It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by pteridine
I have shown Turbo that there is excess heat far above any aluminothermic reaction, which means combustion is taking place.
Because combustion is taking place, the only way to discriminate between combustion and other reactions is to run the DSC under inert. The spheres will sort themselves out later after reaction has been determined to occur under inert. Turbo does not want to admit that this is the first step to proving thermitic reaction because then this thread topic is wrong.
Originally posted by pteridine
Jones claimed a super-thermite based on what he thinks he found, so that is why we focus on thermite.
The first thing Jones must do to prove thermite is to show the reaction in the absence of air.
Originally posted by 000063
Jones? That guy who can't get published in an independent peer-reviewed journal, and the only time he apparently succeeded in doing so the journal turned out to be a fraud that would, literally, publish nonsense for money? The guy who refuses to let an independent source verify his sample and testing methods?
The editor who had supposedly reviewed the paper says she never saw it, and resigned.
Originally posted by Cassius666
Originally posted by 000063
Jones? That guy who can't get published in an independent peer-reviewed journal, and the only time he apparently succeeded in doing so the journal turned out to be a fraud that would, literally, publish nonsense for money? The guy who refuses to let an independent source verify his sample and testing methods?
What are you talking about? He got published. The woes for the magazine began only after publishing material related to the attacks. Thats more than the NIST report got. What makes you think he couldnt get published in any other magazine? And his methods were tested indipendently, thats what the peer review was for.edit on 12-6-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)
Oh, and As an official US government report, the NIST report is open to criticism from literally everyone. It's endorsed by the ASCE, and has been used in engineering and architectural courses around the world, as well as to build more fire-resistant buildings. Not formal peer review, but even more merciless.
The editor who had supposedly reviewed the paper says she never saw it, and resigned.
So saying that the American Society of Civil Engineers endorsed the paper, along with tons of other institutions is an "excuse"?
Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by 000063
Oh, and As an official US government report, the NIST report is open to criticism from literally everyone. It's endorsed by the ASCE, and has been used in engineering and architectural courses around the world, as well as to build more fire-resistant buildings. Not formal peer review, but even more merciless.
Your argument does not prove the NIST Report true, neither does your excuses to whom you think the NIST Report is credible.
I find it interesting that you believe science cannot be bought by our politicians to sway the world population into believing lies.
A&E proved NIST Report a lie, why do you still defend it?
When it comes to science all the excuses in the world will not make the NIST Report true.
edit on 12-6-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by 000063
So saying that the American Society of Civil Engineers endorsed the paper, along with tons of other institutions is an "excuse"?
Originally posted by turbofan
Spread the word people, this is real.
Originally posted by Master_007
Originally posted by turbofan
Spread the word people, this is real.
Been doing that for eight years now and even if 80% of the public felt the goverment knew about 9/11 in advance (As polls show in Germany)
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
They got suckered by the mother of all CTs last century and they're generally not keen to have it happen again.
9/11 Conspiracy Theories Popular in Germany
From Hyde Flippo, About.com Guide September 30, 2003
Two years after the horrible events, it may surprise you to learn that many Germans believe a lot of crackpot nonsense about September 11, 2001. Recent reports in Newsweek, the Wall Street Journal, and other periodicals paint a disturbing picture. From Newsweek: "To get a sense of how deep mistrust of the United States runs in Germany, take a look at the bookshelves. Two years after September 11, German bookstores are flooded with such works as 'The CIA and September 11,' in which a former government minister, Andreas von Bülow, insinuates that the U.S. and Israeli intelligence services blew up the World Trade Center from the inside..." Why do many Germans and other Europeans swallow such disinformation?
A recent poll in the german magazine "Welt der Wunder" conducted by the well known Emnid Institute results in astonishing 89% of the german respondents not believing the official line 9/11. The magazine in 2010 already published the story of NATOs "secret nuclear war", where the consequences of the widespread use of depleted uranium ammunitions were explained.
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
You don't actually read German, do you? It's no excuse, but it might help to check beforehand.
Originally posted by BlackOps719
Here is the $100 question that no single debunker or official story proponant has ever been able to successfully answer.
If there was no accelerant and no thermite or thermate used on that day, how exactly do any of you suggest that building 7 was taken down at the rate of free fall speed?
Is it still the old "second hand office fire caused by debris" argument? Keep in mind that no plane ever hit building 7, which means no jet fuel, no rust particles from the plane to even potentially create a thermite like response. There goes that theory.
So what do you suggest brought an entire sky scraper down without it ever being hit?
Think before you respond, I am all ears and would love to hear the explanations that pass for an official story these days.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
You don't actually read German, do you? It's no excuse, but it might help to check beforehand.
I could plug it into Google translate if I felt so inclined, that's how simple it is to translate on the internet nowadays.
So your response is all the rhetoric drivel I expected. You got a poll showing that 89.5% of Germans don't believe the official story. But you must have already been expecting as much because you were already insinuating there must have been problems with the methodology before you even knew it existed. Your denial is hilarious.edit on 13-6-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by bsbray11
But you must have already been expecting as much because you were already insinuating there must have been problems with the methodology before you even knew it existed.
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
What was the methodology?
And how does this poll support what the poster above claimed? It doesn't even agree with him even if you assume the methodology is sound.