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