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.

 

Gosh, History Channel... you forgot to mention the nano-thermite!!

page: 5
9
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

RJ Lee was never looking for thermite and only happened to mention the iron micro-spheres as part of a way to recognize the WTC dust as a specific signature.



Think of it like this:

Person A The ice melting was caused by fire.

Person B The ice melting was NOT caused by fire It was caused by something much hotter than fire.

I say person A and person B disagree about what caused the melting ice.
You say person A was not looking for thermite.

They still disagree on what caused the melting ice (microspheres).

We have not even started talking about thermite. We are only talking about microspheres.

If the microspheres can only happen at temperatures greater than 2000+ degress why did two seperate sets of experts say they can happen at temperatures lower than 2000 degrees?

Who is wrong?




posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 05:27 PM
link   
I just read this:

"Thermite is typically very difficult to ignite, requiring a temperature of over 3,000 degrees F just to get the reaction started."

SOURCE: unitednuclear.com...

Steven jones was igniting the red chips at a temperature much lower than that. Wouldn't that be some sort of indication that they were not thermite because they ignited at a lower temperature?



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 05:50 PM
link   
very interesting post thank you



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
Plus, Dr. Jones has an amazing record in Physics including graduating magna cum laude, and a PhD from Vanderbilt, and PhD work at Stanford. He basically gave up his career in Physics to work for 9/11 truth and he has the equipment and knowledge to know how to analyze that dust.


Appeal to authority?

He does have an amazing record. The Board of Regents helped him to give up his career in physics so he could try chemistry. Michael Jordan gave up basketball for baseball.

Chemists everywhere are amazed at Jones scientific ability.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


The DSC furnace ran to 700*C about 1290*F. The instrument doesn't measure flame temperature, only furnace temperature.

On another note, thermite is a mixture of two powders, aluminum and black iron oxide. Other thermites exist with a reducing metal and a metal oxide, e.g., CuO/Al, MoO3/Al.
Some of the nano-thermites are built in a matrix of SiO2.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 07:53 PM
link   
So it seems we, including myself, have differing ideas of what the term "thermite" means and at what temperature it blows up...

We can work on this... can't take the time at the mo' but...

The substance I'm talking about, exclusively, is the red/grey bi-layer, particles found in four different samples of dust from the world trade center collapses.

I'm also interested in the iron micro-spheres because many groups have found these and commented on them in published journals - while Dr. Steven Jones saw iron micro-spheres as the result of igniting the red/grey material in a lab setting.

Is the name of what I'm talking about "thermite/thermate/nano-thermite"? Not sure but I'll clear it up when I time to check it out.

When I get my claws into a mystery like this I don't stop 'til I have some answers! I honestly don't care what name it turns out to be, but there's already enough proof to say something is amiss (namely, 150 times the level of expected iron micro-spheres, and molten metal in the wreckage).


[edit on 3-6-2010 by Thermo Klein]



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
The DSC furnace ran to 700*C about 1290*F.


Thanks for catching that. I originally posted as C then switched to F in a post or two.



Red/gray chips were subjected to heating using a differential
scanning calorimeter (DSC). The data shown in Fig.
(19) demonstrate that the red/gray chips from different WTC
samples all ignited in the range 415-435 °C.
...
Spheres rich in iron already demonstrate
the occurrence of very high temperatures, well above
the 700 °C temperature reached in the DSC, in view of the
high melting point of iron and iron oxide [5]. Such high temperatures
indicate that a chemical reaction occurred.

Jones et al. Active Thermitic Material journal, p.19



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


The particles are chips from a coating. The gray material is likely an oxide from the surface of what was painted. These are not thermite.
The iron microspheres may or may not be all iron. They look a lot like flyash to me and their presence is not diagnostic of thermite.
The SEM shows white, faceted structures that appear to be kaolinite [an aluminosilicate clay used in paint] and the EDAX element maps are consistent with this.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


oh... well, case solved!! That is after I see links and citations for all that stuff u just said.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 01:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 

I'm sure it won't take you long to find whatever links you need. Any search engine will do.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 03:08 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


nice delegating, unfortunately I already found plenty of sites, listed throughout this thread, that show the iron spheres came from the explosive red/grey material...

trying to throw a few words out and make me do the work to debunk the scientific research I already found? try again

However I was curious about Kaolinite. It's a mineral found in clay and can be used in paints, etc - I imagine there could be some of this in the the WTC dust. Doesn't account for 150 times the iron though...


[edit on 4-6-2010 by Thermo Klein]



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
Thanks for that - I am such an idiot for ever believing a single word or intention of Good Ol Dave... I appreciate the background and look forward to reading more about these scientists.



HUH?!? IPCPC posted excerpts that *confirmed* everythign I said about Dr. Judy Wood not agreeing with Jones' paper and your response is, "you are such an idiot for ever believing a single word of mine"...?

Would you mind terribly explaining yourself? Either I posted correct information that showed Jones' paper has been refuted or it hasn't.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


if it was a program about de-bunking theories about 9/11, then i would guess it would have to be biased, don't you think so too?



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 09:32 PM
link   
The fact is no one has debunked anything in here much less to even know how to debate.
Opinions are not how one goes about debunking in the real world. The fact that the history channel left out some very important science and sided with the OS, only shows that the history channel was used as a propaganda tool to duped the mass population into believing a lie, that is my opinion since most are using theirs as facts.


[edit on 5-6-2010 by impressme]



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 09:35 PM
link   
I don't believe all the 9/11 conspiracy theories, but it does annoy me when History does shows like that, either omitting theories or mocking them. They aired one on the Da Vinci Code, starting from the position of it all being bunk. not very scientific.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 04:22 AM
link   
I'm not going to agree with Prof Steven Jones conclusions or not because I don't have the qualifications.

But to say that a professor and 6 or 7 of his peers who write a paper is wrong because one other professor (Prof Judy Wood) disagrees with them is totally specious reasoning.

Academics at this level disagree with their peers' conclusions all the time, it is commonplace in academia - its not a contest, just a difference of opinion.

For the disbelievers of Prof Steven Jones, it seems you have just latched on to someone who supports your predetermined belief and ignored everyone else.

The same goes for the truthers.

But to simply say that a professor at an institution is not credible because one other professor disagrees with their conclusion means you are not familiar with academic debate and are simply only using evidence to support your hypothesis and leaving out the evidence that contradicts it.

Very bad science.

[edit on 6/6/1010 by Krusty the Klown]



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Krusty the Klown
 


Errmmm...sorry you have the mistaken impression that it is only ONE scientist who disagrees with "Dr." Jones...

www.rense.com...

AND, amazingly, that is from Rense!! I know, hard to imagine, a site that normally loves a 'conspiracy'...so, my hat's off to them! At least they ARE trying to keep facts straight.

Now....that popped up first, and I know what's going to be claimed next...that incident was about his "pre-thermite/thermate" so-called 'theories'....BUT, it's important to see the psychology, here. He seemed to have felt a need to attempt a 'redemption' of his credibility. AND, in so doing, just shot off his other foot, it would seem.

In any case, as it has been noted quite well here on ATS, his 'paper' does not stand up to real, actual peer review. So, it isn't just "Dr." Judy Wood who disagrees with him. He seems to have convinced (somehow) a smallish group of acolytes...but, I'm not even sure of that, as I haven't bothered to keep up with the latest in his saga...

He isn't worth the time or effort. EXCEPT when the nonsense is believed by some, superficially, without being properly looked into.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Like I said in the previous post Weedwhacker:

"Academics at this level disagree with their peers' conclusions all the time, it is commonplace in academia - its not a contest, just a difference of opinion."

I have no doubt that there are other academics who disagree with Prof Jones conclusions but to simply use the opinions of academics who agree with your opinions and not giving heed to those who disagree is not using reason. How many other academics agree with Dr Jones? Have they been looked for? Or only the ones who disagree with him?

Anyway, my post above was referring to this comment at the start of the thread:

"Jeez, Dr. Judy Wood isn't exactly a fountain of credibility with her "lasers from outer space" caims and even she says the whole thermite bit is rubbish. Move along, there's nothing to see here."

This poster rubbishes one academic's credibility but then relies on that academic's opinion to rubbish another. That is what I was referring to as specious reasoning. The only way that poster could seriously question a Phd is to have more qualifications than the Phd.

People need to be careful to understand that just because academics disagree with each others' published articles does not mean that the author of the paper is a total incompetent or nutjob like is painted by a few posters on this website.

Academia actually encourages debate between academics such as these two mentioned, but to say one is a fraud because a few others disagree with their conclusions is spurious and misleading.

I always have to laugh when a person with a Phd or professorship speaks about something from their area of expertise and laypeople pour scorn on them because they disagree.

People always seem to take a difference of opinion as a personal insult!!!



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Krusty the Klown
 


I just notice that person A has the unique ability to say their theories are are right and the experts who support their theories are right. Any experts who refute the theories of person A are incorrect.

How can a person so blindly believe in a theory when there is a significant amount of evidence either refuting that theory or supporting other theories?



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
Thanks for that - I am such an idiot for ever believing a single word or intention of Good Ol Dave... I appreciate the background and look forward to reading more about these scientists.



HUH?!? IPCPC posted excerpts that *confirmed* everythign I said about Dr. Judy Wood not agreeing with Jones' paper and your response is, "you are such an idiot for ever believing a single word of mine"...?

Would you mind terribly explaining yourself? Either I posted correct information that showed Jones' paper has been refuted or it hasn't.


You posted that it was refuted by someone you yourself state is not credible.Yet here you are adding importance to said person.


Case in point:

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Jeez, Dr. Judy Wood isn't exactly a fountain of credibility with her "lasers from outer space" caims and even she says the whole thermite bit is rubbish. Move along, there's nothing to see here.




You where even the one that brought her into the discussion to begin with.
That is quite desperate behaviour on your part.







Edit: I see now i was not the only one that noticed as Krusty also pointed it out.

[edit on 8-6-2010 by Rafe_]



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join