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

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.

reply to post by pteridine


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

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.

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]

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.

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?

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]

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.

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]

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.

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!!!

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?

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_]