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: 15
69
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 03:14 AM
link   

It is the debunkers who have to prove their claims and they have failed.

Still wrong, it is the truthers that have to prove their claims about silent explosives, super nano thermite, podded aircraft, beam weapons etc etc. but they are unable to back their claims up with any science.


So now, the debunkers say [color=gold]they do not have to prove anything. Then why are some of you in here insulting and ridiculing Jones journal?
Just so you know, the topic is not about “podded aircraft, beam weapons etc etc.”
Furthermore, it is you debunkers who are making the claims that Jones science is not correct.
It is the debunkers who have to prove their case. There are many Truthers supporting Jones science, they do not need to prove anything.

Many of you debunkers do not know how to debunk. I assume some of you in here believe making sarcastic assumptions, and ridiculing the messenger is debating science?


Originally posted by pteridine

Perhaps you didn't recognize the science part when I showed the scientific flaws in Jones' paper. It was not peer reviewed by anyone with an analytical chemistry background. Do you claim that Jones peers are non-scientists?


[color=gold]Perhaps, you didn’t realize your opinions are not science, or scientific facts


[edit on 18-8-2010 by impressme]




posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
So now, the debunkers say they do not have to prove anything


That is what the truthers are doing, they have so far proved no part of any of their many conspiracy theories


Then why are some of you in here insulting and ridiculing Jones journal?


Because it deserves ridicule, it is poor science and proves nothing


Furthermore, it is you debunkers who are making the claims that Jones science is not correct.


It is the truthers claiming jones poor science is correct, and the facts do not back that claim up.


It is the debunkers who have to prove their case. There are many Truthers supporting Jones science, they do not need to prove anything.


Still wrong, the ones making the claim are the ones that have to prove that claim, which you are unable to do. You cannot prove any of Jones claims, but you expect others to disprove them!


Many of you debunkers do not know how to debunk.


Most truthers do not know how to tell the truth


Perhaps, you didn’t realize your opinions are not science, or scientific facts


You do not realise that you are the one with no science or facts, only your opinion.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Gee 15 pages of circular garbage from the official story believers with
complete disregard for science and logic.

It is pathetic to claim the chip samples are remotely close to paint for the
simple fact that iron spheres formed by heating the chips to only 430 degrees.

There is nothing on this earth in the form of paint that could create an
exotherm more narrow and more energetic than a controlled sample
of nano-thermite, AND produce iron spheres from surface tension created
by a high pressure reaction.

Heating iron in an open environment would get you a puddle/blob formation,
NOT a sphere. That is given the combustible material could reach the
melting point of iron.

Further to that point, the photo below clearly shows a mechanical connection
between a partially reacted chip and a sphere:



It is this result alone that proves a thermitic reaction whether performed
in the presence of oxygen, or not. This is the FACT that the official
story believers cannot grasp!

Harrit and Jones also performed testing with paint samples and there
was NO REACTION at temperatures higher than 430 degrees.

Those who claim the chips are 'paint' are clearly disinfo and/or have ZERO
comprehension of science.

Please do us all a favour and post a credible source/credible experiment/credible scientific
document
that shows paint exhibiting similar characteristics found by Jones/Harrit.

Until then, stop pushing your nonsense.



[edit on 18-8-2010 by turbofan]



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Why don't those supporting Jones' "science" step up for a discussion of the technical merits of his paper? All we have seen in response to technical criticism is opinion. There have been no technical counter-arguments to the criticisms. Where are all those supporters who understand what Jones has written? All we have seen are cheerleaders bliindly touting Jones' work.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Just stop and think for a minute, if Jones had bothered to get his paper peer reviewed he would have been told to go away and test the chips in the absence of oxygen, to further his claim that there was thermite. Perhaps that is why he did not bother to get it peer reviewed....



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 09:30 AM
link   
Additional info on ruling out paint (Niels Harrit):

stj911.org...



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Please explain why the "highly engineered" material only partially burned while combusting in the DSC. It would seem that such deadly stuff wouldn't go out by itself.
Then, if you'd like, you could explain the energy output of the chips and why they produced more energy than possible with thermite or any combination of thermite and high explosives. The only way they could do this is through combustion in air -- exactly the conditions in Jones' DSC experiment.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks
Just stop and think for a minute, if Jones had bothered to get his paper peer reviewed he would have been told to go away and test the chips in the absence of oxygen, to further his claim that there was thermite. Perhaps that is why he did not bother to get it peer reviewed....



Further to that point, the photo below clearly shows a mechanical connection
between a partially reacted chip and a sphere:

...

It is this result alone that proves a thermitic reaction whether performed
in the presence of oxygen, or not. This is the FACT that the official
story believers cannot grasp!



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by turbofan
 


Please explain why the "highly engineered" material only partially burned while combusting in the DSC. It would seem that such deadly stuff wouldn't go out by itself.
Then, if you'd like, you could explain the energy output of the chips and why they produced more energy than possible with thermite or any combination of thermite and high explosives. The only way they could do this is through combustion in air -- exactly the conditions in Jones' DSC experiment.



Further to that point, the photo below clearly shows a mechanical connection
between a partially reacted chip and a sphere

...

It is this result alone that proves a thermitic reaction whether performed
in the presence of oxygen, or not. This is the FACT that the official
story believers cannot grasp!


#1 Find me ONE example of paint that exhibits this behaviour. I'll be waiting.

#2. Grab your video camera and heat a chip of paint to 430 degrees
and show me the formation of a sphere. I'll be waiting.

#3. Grab your video camera and heat a chip of iron to its melting point
temperature. Show me the solidified (once molten) iron in the form of a SPHERE.
I'll be waiting.

#4 Get an education. I'll be waiting.


[edit on 18-8-2010 by turbofan]



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 



Well, I do have to admit that I am not concerned.


You seem concerned enough to enter the conversation. So I'm just trying to figure your position on the red/gray chips.


I was just going by what you said in an earlier post:


Ah, yes, I do see that you are not concerned enough to read the rest of my post which led to a very specific point of which you did not respond.


I tend to believe that the collapse of the WTC towers were somehow connected with the airliners plowing into them, all full of fuel.


Well that's a reasonable belief. However I think the more important "belief" is what happened after the airliners did their plowing, the parts that remained hidden.



When people want to convince me that there were loads of nanothermite used to bring them down, and the airliners were a 'simple' diversion, my BS detector goes ding*ding*ding*.


Believe you me, and I say this with all sincerity and no ill will whatsoever, I'm not here to convince you of anything as I really don't care of what you are convinced. My only concern is what you can convince me of. And saying I should look at the steel in the building as a source for the Iron Oxide in the red material doesn't convince me of anything.

The rest of your post has nothing to do with my concern of "What are these red/gray chips?" so I'm promptly disregarding it for now.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 

Cool. Can you sneak into the plant to get some primer samples so we can do our own tests?

And probably the best way to dispel the myth that all the steel is missing is to post a picture like this:





posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


The burden of proof lies with Jones and the Jonesians. He knows what experiment he should do but can't or won't. The Jonesians blindly follow their hero, without question, and will hear no criticisms of his work. None of them, you included, seem to understand why the experiments he did are inconclusive.

No Jones supporter has offered an explanation of why these demolition chips extinguish after being ignited. No Jones supporter has explained the excess energy produced other than as a combustion. You can't either, apparently, and keep defelecting the issue.

Perhaps your technical skills aren't as good as you think they are.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan[/]
#3. Grab your video camera and heat a chip of iron to its melting point
temperature. Show me the solidified (once molten) iron in the form of a SPHERE.
I'll be waiting.
Here is a simple way to form a whole lot of iron rich spheres and we will not need to videotape anything.

You will need:

1-match and a means of lighting it.

1-tuft of steel wool the size of a golf ball.

Follow this procedure:

1) Light the match.

2) Hold the match underneath the tuft of steel wool.

3) Say 'ouch' when the flames burn your fingers.

4) Check out what is left (little balls).



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 



It is pathetic to claim the chip samples are remotely close to paint for the simple fact that iron spheres formed by heating the chips to only 430 degrees.


What is pathetic is to claim that this stuff has anything to do with the World Trade center and that this exercise has anything to do with science. In the end it always comes out the same

No control group = no science.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


sites.google.com...

Do you see where the globules have formed at the bottom of the 'drip' ?
This happens every time you use a cutting torch . you could literally pick up dozens , if not hundreds of spheres from around where these cuts were made . That is a FACT .

Do you see those green bottles in the upper-right picture ? Those are oxygen and acetylene tanks . Those are connected to a cutting torch .

Do you see the guy in the lift ? He is using a CUTTING TORCH , not thermite , to make those 45-degree cuts that you see in the photos .

If you look closely , you can see the 45-degree cut that he is making , which is also shown in one of the other photos .

Is this scientific enough for you ?

sites.google.com...

[edit on 18-8-2010 by okbmd]



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by turbofan
 


sites.google.com...

Do you see where the globules have formed at the bottom of the 'drip' ?
This happens every time you use a cutting torch . you could literally pick up dozens , if not hundreds of spheres from around where these cuts were made . That is a FACT .

Do you see those green bottles in the upper-right picture ? Those are oxygen and acetylene tanks . Those are connected to a cutting torch .

Do you see the guy in the lift ? He is using a CUTTING TORCH , not thermite , to make those 45-degree cuts that you see in the photos .

If you look closely , you can see the 45-degree cut that he is making , which is also shown in one of the other photos .

Is this scientific enough for you ?

sites.google.com...

[edit on 18-8-2010 by okbmd]


Scientific enough? That's really funny. No NOT at all!

Do you realize an oxy-acet torch can produce temperature equal and above
that of a thermitic reaction?


hypertextbook.com...

Back to your "science". Since I've now pointed out that an oxy-acet. torch
can produce temperature equal and above that of thermitic reactions,
it's now YOUR job to show me what elements within the chip (please
reference the XEDS chart) can combine to produce temperatures through
COMBUSTION high enough to create spheres of iron.

Your science and comparisons lack heavily. You must be able to show
similar results as Jones using elements and temperatures found in the
DSC experiment.

Please go ahead and provide that information to back your THEORY.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by GenRadek
 

Well to me a thermite reaction will extinguish when it runs out of Iron Oxide to reduce being in proximity with Aluminum that can be oxidized. So to me the question "why didn't it burn 100%?" should first be premised on evidence that Iron Oxide was near Aluminum and should have reacted, but didn't.

Ok I'll bite, that is a good point to make. But you over look one important fact: Thermite is made from a fine powder of aluminum powder and iron oxide powder. It needs to be well mixed, and usually is. Now, as you know, if you have the ingredients, its easy as pie to make (maybe even easier than pie
). I believe the mix is usually a 1:1 ratio. One part iron oxide to one part aluminum powder. Mix it well, preferably in a nonsparking drum, or a rock tumbler. Then insert it into a coke can or flower pot, ignite with a sparkler and stand back.
When mixing is properly done, it makes the powder well mixed and therefore it should be ready to go. Now, when the reaction starts, the whole thing burns and leaves behind a molten puddle of iron. If it is in a container that can withstand the temps, all that is left is the molten iron. You will not find chunks of thermite unreacted inside, even if it was mixed together crudely with a spoon. It will react. Now, as it is constantly being claimed, that this stuff is "highly engineered nano-thermite", this should mean that it was made practically "high tech-ly" (if that is a way to say it? :lol
This means, properly mixed, powdered to nano-size, blah blah blah. Ok and the nano size should, nay, does make it easier to react fully. But what do we see instead with Jones' samples? They burn out before completion, they do not keep burning until nothing is left. Its hard to keep it lit when the flame and air is removed. So does this honestly look or sound like "highly engineered nano-thermite?" And I ask you this in hopes of an honest answer.





And why do you believe these chips were this thin in their original state? Not much survived in it's original state from whatever happened to the towers. Yes, Yes, ole Mr. Jones speculated that it may have been a thin layer but I'll post this again from their paper:

"We cannot determine at this time, however, whether the thinness of the chips resulted from the application method or the manner of reaction. While the application of a thin film might have suited specific desired outcomes, it is also possible that the quenching effect of the steel the material was in contact with may have prevented a thin film of a larger mass from reacting. The fact that most of the chips have a distinctive gray layer suggests that the unreacted material was in close contact with something else, either its target, a container, or an adhesive."

This tells me they have no clue what the original state it was in. But until they post a conclusion....

So by Jones' own words, this is no longer looking like "highly engineered" stuff is it? Its looking more and more like a crappily made junk thermite, that behaves worse than the home-made thermites I see on youtube done by bored 14 year olds. To have it quenched by the steel? Is this guy serious? Listen to him and think logically. Does this sound real? It is like he is trying to save face or make excuses as to why this is not behaving like thermite. If it truely was real thermite, I doubt it that it would be "quenched" on ignition on the steel beam. It would have cut through and through if it was laying on it horizontally. But this leads to my next point:
How was it applied? Have you ever heard of thermite cutting horizontally across a vertical beam? How would that work??
Even if you paint it on with some sort of special magical super-glue epoxy, solgel, whatever, the second it ignites, it is going to go in the direction of gravity, DOWN. It will turn to liquid and plop and flow straight down. Sure you can create a cup or something to hold around the vertical beam, but this would require tons upon tons of magic thermite to cut through. National Geographic tried it and failed putting a dent into it.



The reaction is what it is regardless of what tests are run don't you think? It's only proof of that reaction that we're looking for. Seeing as a thermite reaction will also run under air I believe it's still possible it's thermite. I don't think just because it ran under air means it's not a thermite reaction.


No it is only half, especially if the thermite has TWO distinct behaviors. If you test only one behavior, and its positive, that does not make it 100% that its thermite. Its only now, 50-50. You need both. All Jones has proven is combustion. You can take a pen, stick it in a DSC, put a flame on it and run air, and it will burn too. Does this mean it too is a thermite? Well we could run it under argon, but whats the point? We know the pen is not thermite. But, when dealing with suspected thermite, and the knowledge that it behaves a certain way, isnt it logical to test for BOTH behaviors/traits? ie: Burning in air, and without oxygen?



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
1) Light the match.


What is the temp. of a match flame? How high was the temperature in
the DSC?

Do you know that burning steel wool produces a thermitic reaction?
How do you figure the temperature is reached to produce the tiny
sphere balls. Steel wool even burns when it's wet providing a chemical
reaction, NOT combustion.

Your logic is terrible. Your example is terrible.

I also stated to HEAT, not BURN the IRON.

However, I did ask for a scenario where spheres are created buy heating
IRON (not carbon steel)...so you get some points for that, even if your
example proves Jones' experiment by thermitic reaction


So, go ahead and prove #1 and #2. I asked for four points, not just one
to be proven.

[edit on 18-8-2010 by turbofan]



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridineNo Jones supporter has offered an explanation of why these demolition chips extinguish after being ignited.


I don't know why I bother debating you? You answer my questions with more
questions and you clearly cannot provide examples to support my four
criteria.

Why do some of the chips extinguish? Who knows, it could be improper
chemical ratio to complete the reaction is some of the chips.

There's a reason, and a good scientific one at that.

When you can show me an example model of a naturally made, or human
made product that burns 100% efficient, 100% of the time, we will go
futher into this particular question of yours.



No Jones supporter has explained the excess energy produced other than as a combustion. You can't either, apparently, and keep defelecting the issue.


Simple. The chips are comprised of elements and ratios far superior
to that of the control sample used.



Perhaps your technical skills aren't as good as you think they are.




Far better than yours.

Now I've answered YOUR questions, time to answer MINE.

P.S. For those that starred any of the posts made by Butcher, Pterdine,
or OKbmd, I question your scientific comprehension of this topic and
challenge you to a ONE-ON-ONE debate on the ATS debate sub-forum.

Same challenge goes to the three members just mentioned.

[edit on 18-8-2010 by turbofan]

[edit on 18-8-2010 by turbofan]



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, Volume 2

P. 26


"...While the application of a thin film might have suited
specific desired outcomes, it is also possible that the quenching
effect of the steel the material was in contact with may
have prevented a thin film of a larger mass from reacting
.
The fact that most of the chips have a distinctive gray layer
suggests that the unreacted material was in close contact
with something else, either its target, a container, or an adhesive."


Jones' statement makes it clear why some of the nanothermite did not burn complete. Stop trying to fight Jones with opinions that have no proof or sciences backing them. Dr. Jones shown it was not regular thermite like railroads have used for over a hundred year. The temperatures the regular thermite ignited at is not the same.

Another point that is difference, we all know, regular thermite has to be heated in a closed container to make enough heat to melt railroad track for example not just poured in a Coke can and light with matches.



new topics

top topics



 
69
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join