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.

 

It was Paint for sure!

page: 8
8
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Finally, I have answered one of your questions without being called a liar. Now you can show why the chips are really thermite. I await your proof.




posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


You might consider that they look like paint that has flaked from surface corroded steel. They have an organic matrix, like paint. They contain iron oxide, like paint. They contain an aluminosilicate filler identical in morphology to those used in paint. Layers of coatings as thin as this can't effect demolition. Tons of the material in the dust can't be unburnt fuse material. It isn't fairy dust or alien technology. It looks like paint, has been applied like paint, and would function as paint.

What else could it be?

Do you expect a painter from the past to suddenly appear and say that the chemical composition of the chips, when allowing for aging, is identical to the paint that he applied to the 57th floor of Tower 2?



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


it would be simpler to see an analysis of paint that matches the analysis of the chips.
funny it hasn't been done by the army of super confident debunkers.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by jprophet420
 


You might consider that they look like paint that has flaked from surface corroded steel. They have an organic matrix, like paint. They contain iron oxide, like paint. They contain an aluminosilicate filler identical in morphology to those used in paint. Layers of coatings as thin as this can't effect demolition. Tons of the material in the dust can't be unburnt fuse material. It isn't fairy dust or alien technology. It looks like paint, has been applied like paint, and would function as paint.

What else could it be?

Do you expect a painter from the past to suddenly appear and say that the chemical composition of the chips, when allowing for aging, is identical to the paint that he applied to the 57th floor of Tower 2?


Well thats the problem, it has characteristics of paint, and some characteristics not found in paint. I have yet to find anyone who is able to post a link to any paint that has all of the characteristcs of this material. Still waiting.

Who said demolition? This thread is called it was paint for sure.


They contain an aluminosilicate filler identical in morphology to those used in paint.


The chips had uniform 40nm aluminum plates. I have not been able to find paint that matches this phenomenon, could you please link your source?



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


Just a quick question - does it bother you that all of this supposed rigourous scientific investigation went on with regard to these paint chips and there was no control group?

I know it wouldn't be difficult in NYC to find some peeling 30 year old paint and test it, just to see what the results are.

Just curious.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Not a bit. If they were paint chips someone would have been able to illustrate it by now. The reason I made this thread is not to debate conspiracy but to identify (or rather cite the lack of identification) the chips.

If there are tons upon tons of an unknown substance floating around ground zero we have a right to a new investigation.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by hooper
 


Not a bit. If they were paint chips someone would have been able to illustrate it by now. The reason I made this thread is not to debate conspiracy but to identify (or rather cite the lack of identification) the chips.

If there are tons upon tons of an unknown substance floating around ground zero we have a right to a new investigation.


One can say the same about the tons and tons of aluminum that was supposed to be cladding. When burned in air, it gives off a tremendous amount of heat. Why would we not want to identify the cladding, also? One can move on with drywall, concrete, glass and so on.
The components of the chips say they are paint until someone proves otherwise. If you need perpetual analyses, you will be perpetually disappointed.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by hooper
 


Not a bit. If they were paint chips someone would have been able to illustrate it by now. The reason I made this thread is not to debate conspiracy but to identify (or rather cite the lack of identification) the chips.

If there are tons upon tons of an unknown substance floating around ground zero we have a right to a new investigation.


One can say the same about the tons and tons of aluminum that was supposed to be cladding. When burned in air, it gives off a tremendous amount of heat. Why would we not want to identify the cladding, also? One can move on with drywall, concrete, glass and so on.
The components of the chips say they are paint until someone proves otherwise. If you need perpetual analyses, you will be perpetually disappointed.


It has already been proven that they are not paint, unless you can provide a link to a paint manufacturer that states they put 40nm aluminum plates in their paint. I say that you cannot and eagerly await your response nonetheless.

The exact same components are in water and hydrogen peroxide, for the record, so by the logic you have presented in the above post, I can safely assume that you drink peroxide.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

It has already been proven that they are not paint, unless you can provide a link to a paint manufacturer that states they put 40nm aluminum plates in their paint. I say that you cannot and eagerly await your response nonetheless.

The exact same components are in water and hydrogen peroxide, for the record, so by the logic you have presented in the above post, I can safely assume that you drink peroxide.


In fact, it has not been proven that the chips are not paint. The aluminum has not been proved to be elemental aluminum; it appears to be an aluminosilicate clay. As to the water and hydrogen peroxide, that is not true. The molecules are not chemically the same and the proportions are different. In the case of paint formulation, the components are chemically the same but are added in varying amounts.



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by hooper
 


Not a bit. If they were paint chips someone would have been able to illustrate it by now. The reason I made this thread is not to debate conspiracy but to identify (or rather cite the lack of identification) the chips.

If there are tons upon tons of an unknown substance floating around ground zero we have a right to a new investigation.


One can say the same about the tons and tons of aluminum that was supposed to be cladding. When burned in air, it gives off a tremendous amount of heat. Why would we not want to identify the cladding, also? One can move on with drywall, concrete, glass and so on.
The components of the chips say they are paint until someone proves otherwise. If you need perpetual analyses, you will be perpetually disappointed.


It has already been proven that they are not paint, unless you can provide a link to a paint manufacturer that states they put 40nm aluminum plates in their paint. I say that you cannot and eagerly await your response nonetheless.

The exact same components are in water and hydrogen peroxide, for the record, so by the logic you have presented in the above post, I can safely assume that you drink peroxide.


There is no definitive proof that the chips are anything more than common 30 year old paint. Prove it wrong scientifically, collect and process a control group or admit that the purpose of the "paper" was to decieve, not enlighten.



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 09:58 AM
link   
I still don't see how it's been determined there was aluminosilicate clay. I've seen this stated many times, but I've never seen any response to my questions about the before and after pictures below.


Before MEK soak




After MEK soak




It's been determined that an MEK soak is so weak that it would not break the bonds of an aluminosilicate, but with the above data from the paper it appears that the aluminum moved away from the silicon particles. How can this be explained if the aluminum and silicon particles were bonded together before the soak?



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Sorry but I cannot find a single source that says aluminosilicate fits the properties of the aluminum plates found in the paint chips. If you don't have a source for your information I'm going to have to just flat out say "you are wrong" and wait for you to show me your source of information.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 

Before analyses are interpreted, Jones has to show reaction in the absence of air. Once he does that, then he can worry about analyses. He can use the correct solvent to disrupt the matrix, separate the solids and analyze them.
He claims his analysis shows elemental silicon and elemental aluminum. He provides no rationale for the inclusion of silicon, the lack of destructive effects from a thin layer of such a material, or the estimated tonnage of unreacted material.



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Again nothing to do with Jones. The physical properties of the aluminum in the chips match aluminum. More than one source has the chips, not just Jones. Show me a source where aluminosilicate matches what was found in the chips by multiple entities.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


What "multiple entities" analyzed the chips? If this isn't about Jones' analysis then what made you think it wasn't just paint?



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by jprophet420
 


What "multiple entities" analyzed the chips? If this isn't about Jones' analysis then what made you think it wasn't just paint?

Theres a counter analysis right in this thread, and theres several other groups besides Jones' that have samples.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


Yes. The counter analysis by henryco shows no reactivity in the absence of air, hence no aluminothermic properties. Now we are down to combustion in air as you suggested in the OP. I told you that the thermal mass and conductivity of the steel would prevent ignition until the steel was at the ignition temperature or a flame from other fuel was in contact with the coating. This is how paint behaves and the title of your thread is correct.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


I'd still like an exact chemical signature of a paint that meets all the criterion of these chips. Still waiting for this paint pteridine. I mean it's been what, a year now? Can you please start posting some characteristics of some kind of paint please? If not, I call BS, and you know it.



[edit on 24-10-2009 by Nutter]



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 10:47 AM
link   
My reaction to Henryco's testing is quite different. Henryco does show combustion in air, but that combustion alone did not result in the same reaction as the Jones paper's findings.

His quote: ""These chips don’t react even when heated up to 900°C: remain red, burn most of their carbon but other elements remain in the same proportion."

I take "burn most of their carbon" to mean combustion. So it seems to me Henryco didn't find a thermitic reaction but he did find combustion. But his combustion did not result in iron-rich spheres. So would it then be safe to say something other than combustion is happening in the Jones paper's sample?



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by NIcon
 


The common element is combustion in air. Nothing else has been shown with respect to thermitic reaction.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join