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.

 

Thermite Proven! Jones Science Proves Red Thematic Material not just Red Paint Chips

page: 10
69
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Doctor Smith
 


I refer you to Pteridine's reply. He also mentions a forthcoming publication in the original paper itself.




posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 





1. Thermite will react in air or without air

If you say so. I think it will burn under water once the reaction starts.


2. Paint will burn in air but not without air

It might burn if heated. It might also burn without air if it has its own oxidizer.


3. If you run the DSC in air and heat is evolved you don't know whether it is burning paint or thermite

BS! Iron Spheres will only form from a thermite like reaction. A normal combustible material cannot get hot enough to melt iron. It was only heated to a little above 400 degrees Celsius. a small amount of material like that could never get that hot in a million years without a thermite like reaction.

4. Jones ran the DSC in air

Irrelevant because of my answer in # 3.

5. He doesn't know whether it is paint burning or thermite

Everyone seems to know but about you and 19 others on all of ATS.

6. Because of this he can't claim thermite and hasn't proved thermite

False. Illogical conclusion.

So point by point you have nothing.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Doctor Smith
Where did you here that? I haven't seen any statement of Jones saying he needed to address anything of his peer reviewed paper. I hope you didn't actually believe pteridine if he told you that one.


Since you're claiming that Jones' work has been peer reviewed, then you must be aware of an independent peer who Jones submitted his samples to in order to review his conclusions...?

If not, then the only peer review that matters is the peer review of the editor in chief of the journal that published it- she resigned in disgust becuase she didn't want to have her reputation tarnished by Jones' rubbish.



I didn't see her statement about she resigned in disgust because she didn't want to have her reputation tarnished by Jones' rubbish. Please give me a link or is this just more of your made up irrelevant diversions.

[edit on 12-8-2010 by Doctor Smith]



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Doctor Smith
 


He said it on several occasions. Check the transcripts of his Norwegian radio interview.


I can't find it. Show us.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Doctor Smith
 





1. Thermite will react in air or without air

If you say so. I think it will burn under water once the reaction starts.

So you agree with pteridine.




2. Paint will burn in air but not without air It might burn if heated. It might also burn without air if it has its own oxidizer.
Only then it wouldn't be paint anymore. It would be more like rocket fuel, or maybe thermite. Hence the point of testing with NO air present.

[edit on 12-8-2010 by butcherguy]



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Doctor Smith
 



3. If you run the DSC in air and heat is evolved you don't know whether it is burning paint or thermite BS! Iron Spheres will only form from a thermite like reaction. A normal combustible material cannot get hot enough to melt iron. It was only heated to a little above 400 degrees Celsius. a small amount of material like that could never get that hot in a million years without a thermite like reaction.
BS. I can melt steel with a match or Bic lighter. Not just can, have! The melted steel forms little spheres.




4. Jones ran the DSC in air Irrelevant because of my answer in # 3.
Effectively nullified by my last (#3).




5. He doesn't know whether it is paint burning or thermite Everyone seems to know but about you and 19 others on all of ATS.
I am going to have to see the polling data and the margin for ERROR.




6. Because of this he can't claim thermite and hasn't proved thermite False. Illogical conclusion. So point by point you have nothing.
Ohhhkaaay.



[edit on 12-8-2010 by butcherguy]



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Doctor Smith
 


Thank you for your reply. It is completely wrong.
Thermite burns in the absence of air. That is what Jones has to show. Finding iron-containing spheres of dubious origin does not prove thermite. If you look at the photos in Jones' paper, you see such attached to unburned chips. That means that the chips ignited and then went out of their own accord. This is supposed to be a highly engineered demolition material. Why won't it stay lit? No Jones supporter has been able to explain that. Would you like to try or will you concede that Jones has some key experiments to do before he can claim any reaction other than combustion?



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doctor Smith
I didn't see her statement about she resigned in disgust because she didn't want to have her reputation tarnished by Jones' rubbish. Please give me a link or is this just more of your made up irrelevant diversions.


Absolutely. The editor in chief at The Open Chemical Physics Journal that resigned is Professor Marie-Paule Pileni. The original interview is in Danish bit someone translated it-

"They have printed the article without my authorization else, so when you wrote to me, I did not mean that the article was published. I can not accept, and I have written to Bentham, that I withdraw myself from all activities with them, "says Marie-Paule Pileni, which daily is a professor specializing in nanomaterials at the prestigious Université Pierre et Marie Curie in France .

"I can not accept that the issue is put in my journal. The article is not about physical chemistry or chemical physics, and I could well believe that there is a political point of view behind the publication. If anyone had asked me, I would say that the article should never have been published in this journal."


I am quoting information posted in randi.org but you can do a Google search on Marie-Paule Pileni and get as much information as you'd like. The fact is, she dismisses the article as not being scientifically relevent as well as having a political agenda behind it, and she resigned becuase she didn't want to have anything to do with it.

Jones' work has gone through peer review, all right. The peer review says that Jones' report is garbage.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



Dave, why didn’t you post the rest of the story about Marie-Paule Pileni?
Because, the nonsense you posted would not stand up to the truth, nice spin.


She also claimed she cannot judge the paper because the subject matter is outside her field of experience.



Marie-Paule Pileni, the former Open Chemical Physics Journal editor in chief, in fact seems to have the ideal background to judge this paper. She has a thorough background in physical chemistry and chemical physics, as well as with explosives. She also has extensive connections to the defense industry [8]. These facts suggest more of her stretching the truth and resigning under pressure than due to incompetence or indignation. This paper leads to the undeniable implication that some of the most powerful people on Earth lied about what happened on 9/11 and were even possibly involved in the WTC tower demolitions. Would this not be a massive potential source of political pressure? Enough pressure for the editor to lie and resign?


www.the-peoples-forum.com...



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


If Jones' paper is so credible, why don't we discuss it point by point?


We did, and I proved to the readers on here how you twisted Jones research


I have offered to do so with you and anyone or group you choose to have help you on the technical merits of Jones' paper.


You have offered nothing, but to ridicule Jones work and twist his science, which I already proven. You will not answer any of my questions on most of my post to you.
That is not debating.


Apparently, no experts will come to Jones' defense. Maybe they know that there isn't any defense.


Again your opinion. However, a division in our government did find spears in the WTC dust samples I guess their science is a lie to.

USGA website

Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust

pubs.usgs.gov...



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


What was the point of the particle atlas?

You have not debated me on the technical merits of the paper; all you have done is to say Jones was correct and any arguments against him are opinion. That is not debate; it is obfuscation.

Are you ready to discuss the paper point by point?



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



What was the point of the particle atlas?

Obviously, you did not read it.
playing dumb does not suite you well.


You have not debated me on the technical merits of the paper;


See, you are wrong again and this goes to prove you never read a single post that I responded to you. I have tried to debated Jones work only to watch you twist the science around and mislead the readers in here.


all you have done is to say Jones was correct and any arguments against him are opinion. That is not debate; it is obfuscation.


You have never responded to my post concerning the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)?

*Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust*
pubs.usgs.gov...

I asked you a question, this debate is not one sided your side only, do you believe the USGS report is a lie?


Are you ready to discuss the paper point by point?


I tried to discuss Jones paper with you, however there is no discussing a paper when you do not knowledge or answer any of my questions and you continue to distort Jones experiments and test analysis as I have proven you have repeatedly in this thread.

To make such a ridiculous claim that Jones did not find Thermite shows how well you completely ignored Jones paper. Perhaps, you see yourself above science, I don’t know. What I do know, is you have not provided any science or credible sources to back your silly claims against Jones Thermite report or answer any of my questions straightforwardly.

[edit on 12-8-2010 by impressme]



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Obviously you forgot you hadn't asked a question about the particle atlas. I did look at it and noted that there were no iron spheres. There were iron containing spheres and other iron containing materials, but no elemental iron spheres that one would expect from thermite. I think you may have misinterpreted the data. The atlas doesn't prove thermite.

Are you ready to discuss the paper? We can start at the beginning and step through it. You can support it and I will criticize it. Bring some friends.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Obviously you forgot you hadn't asked a question about the particle atlas.


Exscuss me, I most certainly did.


I did look at it and noted that there were no iron spheres.




There were iron containing spheres and other iron containing materials, but no elemental iron spheres that one would expect from thermite.


No that is untrue that is your interpretation this is why you cannot debate because you continue to distort the facts.


I think you may have misinterpreted the data.


I don’t think so. Perhaps you would like to show that USGS report that said no elemental iron spheres, because it clearly shows they did. This is what I am talking about how you just deliberately made up outrages claims.


The atlas doesn't prove thermite.


That is your opinion, and the ingredients in the USGS report says it is.


Are you ready to discuss the paper? We can start at the beginning and step through it. You can support it and I will criticize it. Bring some friends.


No, you made the claims for years that Jones Thermite paper is fraudulent so show your proof, show your science, show your evidence show us your credible sources?

Put up or shut up.



[edit on 12-8-2010 by impressme]



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Doctor Smith
I didn't see her statement about she resigned in disgust because she didn't want to have her reputation tarnished by Jones' rubbish. Please give me a link or is this just more of your made up irrelevant diversions.


Absolutely. The editor in chief at The Open Chemical Physics Journal that resigned is Professor Marie-Paule Pileni. The original interview is in Danish bit someone translated it-

"They have printed the article without my authorization else, so when you wrote to me, I did not mean that the article was published. I can not accept, and I have written to Bentham, that I withdraw myself from all activities with them, "says Marie-Paule Pileni, which daily is a professor specializing in nanomaterials at the prestigious Université Pierre et Marie Curie in France .


"I can not accept that the issue is put in my journal. The article is not about physical chemistry or chemical physics, and I could well believe that there is a political point of view behind the publication. If anyone had asked me, I would say that the article should never have been published in this journal."


I am quoting information posted in randi.org but you can do a Google search on Marie-Paule Pileni and get as much information as you'd like. The fact is, she dismisses the article as not being scientifically relevent as well as having a political agenda behind it, and she resigned becuase she didn't want to have anything to do with it.

Jones' work has gone through peer review, all right. The peer review says that Jones' report is garbage.



Well it looks like their is nothing to this. Obviously trying to save her lucrative career. Unlike Jones who lost his career.

However, Professor Pileni did the only thing she could do, if she wanted to save her career. After resigning, she did not criticize our paper. Rather, she said that she could not read and evaluate it, because, she claimed, it lies outside the areas of her expertise.

But that is not true, as shown by information contained on her own website (www.sri.jussieu.fr...). Her List of Publications reveals that Professor Pileni has published hundreds of articles in the field of nanoscience and nanotechnology. She is, in fact, recognized as one of the leaders in the field. Her statement about her ”major advanced research” points out that, already by 2003, she was ”the 25th highest cited scientist on nanotechnology” (www.sri.jussieu.fr...).

Since the late 1980s, moreover, she has served as a consultant for the French Army and other military institutions. From 1990 to 1994, for example, she served as a consultant for the Société Nationale des Poudres et Explosifs (National Society for Powders and Explosives).
She could, therefore, have easily read our paper, and she surely did. But by denying that she had read it, she avoided the question that would have inevitably been put to her: ”What do you think of it?”

Faced with that question, she would have had two options. She could have criticized it, but that would have been difficult without inventing some artificial criticism, which she as a good scientist with an excellent reputation surely would not have wanted to do. The only other option would have been to acknowledge the soundness of our work and its conclusions. But this would have threatened her career.

911blogger.com...

Over the next few months we saw unprecedented attacks levied on the journal that published the paper. The editors of the journal were pummeled with email and blog attacks and one of them, who had not been involved in review of the paper, resigned. Some attackers even sought to discredit the Bentham Science family of journals, of which the Open Chemical Physics journal was one member, by submitting phony articles to see if they could get published. Discrediting Bentham Science would not have fully removed the threat to the official story, however, because the evidence for energetic materials at the WTC is supported by peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals other than just Bentham.[v],[vi]

911blogger.com...


[edit on 13-8-2010 by Doctor Smith]



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
Dave, why didn’t you post the rest of the story about Marie-Paule Pileni?
Because, the nonsense you posted would not stand up to the truth, nice spin.


She also claimed she cannot judge the paper because the subject matter is outside her field of experience.


If you're going to go that route then this necessarily means Jones' paper still has no credibility, becuase chemical analysis and chemical sciences are outside Jones' field of expertise as well (His background is in fusion physics, remember?) Pileni is a university professor exactly like Jones is/was, so either the title grants credibility or it does not.

You walked straight into that one, impressme.



Marie-Paule Pileni, the former Open Chemical Physics Journal editor in chief, in fact seems to have the ideal background to judge this paper. She has a thorough background in physical chemistry and chemical physics, as well as with explosives. She also has extensive connections to the defense industry [8]. These facts suggest more of her stretching the truth and resigning under pressure than due to incompetence or indignation. This paper leads to the undeniable implication that some of the most powerful people on Earth lied about what happened on 9/11 and were even possibly involved in the WTC tower demolitions. Would this not be a massive potential source of political pressure? Enough pressure for the editor to lie and resign?


So in other words, every flipping thing in the world from someone resigning their post in disgust to a native in Borneo falling off a cliff in the jungle just has to be part of some secret conspiracy or another to you. Sorry, but I'm immune to such games.

Jones' paper is nothing but an attempt at dropping innuendo that Thermite was responsible for the destruction of the WTC in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, and you're now trying to drop innuendo that Pileni is an integral part of the coverup despite her specifically coming out and saying she doesn't want to her name be connected to it. The reason is obvious- you conspiracy mongers don't have even a microbe of tangible evidence of any conspiracy so you have to resort to playing innuendo dropping games like this to keep your conspiracy stories alive.

Pineni resigned becuase she didn't want anything to do with Jones' rubbish report. It's her right. Deal with it.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Doctor Smith
 


I don't get this line of thinking at all. You're saying that everybody in the relevant scientific fields who has reviewed the evidence considers thermite to have been used, but that they are all just too worried about their careers to come forward? Fully hundreds of thousands of people are silent because of this?

And who are they scared of? Are there shadowy enforcers running universities up and down the land, brooking no criticism of the government line? If so, then why do they let Johns Hopkins publish all that research about murdered Iraqis? Why does Noam Chomsky have a career?



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Where does the file say elemental iron spheres? I must have missed it.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Where does the file say elemental iron spheres? I must have missed it.



Are you questioning me? You, who will not answer any of my questions.
You will find your answer on the same page that you claim Jones did not find thermite.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Yes, I am questioning you. You who will not debate the technical merits of Jones paper. You who make unsupported claims. I am asking you to show where the data says "Iron spheres." Note that this is not "Iron CONTAINING spheres, but Iron spheres.

If you refuse to reply, that will be proof that your claims are unfounded.



new topics

top topics



 
69
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join