They might understand this point.




posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 12:42 AM
link   
Ptridine needs to explain the following to prove he is correct and Jones is a fool. These questions will continue to reappear until Pt. understands:


_____________________________________________________

Actually, no they will not

Terms and Conditions

There will be no Spamming

Thank you

Semper



[edit on 9/8/2009 by semperfortis]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


I have answered your questions several times over. You have not yet explained the discrepancy in thermal output nor have you explained how the DSC's of the chips are similar to the nanothermite sample. I can only conclude that you are unable to do so because the paper is indefensible and no thermite has been proven.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by turbofan
 


I have answered your questions several times over.


No you have not as they are not scientific, nor do they meet the criteria.

Your "paint" excuse has been excluded by several Ph.D.'s including Dr.
Frank Greening. Read here: zelikow.wordpress.com...



You have not yet explained the discrepancy in thermal output nor have you explained how the DSC's of the chips are similar to the nanothermite sample. I can only conclude that you are unable to do so because the paper is indefensible and no thermite has been proven.




yes, I have. Try reading page 64 , 3/4 down the page : posted on 7-9-2009 @ 06:57 PM



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


this was what you posted:
"Similar -
Narrow exotherm on both. Same test environments (IE: temp. ramp,
air flow). Both have low ignition points (unlike paint)."

The same test environments are a requirement for comparison but are not indicative of similar traces.
Different onset temperatures, different curve shapes, different ranges of reaction. Not similar.

It still is paint until Jones proves otherwise.

[edit on 9/8/2009 by pteridine]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



Jones is no fool. He has an agenda and a goal and is working toward that goal.


What goal would that be?


His science is suspect and his interpretation of chemistry is faulty, maybe purposely.


Then why don’t you do your own thesis to debunk Jones papers aren’t you qualified?


I didn't intend to prove him a fool, I intended to show that his paper does not show what he says it does and I have.


Well again, instead of hanging around a conspiracy web site, you need to get off your behind and prove to the world that Jones science is wrong. A lot of good you are doing here. There is no excuse if you are right, people with money will back you up.


but he hasn't snookered most scientists.


See I have a problem with this statement because, I have not seen any real scientist dispute Professor Jones Thermite paper yet. Who are these scientists that professor Jones has not snookered? Names and sources please?


The spheres are of mixed, unknown compositions and are not evidence of thermitic reaction.


They’re not? YOU do not have any of the samples, or the equipment to run the test that Jones has. How are you able to determine no Thematic reaction without having a lab and Jones’ sample?


They are attached to the remains of the chips because as the chips burn, they likely melt. Sphere formation is not diagnostic of anything but heat and we don't know if that heat arises from thermitic reaction or combustion. Thermitic reaction is the first thing that must be shown.


(likely melt) either they melt or they do not melt which is it?


we don't know if that heat arises from thermitic reaction or combustion.


Where did that kind of heat come from if not from the Thermite? What other combustion reaching those temperatures occurred at WTC?

Without proof of the heat coming from any source other than Thermite, you cannot disprove Jones work.


[edit on 8-9-2009 by impressme]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
Then why don’t you do your own thesis to debunk Jones papers aren’t you qualified?


Read through the thread before commenting further.

Repeatedly demontrated, a chocolate bar would produce more energy by weight than the tested red chips.

Jones is making a singular controversial claim with political implications. There's an inbuilt audience of gullible Truthers.

Dozens of science forums and sites have exposed his failure to prove anything beyond bad science and heated paint chips.

M



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 05:30 AM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


BS!

Besides, how many chocolate bars have the chemical composition, backscatter, DSC characteristics,
and resemble the images under high power magnification .

Just like a GL to pick on one aspect and forget the rest. Seems like
you need to re-read the paper Mike.

As challenged many pages ago, please sign up on the science debate
and tell Harrit / Jones they are wrong.


Come on , you'll be the first and my $1000.00 still stands!

[edit on 8-9-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


"Where did that kind of heat come from if not from the Thermite? What other combustion reaching those temperatures occurred at WTC?

Without proof of the heat coming from any source other than Thermite, you cannot disprove Jones work."

I do not intend to disprove anything. I have shown that Jones' conclusions are invalid based on his current experimental work.
The temperatures are reached in a DSC not the WTC. The DSC was run in air and the binder combusted. Because Jones does not know the chemistry of the spheres he cannot know what temperatures were required to form them. Based on Jones data [fig 30], combustion must have been part [or all] of the heat output. Jones has to run the DSC under inert to show how much, if any, was thermite. Until he does, he has only proved paint.
Do you understand, yet?



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by mmiichael
 


BS!

Besides, how many chocolate bars have the chemical composition, backscatter, DSC characteristics,
and resemble the images under high power magnification .

Just like a GL to pick on one aspect and forget the rest. Seems like
you need to re-read the paper Mike.

As challenged many pages ago, please sign up on the science debate
and tell Harrit / Jones they are wrong.


Come on , you'll be the first and my $1000.00 still stands!


Turbo,
Where are the Scholars that are coming to help you? Are they avoiding debate? You are really lost with this science stuff. I have shown you the sins of Jones, et al., many times and you still don't get it or are in denial. You should stick to the PffT stuff about fake planes and invisible Pentagon flyovers. You can fake that a lot easier than trying to fake technical knowledge.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Could you please link me to any peer reviewed papers that debunk what you have said. Could you please link me to any peer reviewed paper or for that matter any site at all that shows an msds sheet that says there are microscopic pieces of aluminum in the paint they manufacture? Becasue even if you find a way to explain the iron spheres and how they got into the paint chips, the aluminum hasn't been explained yet, and if you cant explain that it still does not qualify as paint.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
Could you please link me to any peer reviewed papers that debunk what you have said. Could you please link me to any peer reviewed paper or for that matter any site at all that shows an msds sheet that says there are microscopic pieces of aluminum in the paint they manufacture? Becasue even if you find a way to explain the iron spheres and how they got into the paint chips, the aluminum hasn't been explained yet, and if you cant explain that it still does not qualify as paint.



I've supplied many links to sites and pages in this thread. Please check the archives.

Just checke words like Jones + thermite + debunking on Google.

Ryan Mackey of NASA has done the most thorough job. A whole paper somewhere.

There are loads of other places
This one, from Italian ballistics expert Enrico Manieri is good .


11-settembre.blogspot.com...


and this expose


911guide.googlepages.com...


and here


www.davidicke.com...


and here


www.debunking911.com...



Jones paper, was never properly peer reviewed, ie by professional in related fields. The first one was in a vanity journal from Bentham, a Dubai-based operation that has been shown to publish anything for a fee.

The Jones-Harrit paper appeared in The Environmentalist, a magazine dealing with environmental issues not chemistry or thermodynamics.

You find me the peer reviews of these.


M

[edit on 8-9-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Your first link was a non peer reviewed character assassination. Go pound salt.

When you are reay to debate 911 like a grown up u2u me with something solid and ill get back to you.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


Interestingly, the original Bentham paper was not peer reviewed, which is why it is rife with the many errors and inconsistencies that have been pointed out, time and again.
Jones has discovered paint.
Edit to add: In response to a previous question, there is a large market for aluminum pigments in paint and many different producers make variations for diffferent paint applications. See the paper at this link www.highbeam.com...

[edit on 9/8/2009 by pteridine]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


mmiichael does not debate using facts, he debates using the popularity of opinions. And when he is reminded that "conspiracy theories" have only grown in popularity since 9/11, and that ~60% or so of Americans now want another investigation according to several polls (including scientific Zogby polls carried out by phone), he starts ranting about how we are a cult.


I just thought I would sum it all up for you, so you wouldn't take 50 insulting thread pages to figure it out yourself.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by jprophet420
 


mmiichael does not debate using facts, he debates using the popularity of opinions. And when he is reminded that "conspiracy theories" have only grown in popularity since 9/11, and that ~60% or so of Americans now want another investigation according to several polls (including scientific Zogby polls carried out by phone), he starts ranting about how we are a cult.


I just thought I would sum it all up for you, so you wouldn't take 50 insulting thread pages to figure it out yourself.



And the inevitable misrepresentaion and distortions to further your attention seeking.

The opinion of the general public has always meant little. They'll also say the believe in the government covering up alien contacts needing an invesigation if asked.

Do you know the phrasing of the polling question? Likely to be something like "There are many who questioned aspects of the government findings on 9/11. Do you think another inquiry is called for?

All they have to do is say "Yes" over the phone. Who in their right mind wouldn't say "Yes"? I'd love to see another inquiry, I'll take a dozen. What are you going to do if you have 2, and it says the OS is malarkey. Have a tie-breaker, bet of 2 out of 3. And then if it's tied a run-off? Just keep doing inquiries, no one's stopping anyone.

A new inquiry could be pushed through in short order. A solid study with documentaion, credible citations, signatures of even 5% of professional in related fields - presented to an ambitious politician who thinks they can make political hay out of it.

Go for it. 8 years later where's even the minimal paperwork necessary.'t it
Jones's paper. The first thing they will ask is why isn't in a recognized professional journal? Then they will want a real lab to reproduce the same labs under double blind controls.

Why doesn't Jones go for that? Too busy doing interviews and on the speaking circuit? Some other reason?

M



.



[edit on 8-9-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


See, the part of my post that struck closest to home for you was the part about the polling. I have no need to justify the polls, there are several of them, like I said, with a range of questions, and everyone is free to look up the results themselves.

Why are others' opinions so important to you, mmiichael? Why do you base ALL of your arguments on your (obviously biased) perception of others' opinions? What do opinions have to do with science? If science was decided by the majority opinion, then the Sun would still revolve around the Earth to this very day. Enough said. There is more to it than that. But you never want to hear it.


Just admit, you don't understand any of the science, that you are just cheerleading from the sidelines. It's ok, we all know it already and we don't really care. I'm just tired of 60+ page threads that are 95% ranting and bickering garbage, just like this, instead of 60+ pages of data that cuts right to the chase, right to the heart of the matter. It would never take 60 pages to do that. And you are NOT the one talking science, EVER. The closest you come is talking links and peer reviews, and that's still the sidelines buddy. You don't have to be an engineering major or have a degree, you just have to know what in the hell you are talking about. And judging by the fact that you never even approach the technical subjects... Like I said, I am just tired of reading the adolescent ranting and excuses for not being able to support your opinions with rigorous science. The fed did the only investigation. We are criticizing it. There is no formal organization of us, we who criticize the federal investigation. To say there is a formal organization that includes all of us is to lie. We are all individuals who only share in common the criticism of various parts of the federal investigation. You are on the defensive, since you take it upon yourself to represent the fed's investigation. But you apparently know nothing about it. So why do you post here again?

[edit on 8-9-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to by bsbray11

You always have the option of not posting on these threads and ignoring what you don't like. There are dozens of high tech and science forums that frequently discuss the scientific aspects of 9/11. Yet you choose to debate them on this conspiracy forum.

Most people who come to a conspiracy forum are not trained or educated in the sciences. Essentially any website, video, or other member on a forum can talk in scientific jargonese and give the impression their claims are solid.

That's what I see over and over again here. I consider it abusive and a willful spreading on false information.

Whe here, I say what I like, try to keep it relevant, and have absolutely no reason to comply with demands, requests, pressure from any member here.

I won't go into what I see as your obvious need for control, attention, and constant attempts to demonstrate your overestimated knowledge of certain areas of science. I franky think you are here because on a real science forum of professional you'd be toast.

Discuss what you like, put me on ignore as you have other members who present science that conflicts with what you choose to believe.

There is something called Denial. It's touched on in this interesting article I recommend to you as well as anyone on this forum.

drsanity.blogspot.com...


M



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
You always have the option of not posting on these threads and ignoring what you don't like.


No, sorry. You can't ignore someone who blows a thread up to 60+ pages talking nonsense and refusing to support their statements with facts. I could put you on ignore, but it would only give you delusions of grandeur and I would still have to dig through 60 pages of a thread to find any quality information in it, if I were to find any at all.

I would just like to know what possesses you to post so much crap here every day when you are so disinterested in discussing the science? You don't come here to talk science or facts even though it would take just as much energy to type this fact or that as it would to type out an elaborate and spiteful insult. You come here to make fun of scientists who never stoop down to your level of "discussion" and obviously grasp the subject matter better than you do. What do you gain by that? You realize you are just feeding your ego, right? That's ALL you are doing here. And I know you want to turn that back around on me in a heartbeat, and tell me that I just post because of my ego so you don't have to consider what I am telling you. But for the love of god, if you are going to argue with somebody, don't presume anybody gives a damn about your personal opinions. I don't. I neither care about yours nor presume anyone cares about mine. When I debate, I use FACTS!!! And anymore most of my energy just goes towards trying to get YOU to talk science, instead of wasting so much damned forum space ranting and having to defend your poor style of argument. You are ruining ATS.

All I am saying, is post facts.

Facts that support your opinions.

Any facts at all.

No one is impressed enough by your intellect to want to read 60 pages of your hostile opinions of professional scientists and other members.

We all know who NIST and FEMA are; we want to talk about their hypotheses and methods.

You apparently don't have anything to say about that.

[edit on 8-9-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
You apparently don't have anything to say about that.


Sorry, I only skim read through your missive. I'm sure I'm guilty of whatever you said and way more. I'm just an unknowlegeable insecure person desperately seeking attention. You're so perceptive and analytical. You outed me. I'm so humiliated. (Heavy sighing)

Just sent you a longer more meaningful reply on that other thread. Hopefully an agreement to disagree informal truce can be arranged as this is starting to become more a source of irritation than fun.

M





new topics
top topics
 
172
<< 62  63  64    66  67  68 >>

log in

join