PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

reply to post by pteridine

I have challenged you and others to explain why the highly reactive thermitic paint self extinguished. The pics are in Jones paper of partially combusted paint chips. He describes how he ignited them. If they were highly engineered thermite what would have extinguished them?

Yawn. Elementary. One explanation is the fact that an explosive charge could have been used with the thermate to force the incendiary material through the steel girders. Not all the thermate would be consumed and some would be extinguished by the explosion. Many claim to have heard explosions.

video.google.com...#

Originally posted by Doctor Smith
reply to post by pteridine

 

I have challenged you and others to explain why the highly reactive thermitic paint self extinguished. The pics are in Jones paper of partially combusted paint chips. He describes how he ignited them. If they were highly engineered thermite what would have extinguished them?

Yawn. Elementary. One explanation is the fact that an explosive charge could have been used with the thermate to force the incendiary material through the steel girders. Not all the thermate would be consumed and some would be extinguished by the explosion. Many claim to have heard explosions.

Yawn. That is not an explanation of the chips that Jones ignited.

If there were enough explosives to "force the incendiary material through the steel girders" why would the incendiary be needed at all?

Why did the incendiary that jones ignited self extinguish?

reply to post by impressme


Any analytical chemist can completely debunk Jones garbage paper.

No one bothers to publish anything because no reputable journal accepts papers challenging something that is not published in a peer reviewed journal. Most don't care what Jones writes but some don't like it when he tries to con others based on his one-time professorship.

reply to post by pteridine

Any analytical chemist can completely debunk Jones garbage paper.

No one bothers to publish anything because no reputable journal accepts papers challenging something that is not published in a peer reviewed journal. Most don't care what Jones writes but some don't like it when he tries to con others based on his one-time professorship.

Thank you for your response. Unfortunately, you have again failed to provide links to credible evidence proving your statements.

[edit on 26-5-2010 by impressme]

reply to post by impressme


See my previous posts debunking Jones' paper. I have shown improper protocols, self-contradiction, and invalid conclusions.

Why did the super thermite go out after ignition?

Impressme

can you please, please, please answer pteridine's question about why Jones' "nanothermite" chips self extinguished? Can you do that? Cause so far you are not doing anything more than trolling along squawking about how great Jones' paper is even though you obvious have no idea what you or anyone else is actually reading.

pteridine has done a wonderful job of showing just how wrong Jones is in his paper with evidence that should be self-evident to even a high school chemist student. Why should he link to "sources" that must "prove" his observations, when they are self-evident to rational and educated persons who see the problems?

Fact: thermite does not self extinguish itself after lighting it leaving behind copious amounts of it left un-reacted. Red flag #1 for Jones.
Fact: Thermite can burn in a zero oxygen environment. Jones' should have done the tests FIRST. Red flag #2 for Jones.
Fact: "Iron containing"does not equal elemental iron. If there is 20% of iron in a mix, then it is an "iron containing mix". If it is 100% iron only, its elemental or pure iron. Red flag #3.

Key mistakes:

A) Jones did not run the burning test under inert air conditions.
B) The samples after being lit self extinguished once the ignition flame was removed.
C) The iron containing spheres are not pure elemental iron. There is a BIG difference between elemental iron spheres and iron containing.

And yet you and everyone else that drools over Jones' paper refuses to even acknowledge these serious errors that throw the whole thing into question.

Will you or anyone else be addressing the above stated issues, or will you turn a blind eye to the obvious shoddy, error filled work that would make a high school chem teacher cringe, and continue to glorify an obviously seriously ?

Does anyone know when Jones's next paper is coming out? He agrees with the poster above who posits that the chips were part of a larger system that contained other, more conventional explosives. So his next paper should be an amazing read.

reply to post by pteridine

Thank you for your response. However, you have again failed to provide links to credible evidence proving your statements.

reply to post by GenRadek

Thank you for your response; however, your opinions are not the facts. You have shown no credible sources to back your claims.


[edit on 26-5-2010 by impressme]

Originally posted by THE AQUARIAN 1
reply to post by iamcpc

 

As far as we know the world blinked into existence the moment we were born.

However I believe in something. These types of conversations, while intellectually stimulating on certain levels, are a complete waste of my precious time, as I believe that one day I will die.

theoccupation.info...
www.gettyimages.com...
www.beato.com...
www.time.com...

How would you like to make this monetary transaction? Paypal?

All you did was show me government propoganda from the MSM that was fake and part of the conspiracy. The evidence that you attempted to present to support the TRUTH of the statement:

"NYC was real and did exist on 9/11/2001"

Was all fake popoganda by the MSM and the Government to pull the wool over blind sheeple (such as yourself) who are unable to see that the FACT and TRUTH is that NYC was NOT real and didn't exist on 9/11/2001.

All you did was present a buch of LIES and government propaganda. I suggest you try again if you want that 100 dollars via paypal.

reply to post by impressme


Jones has not provided a credible source, either. I will be hapy to discuss his paper with you, point by point.

reply to post by pteridine

Jones has not provided a credible source, either.

I believe you just exposed yourself. To make a fraudulent claim like that, you really are desperate. When you say Jones has not provided any credible sources you just lied and you know it.

SCIENCES, is what Jones gave as his credible sources. Science that the OS believers will not even read. No one cannot dispute it, not you, or anyone else for that matter.

reply to post by impressme


So you are going to play this little game instead of dealing with the issues?



I take it you refuse to answer the facts because either:
A) You know Jones is wrong but refuse to admit it;
B) Dont want to admit you have no clue what Jones is doing and never bothered really reading his paper
C) You are so blinded by this blind faith of "inside job" and "magic nano-super-duper thermites" that any questioning of your beliefs is unacceptable, no matter how damning the counter-evidence suggests otherwise.

And now you enter into this game of:

You have shown no credible sources to back your claims.

Way to stick your head in the sand when confronted with facts that directly question your core beliefs. I wish I could be that blind.

I thought we are suppose to deny ignorance here, not purvey it.

Silverstein's actual words, not 'supposed' words, but actual words, were..
"Well...there has been SO much loss of life and tragedy today, that we thought it would be safer to just PULL THE BUILDING"

What's odd is there are TWO takes of this footage.

In one of them he says "and then we watched, from here, the building collapse".

reply to post by iamcpc


Someone who can't read is dumb. That's not verbal abuse, that's just a fact of life.

Would you agree?

reply to post by pteridine


Like I said post your motherf-cking findings.

Is it really that hard for you post what you're talking about?

reply to post by iamcpc


Exactly, post the information.

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


Since you claim that NYC was real and did exist and that is the "TRUTH" then you should have no problems presenting one tiny shred of evidence to support your view. All that you have presented so far were goverment LIES.

reply to post by pteridine


Total BS.

reply to post by GenRadek


He has yet to post it on this forum. It's truly ridiculous.