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

page: 7
172
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 02:34 AM
link   
great post. I wish more people would as vigilnet as you.

I think this testing might be the breakthrough that is needed to bring about a new investigation into 911 and perhaps bring those responsible to justis

Thanks




posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 03:07 AM
link   
This whole thread has been a joy to read. Some folks just can't let their ego deflate enough to admit they're wrong. The backpedaling and flat-out deflection going on by the OS believers is astonishing to behold. I often wonder why the 9/11 conspiracy is so hard for some folks to believe? Or to even comprehend? Are people so brainwashed, that they refuse to consider that their government could either knowingly allow this act to occur, or, that they would set this thing off themselves? Is it honestly that difficult to see what the government of America has gained through the advent of 9/11? Is it that difficult to see the forest through the trees? At some point, you just have to allow it to sink in, that there is something seriously wrong here. Even if it isn't exactly as some truthers say, isn't it enough to get you thinking? To sit back and say: "Wow, you know, there could be something in all this..." As opposed to: "Wow, you know, you are all so full of it." If even the smallest bit of evidence (or lack thereof!) doesn't jibe with the OS, then that alone, should be enough to get the free-thinker to say: "Huh.... I wonder what happened there..."

Chrono



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 03:18 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.





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


Are you suggesting that the fuel burnt - then released its sulphur as perfectly separated nanoparticles of sulphur, that the planes aluminium structure also exploded into perfectly pure nanoparticles of aluminium powder and these two "clouds" of pure elements then recombined to form thermite which was AGAIN ignited to produce a thermite reaction and this is the REAL reason for the presence of thermite..............

By Golly - thats sure cleared it up for me.....



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by audasAre you suggesting that the fuel burnt - then released its sulphur as perfectly separated nanoparticles of sulphur, that the planes aluminium structure also exploded into perfectly pure nanoparticles of aluminium powder and these two "clouds" of pure elements then recombined to form thermite which was AGAIN ignited to produce a thermite reaction and this is the REAL reason for the presence of thermite..............

By Golly - thats sure cleared it up for me.....


That was a good laugh! never thought of it that way; an energetic
substance turning inert and then reviving itself to reform in an energetic
state within a nano-sized chip.

It could happen...on 9/11/01 , and only then...



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chronogoblin
This whole thread has been a joy to read. Some folks just can't let their ego deflate enough to admit they're wrong. The backpedaling and flat-out deflection going on by the OS believers is astonishing to behold. I often wonder why the 9/11 conspiracy is so hard for some folks to believe? Or to even comprehend? Are people so brainwashed, that they refuse to consider that their government could either knowingly allow this act to occur, or, that they would set this thing off themselves? Is it honestly that difficult to see what the government of America has gained through the advent of 9/11? Is it that difficult to see the forest through the trees? At some point, you just have to allow it to sink in, that there is something seriously wrong here. Even if it isn't exactly as some truthers say, isn't it enough to get you thinking? To sit back and say: "Wow, you know, there could be something in all this..." As opposed to: "Wow, you know, you are all so full of it." If even the smallest bit of evidence (or lack thereof!) doesn't jibe with the OS, then that alone, should be enough to get the free-thinker to say: "Huh.... I wonder what happened there..."

Chrono


People still believe that everything on earth was made by an omnipotent super creature, who controls all of our lives and destinies...........whats harder to believe

a) 4 seperate terrorist cells involving well over a dozen terrorists who were known and being watched by the CIA AND the NSA, who were KNOWN to be plotting activities inside America who were KNOWN as being funded by Saudi extremists via Pakistan militants - managed to sneak through US airport security and enter US society where they took up flight training whilest still in communication with their handlers which was recorded and monitored but NOTHING WAS DONE BECAUSE NO ONE KNEW, they then went on to co-ordinate the most massive, sophisticated foreign attack of the US in history - avoiding infinitely greater amounts and infinitely more sophisticated systems than the attack on Pearl Harbour and Killing more people ALL of which was planned and co-ordinated from literally caves in Afghanistan by an almost MYTHICAL individual ---

Or

b) A small group of powerful individuals who have been controlling the CIA for well over 30 years, who also have career long links to Saudi extremists, who also have control over the entire security internally and externally of the US staged a red flag event similar to that which initiated the First World War, Vietnam War, Second World War (there is clear evidence of a warning to America of the approaching Japanese Fleet as Australia was attacked by them and sent warning - now a matter of public record), Invasion of Cuba, Panama, Veneuzeala, Iran Contra, etc,etc - in fact the MOST COMMON ELEMENT IS A RED FLAG OPERATION - it is the one consitent theme......


UMMMMMMMM------ the one which is so full of wholes you can strain tea with it ? Or the one which represents the clear, consistent pattern of US military engagement and red flag operations.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by mmiichael
 



BS! Show me one link and let's cut to the chase. I have Steven Jones
on the line for direct comment on anything you can produce.



Yes I have a question for Mr Jones.

On the Norwegian State Radio site Professor Ola Nilson elaborates on her radio comments critical of Jones's paper.

Nilson's email is in grey. Jones's comments are in white.

Nilson states:


One essential criterion when it comes to scientific communication is that enough information must be given for other members of the scientific community to reproduce and verify the experiments. Since no information is given to the nature of the paint used for comparison, this criterion is clearly not fulfilled.


Jones's reply to this comment is:



We make comparisons with known nano-thermite in Fig. 29, which I consider a key result – and I ask Prof. Nilsen to comment, for again these data point to a nanothermitic behavior. I should add that when Dr. Farrer tested a sample of epoxy paint in the DSC, the trace was an order of magnitude broader than for the red/gray chip chip shown in Fig. 29 (blue trace). The paint also began ignition at a much lower temperature.


My question to Steve Jones:

Your response does not address Nilson's criticism that the experiments in your paper cannot be reproduced.

Do you consider this a minor issue?



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 05:51 AM
link   
reply to post by undermind
 


Direct questions about the paper (although sufficiently answered in his
reply) can be sent to Steven Jones:

hardevidence@gmail.com

I will only address those personally who wish to accept the challenge
and debate Steve Jones one-on-one.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by undermind
 


Direct questions about the paper (although sufficiently answered in his
reply) can be sent to Steven Jones:

hardevidence@gmail.com

I will only address those personally who wish to accept the challenge
and debate Steve Jones one-on-one.


His experiments can't be reproduced.

Merely referring to results in the paper as evidence that the results in the paper are adequate evidence of the results in the paper is a gross fault, both from the point of view of epistemology and laboratory protocol.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by undermindHis experiments can't be reproduced.

Merely referring to results in the paper as evidence that the results in the paper are adequate evidence of the results in the paper is a gross fault, both from the point of view of epistemology and laboratory protocol.


You should read that site once again, and understand Dr. Jones' reply.

What's the point of producing a paint sample when he is providing
a known control sample of thermite?

He stated the paint sample tested ignited at a lower temperature and
did not exhibit the same characteristics as the chips found in the dust.

So why go after paint, when thermite is the more likely substance?
You see that he is asking Nilsen to address this very fact.

Would you like to waste time and resources testing paint when you
know damn well it can't produce the energy shown in the graph?

It's akin to inspecting a knife as a kill weapon when there are bullet
wounds to the body.

But don't take my word for it, e-mail Jones and find out for yourself...
or wait patiently to see in Nilsen will address Jones and realize the
error she made.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 06:36 AM
link   
From the point of view of laboratory protocol, it wouldn't matter whether he was trying to prove that a sample of paint was thermite, or a sample of thermite was thermite, or a sample of paint was paint.

To simply say that a substance is one thing, and proceed to carry out only those experiments which suggest that it is that one thing, is straight-forwards painting.

The experiments must be able to be replicated.

His cannot be.

Regardless of how appealing his conclusions, anyone with training in the applied sciences will dismiss them - as Prof. Nilson does - on the basis that the experiments cannot be reproduced by others because there are no blank samples.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 08:37 AM
link   
***Reply to post by Undermind***

You've been challenged to contact Dr. Jones and debate him. Why do you continue to avoid this?

Why do you continue to debate with us on the board?

For the third and hopefully last time, quit trying to muddy the thread up with your opinions. Take them to Dr. Jones as you have been challenged to do, and if you refuse to do that, then do us all a favor and go away. We can all debate this until we turn 80, but what good will it do?

Quit evading the challenge. Email Dr. Jones with your concerns. I'm sure he'll be MORE than happy to give you some education.

Also, are you GL's put in some type of Queue? I notice that there is a pattern in every single thread. Some breaking news is posted, and disinfo central immediately dispatches 2 or 3 agents to attempt to debunk the thread. In this case, it was initially mmichael and genradak. Once those initial guys are shut down, they disappear, and 1 or 2 more take their place, and the circus goes on and on. It's as if there is an order in which you all come into a thread. A few at a time, you each make a few unsubstantiated, babbling posts based on your opinion, then you go away and are replaced by a few more, who come in and make more or less the exact same posts, but word them different.

You disinfo types can split hairs all day if you want. You can change your screen names all you want. You can adjust your "argument" a little here, little there, all you want.

We have ONE response to you. Go debate Dr. Jones.

In case you accidently didnt read my last sentence, here it is again.

Go debate Dr. Jones.

Don't evade it. Don't come back and respond with your opinion. Don't respond and ask me or anyone else any more redundant questions. Dont respond and tell me what you think. Don't log off this account and log onto another account and respond to me to continue your circus of questioning.

The purpose of this thread was to inform people of more of Dr. Jones' findings. If you have a problem with the information contained therein, take it to the source.

Every person who has read through this thread knows what your concerns are. We all know what questions you have. Most of us, however, are not qualified to give you the answer. Even if we were, you wouldnt accept it. Once you read the last sentence of my post, please do something for me. Go tell all your friends who have posted here already, and all the friends who are waiting for their queue to come up so they can come in here as well, this:

Go debate Dr. Jones.

[edit on 4/6/2009 by P1DrummerBoy]

[edit on 4/6/2009 by P1DrummerBoy]



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 08:59 AM
link   
Response received. All of the GL's can start thinking up new theories
because Dr. Jones is going to make fools out of those who made up those
dumb excuses.


So here is the reply, and my thoughts are confirmed in the first line:


Steven Jones:
The observation of iron-rich spheres after ignition in the DSC demonstrates the thermitic reaction as we explain in the paper.

However, I agree that an experiment performed without oxygen would be informative. My interest actually is to encase a red/gray chip so that air is excluded AND to capture the gas that is generated when the chip is heated -- and then to observe the total heat production. I expect this will be much like gunpowder when it is confined -- has a more readily observable explosion.


So after this redundant test result is issued, what will be the excuse of the week?


P.S. Go Debate Dr. Jones



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Thermite does not require sulfur or barium nitrate. Barium was not found in the chips. Jones speculates that the sulfur [and calcium] was contamination from wall board.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Hehe im not really sience savy or anything, so can anyone explain to me why the "no-air" testing is so important?
I mean, there was air in the towers right, so whats the point in seeing how the dust reacts in an air free environment? when that was not the case on 911?


keep it simple please


Great thread and good job by the way Turbofan



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 09:32 AM
link   
On the 9/11 Forum, Dr Greening contacted Dr Jones with his concerns. Details on this page and he provides Jones's response.




the911forum.freeforums.org...


I believe it's more useful to consider how such materials could have been used to destroy the Twin Towers. And here's where I have problems, .... BIG problems.

I've already done a calculation, (see my post from a few days ago), of how much heat energy a layer of nano-thermite (such as the one allegedly found by Jones et al) could generate.

[...] my conclusion was that Jones' chips would do no more than slightly warm a WTC column!

So when I bounced my calculations and conclusions off Jones et al, all he could come up with was the suggestion that there were probably other explosives used in the WTC and the nanothermite chips were maybe just fuses!

Thus, after all the fuss about high-tech nano-thermites, we are back to good-old "bombs in the buildings" as the answer to how the buildings were destroyed.



Mike



[edit on 4-6-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by rumpiraten
 

The thermite reaction is a simple redox that does not require air. The oxygen on the metal oxide, in this case iron, oxidizes the aluminum to aluminum oxide with a release of heat. The iron oxide is reduced to elemental iron, but with the heat released, it is molten iron.
DSC uses small samples and looks at heat flow in and out of the sample as the temperature is raised. Upward peaks are usually flow out and downward peaks are flow in. As an example, when a sample is wet, there will be a downward peak around 100C as the water evaporates. In a flow of oxygen or air, when something that an burn reaches a combustion point, there is an upward peak as the heat flows out because of burning. Jones' sample had a carbonaceous matrix and would burn in air so heat flow out could be due to burning and not a thermitic reaction. To show a reaction, he has to run the DSC under an inert gas, such as argon, to eliminate the possibility that the heat flow is just burning.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Ah yeah that makes sense, it didnt at first, but the latter part of your post nailed it for me, thanks bud



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


On the Norwegian radio interview you provided a link to, Jones discusses ongoing work in some detail, e.g.,
"This paper is nearing completion and will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. I am more involved in the TEM and XRD studies which are also being vigorously pursued. Note that this research is essentially pro-bono; we do not have a grant for these studies."

There are other references to the new work in there apparent to anyone who bothered to read it.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Go debate Dr. Jones.

We have no idea if Greening was accurate on his alleged interaction with Dr Jones. We also have no idea how the nano-thermite was used or even if Greening accurately determined its yield. We only know that nano-thermite technology was detected in the dust of the WTC by multiple independent investigators, and we know that the Towers were destroyed by top-down explosive demolition, hurling 4 ton exterior wall sections up to 600 feet away onto other buildings in all directions.



So . . . . . dispense with your opinions . . . . . and

Go debate Dr. Jones.




posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   
This issue isn't really on my beat, and I admit I don't have time to get too deep into it. I've read the OP here but that's it. I appreciate the job ya'll are doing though, I know you guys catch a lot of heat for it, and I poke my head in from time to time to take a peak at the progress being made.

I would though appreciate if someone could answer this...

Is it possible that the thermite was used in rescue and clean up operations? I know what thermite is and off the top of my head, it seems like it'd be pretty handy stuff for cutting through big debris chunks.





top topics
 
172
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join