It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by pteridine
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.
Jones is no fool. He has an agenda and a goal and is working toward that goal.
His science is suspect and his interpretation of chemistry is faulty, maybe purposely.
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.
but he hasn't snookered most scientists.
The spheres are of mixed, unknown compositions and are not evidence of thermitic reaction.
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.
we don't know if that heat arises from thermitic reaction or combustion.
Originally posted by impressme
Then why don’t you do your own thesis to debunk Jones papers aren’t you qualified?
Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by mmiichael
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!
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.
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.
Originally posted by mmiichael
You always have the option of not posting on these threads and ignoring what you don't like.
Originally posted by bsbray11
You apparently don't have anything to say about that.