Yep, It's Thermite! So Much for the "Oxygen" Excuse, page 70

privacy

Pages: << 67 68 69 70 71 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 171 times

reply posted on 1-10-2009 @ 08:36 AM by Nutter

Originally posted by pteridine
I have shown Turbo that there is excess heat far above any aluminothermic reaction, which means combustion is taking place.

So, there is excess heat far above any aluminothermic reaction taking place? And you call this combustion? I thought aluminothermics produced far more heat than combustion?

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.

Another question I have is:

If this is an incendiary, why does it have to comform to therm*te? Aren't there more complex incendiaries than regular therm*te? Therefore, the use of air as the oxygen source may be neccessary (or at least known that air would be present)? Or do ALL incendiaries have their own oxygen source?

reply posted on 2-10-2009 @ 08:28 AM by pteridine

reply to post by Nutter

Those are good questions, Nutter, and I believe that many other readers share these concerns.
Aluminothermics get much hotter than combustion of hydrocarbons in air but they produce about ten times LESS heat per unit weight than burning hydrocarbons.
Think of temperature as the intensity of the heat and the joules as the total quantity. A match is much hotter than room temperature water, but try to melt a block of ice with a match versus a large amount of room temperature water.
Because thermite consists of iron oxide and aluminum, it has its own oxidizer and that is part of the equation, “heat per unit weight.” When something is burned in air, the weight of the oxygen used in burning is not included, so the heat per unit weight goes up. Hydrogen burning in air has the highest heat per unit weight.
Jones claimed a super-thermite based on what he thinks he found, so that is why we focus on thermite. Thermites don’t need air to react although they work in air. The first thing Jones must do to prove thermite is to show the reaction in the absence of air.
Many incendiaries do not have their own oxygen source. Napalm and white phosphorus are nasty incendiaries that rely on air as do FAE devices, which are explosives.

reply posted on 2-10-2009 @ 08:49 AM by Nutter

Originally posted by pteridine
Jones claimed a super-thermite based on what he thinks he found, so that is why we focus on thermite.

Now I see why we are specifically focused on thermite and not another type of incendiary.

The first thing Jones must do to prove thermite is to show the reaction in the absence of air.

I agree with the above statement.

reply posted on 12-6-2011 @ 04:42 PM 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?

reply posted on 12-6-2011 @ 05:04 PM 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)

reply posted on 12-6-2011 @ 05:13 PM by 000063

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)

The editor who had supposedly reviewed the paper says she never saw it, and resigned.

Someone generated a paper out of computer generated nonsense, written by men who didn't exist, from an institute that didn't exist. The Open journal was perfectly willing to publish it once they had the money they requested, which makes every paper they publish suspect. It's like getting a Big Mac, sitting down, raising it to your mouth, and seeing the guy who made it just scratched his sweaty underarm with an ungloved hand.

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.

reply posted on 12-6-2011 @ 06:44 PM 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)

reply posted on 12-6-2011 @ 08:29 PM by Darkwing01

reply to post by 000063

The editor who had supposedly reviewed the paper says she never saw it, and resigned.

How is an editor a peer reviewer?

reply posted on 13-6-2011 @ 10:45 AM by 000063

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)

So saying that the American Society of Civil Engineers endorsed the paper, along with tons of other institutions is an "excuse"?

reply posted on 13-6-2011 @ 10:48 AM by 000063

reply to post by Darkwing01

When Jones gets a letter claiming to be from Editor (let's say) Mary Smith saying the paper was peer reviewed, and Mary Smith says she never saw Jones' paper or sent the letter, then resigns over the matter, there's some skulduggery going on.

reply posted on 13-6-2011 @ 02:43 PM by bsbray11

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"?

The ASCE was also accused of "moral corruption" by one of the structural engineers that worked with FEMA on their report, Dr. Astanah-Asl. He tried to replicate their results for years and could only conclude they were wrong and intentionally manipulated for various conflicts of interest. There was an Associated Press article on it years back.

reply posted on 13-6-2011 @ 03:30 PM 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) then we still would not get an open and public investigation into the events.

Voting does not work because all the politicians are on the pay role of the zionists and its time to remind our goverments what democracy is all about.

The CNN/BBC/Fox propaganda is just not cutting it anymore.

reply posted on 13-6-2011 @ 03:39 PM by TrickoftheShade

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)

Show me a properly conducted poll that shows that and I'll eat my hat. Germans are more than usually wary of conspiracy theories. They got suckered by the mother of all CTs last century and they're generally not keen to have it happen again.

reply posted on 13-6-2011 @ 03:43 PM by bsbray11

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.

That's exactly why they haven't fallen for the same trash you have, or try to defend it as religiously as you do.

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?

german.about.com...

Obviously whoever wrote that article for about.com is also much more confused than many German people.

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.

911blogger.com...

I don't know what the exact question says above, but I think the point is, they don't agree with you.

reply posted on 13-6-2011 @ 03:59 PM by TrickoftheShade

reply to post by bsbray11

You don't actually read German, do you? It's no excuse, but it might help to check beforehand.

You start with some stuff about books from eight years ago. From about.com.

That's not a poll. Just an editorial piece about books. I'm aware that the difference may be hard to see, but if you really focus you might be able to get it.

Then a poll that asks a different question to what the last poster claimed and which was conducted in a now-defunct TV magazine by a "well-known" organisation that I've never heard of and which google even struggles to identify. I know you really find this tough, but finding issue with what the authorities said about 9/11 and thinking the government are behind it is extremely far apart. To then present a poll as dubious as this - which may have been a phone-in, or on the internet (and therefore worthless from a psephological pov) - as proof... it's very weak stuff.

And the irony is, of course, that I do actually agree with them.

No wonder you're WINNING.

So - if anyone can find a properly conducted poll that endorses the poster above I'll eat my hat.

reply posted on 13-6-2011 @ 04:06 PM 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)

reply posted on 13-6-2011 @ 04:47 PM by MrWendal

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.

Well you see, you got to have faith.

You have to have faith that the jet fuel bounced off the WTC and landed across the street onto WTC 7. Narrowly missing the buildings on either side of WTC 7.

You have to have faith that when the WTC Towers 1 & 2 collpased that the debris hit WTC 7 causing massive fires and damage that eventually led to it's collapse.

You have to have faith that this same debris caused all this, but missed hitting either building that was located around WTC 7.

Geez Man!! Where is you "faith"??

I have always said a picture is worth a thousand words... no one can look at this picture, Identify the buildings and NOT see a problem here.

For those who may have trouble with the picture. If you look to the far right, you see a building that has collapsed. The buildings on either side are still standing and in fact do not appear to be seriously damaged. They are standing strong. That is building 7... a nice neat pile of debris in between two intact buildings.

reply posted on 13-6-2011 @ 05:45 PM by TrickoftheShade

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)

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. Which obviously you're going to do because you're so desperate to cling to your comfort blanket. It's just that occasionally some of us need a little more than blind faith to believe something.

reply posted on 13-6-2011 @ 05:46 PM by TrickoftheShade

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.

By the way, this is amongst the most wonderfully tortured pieces of logic I've ever seen on this site. Which is quite an acheivement.

reply posted on 13-6-2011 @ 09:04 PM by bsbray11