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.

 

New Video: Steven Jones on Dust Analysis

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 10:08 AM
link   
More step by step explanation of how/why these chips are not paint. More step
by step explanation of the process used to uncover explosive material. There
are even two independent studies confirming the thermite paper.

According to Dr. Jones, these papers will be submitted and published
in a peer reviewed journal.

A Scientist named Mark Basile in New Hampshire and possibly by a
second physicist Frederic Henry-Courannier in France.

You know what that means? The science has been proven!

world911truth.org...

P.S. Ptridine, it's not PAINT and Jones explains very clearly why you're wrong this time.

[edit on 7-8-2009 by turbofan]




posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Important features of the research have been independently corroborated by Mark Basile in New Hampshire and by physicist Frédéric Henry-Couannier in France., proceeding from earlier scientific reports on these discoveries (e.g., by Prof. Jones speaking at a Physics Dept. Colloquium at Utah Valley University last year.)



Dr. Farrer is featured in an article on page 11 of the BYU Frontiers magazine, Spring 2005: “Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, lab director for TEM” (TEM stands for Transmission Electron Microscopy). The article notes: “The electron microscopes in the TEM lab combine to give BYU capabilities that are virtually unique… rivaling anything built worldwide.” The article is entitled: “Rare and Powerful Microscopes Unlock Nano


First, Jones was discredited here because his work wasn't peer reviewed. Then **one** of the journals he was published in was discredited because of a "scandal". Now I am certain the scientists who verify the work will also be discredited via character assassination and nothing else.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


Um, it would be nice if the scientific validity of Jones' analysis were addressed, instead of the second-rate arguments often used to dismiss his and others' research. I know ad hominems are an easy option not requiring much thought. But they evade the science, don't they?



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


Yep, the circus will certainly continue. I'm just now watching the first part, and I'll predict that once people start realizing that this stuff (thermite) IS in the dust, the first assassination will be the lady in the beginning who collected the dust. I'm sure she'll be considered a liar, or crazy, or something else unwarrented or unsubstantiated. Very sad.

In any case, thanks for the post Turbo, one thing that already caught my attention was her comment that an "explosion" from the tower caused her windows to blow inward. All that air pressure from the pancaking must be the culprit huh



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Retraction in 2008 NIST report
NIST now says plainly:
"Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7."

Steven E. Jones on Nanothermite - Part 5 of 12




Steven E. Jones on Nanothermite - Part 11 of 12




Steven E. Jones on Nanothermite - Part 12 of 12


Support NYC CAN petition for a real investigation into 9-11 with subpoena power.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Ghandi launched his non violent resistance against tyranny on September 11, 1906. Someone run that through timewave zero :p

Guys the evidence is becoming almost impossible to conceal. I am in a college course currently that is addressing 9/11 and terrorism response, and based on my personal opinion, a lot of people think there is more to the official story than meets the eye. Also, the textbook used describes many of the "mistakes" made but doesn't go into the conspiracy side of the issue. However, the text sets the scene for further questioning.

9/11 will be investigated again, but not until the whistle blowers start coming out en mass.



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
More step by step explanation of how/why these chips are not paint. More step
by step explanation of the process used to uncover explosive material. There
are even two independent studies confirming the thermite paper.


If memory serves, all Jone's paper conclusively shows is that the material he found was bits of aluminum stuck to bits of iron. He's declaring that it's actually demolitions material on his own.

On the other hand, the towers were themselves two gigantic sources of aluminum and iron, the aluminum being from the skin of the structures and the iron being from the steel support structure. Jone's even finding this material in so many different locations necessarily means that it had to have come from a large originating source, and the largest originating source in the vicinity was the structure itself.

Thus, all his really showed in his report is that lots of aluminum and iron residue was found in the debris field of two giant buildings made of aluminum and iron. Thank you for that news flash, Captain Obvious.



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


You must have read the wrong paper then or just not understood. It said that the chips had uniform 40nm plates of aluminum, which cannot be explained away, and 100nm spheres of iron which also cannot be explained away. Nano technology was not available when the towers were built.



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   
When were these paints supposedly applied?



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Thank you for that. star'd and flagged. I will be reviewing this. The reports of finding this sends "chills" down my spine, it is a very stange feeling indeed. To think of the crime that happened.



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


You are clueless to the what you are reading in the paper/viewing the
video, or you have not done either.

This is not about finding bits of Al and Fe in dust! My god, have you
even seen the microscope images, and chemical analysis?

Where did the spheres come from and why are they attached to the
chips? How do you get partially reacted chips stuck to spheres from
a gravity collapse!

How do you get perfect spheres from a building falling apart? Can
you even come up with a logical explanation of how STEEL breaks down
into tiny balls from fire, or 'progressive collapse'?

I just don't understand the thought process of some members (unless disinfo).
You NEED to watch these presentations, or get someone in the field
to explain the science on a more basic level.

Once again, this is beyond debate and opinion. The science has been
duplicated by other sources. Some GL's cried about that, and now
it has been confirmed. The report will be published ... and hopefully
something other than Bentham to satisfy those who make excuses.



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   

How do you get perfect spheres from a building falling apart? Can
you even come up with a logical explanation of how STEEL breaks down
into tiny balls from fire, or 'progressive collapse'?


Especially since it was unoxidized iron, which is a far cry from steel.


Iron (pronounced /ˈаɪ.ərn/) is a chemical element with the symbol Fe (Latin: ferrum) and atomic number 26. Iron is a group 8 and period 4 element. Iron and iron alloys (steels) are by far the most common metals and the most common ferromagnetic materials in everyday use. Fresh iron surfaces are lustrous and silvery-grey in colour, but oxidise in air to form a red or brown coating of ferrous oxide or rust. Pure single crystals of iron are soft (softer than aluminium), and the addition of minute amounts of impurities, such as carbon, significantly strengthens them. Alloying iron with appropriate small amounts (up to a few per cent) of other metals and carbon produces steel, which can be 1,000 times harder than pure iron.



Steel is an alloy consisting mostly of iron, with a carbon content between 0.2% and 2.1% by weight, depending on the grade. Carbon is the most cost-effective alloying material for iron, but various other alloying elements are used such as manganese, chromium, vanadium, and tungsten.[1] Carbon and other elements act as a hardening agent, preventing dislocations in the iron atom crystal lattice from sliding past one another. Varying the amount of alloying elements and form of their presence in the steel (solute elements, precipitated phase) controls qualities such as the hardness, ductility, and tensile strength of the resulting steel. Steel with increased carbon content can be made harder and stronger than iron, but is also more brittle.


Notice aluminums not on the recipe sheet.



[edit on 11-8-2009 by jprophet420]



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 11:47 PM
link   
It's a shame this thread hasn't gotten more attention.

Turbo, I think your last thread is still getting replies...if this one is an update to that one, which it is, should we move the discussion over here, and use your latest video?

I'm very interested to hear the thoughts of the other party in regards to the video you posted here.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 03:07 AM
link   
Hey, Hey...

EIther thread is fine. I started this because of the great attention to
finer details and the importance of the independent verified tests.

We'll let all the GL's complain in the other thread until they can grasp
reality and answer the questions.

This thread can be used to highlight the errors outlined by Jones
concerning NIST's claims.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by P1DrummerBoy
 


Everybody who comes here sees both threads. Choosing not to post in the updated one speaks worlds.



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Hey, Hey...

EIther thread is fine. I started this because of the great attention to
finer details and the importance of the independent verified tests.

We'll let all the GL's complain in the other thread until they can grasp
reality and answer the questions.

This thread can be used to highlight the errors outlined by Jones
concerning NIST's claims.



Still waiting.

When were these paints supposedly applied?



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


I don't know the exact date, maybe you can look it up in the report.
What does it matter?

By the way, what value did NIST use in their model for thermal conductivity?



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


I'll take "They turned it off" for $500.00.



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


When were WHAT paints applied? There is no paint in question.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 02:22 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Ding, ding! We have a winner!

Now, for the bonus question and an additional $1000.00:

Why would NIST set the thermal conductivity to zero, even though the
steel used in the Trade Center did not have a TC of zero?




top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join