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