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: 18
69
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 
I can understand why you will need a videotape to believe that molten steel can cool below its freezing point while falling through air.

Or is it the part about molten steel forming a sphere while falling that you don't believe?

Maybe both?



[edit on 19-8-2010 by butcherguy]




posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Wow, just when I thought it couldn't get any worse.

Pots and pans, torches and fire pits, video cameras and stove-tops. All combined with cut and paste copies of Jones' "paper" that give HIS opinions.

All this distraction and yet nothing has come out of it. Jones can clear this up by doing the proper test, yet he doesn't. Why don't you truthers question that? You ask the us "paid goverment shills" for evidence all the time to satisfy you 100%, and you can't do the same?


It starts real simple. Have a TRULY independent (this is what you guys want right, an independent investigation) qualified scientist run the test in the absence of air, on verified dust samples. Publish the results, and then let's have the discussion.

Until then, this is proof of nothing, and this thread title and it's claims are total bunk.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
Jones' statement makes it clear why some of the nanothermite


Chips measuring 0.5mm are not "nano". Why are you being so blatently false? The chip is actually 500,000 nanometers.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR

Originally posted by impressme
Jones' statement makes it clear why some of the nanothermite


Chips measuring 0.5mm are not "nano". Why are you being so blatently false? The chip is actually 500,000 nanometers.


Well, now wait. The chips are nanothermite, they contain nanothermite and red and gray paint. You see the nanothermite was mixed with paint and then painted on the steel and then they attached fuses to the nanothermite or something like that or maybe it was painted on the windows because one of the videos shows melting nanothermite coming out of the windows or something, anyway, its there the peer reviewed nobel prize winning paper posted on the internet proves it, what are you a disinfo agent?



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 

No fuses attached.

The planes were the fuses in the theory that I most recently subscribed to.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by hooper
 

No fuses attached.

The planes were the fuses in the theory that I most recently subscribed to.


What planes?



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 

No, I'm only comparing the sol-gel as that's the closest comparison I can find. From what I'm reading about the sol-gel materials its obvious these chips are not that. The purpose of the link I provided was a way to show that any random means of production (i.e. stirring, mixing, etc.) will not result in 100% efficiency for anything. That's one of the points I was trying to make yesterday. Making the particles smaller increases the likelihood of contact between the surfaces, but there is still randomness in the manufacturing process.

So the point was: a random mixing of thermite will not be 100% along with a random mixing of "nano" particles.

But if you have the time read that pdf and how these people are making their stuff. They're using Iron Oxide threads in an Aluminum mesh. Now that is "highly engineered".... it makes even the sol-gel stuff look primitive... at least to me it does.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist
Wow, just when I thought it couldn't get any worse.

Pots and pans, torches and fire pits, video cameras and stove-tops. All combined with cut and paste copies of Jones' "paper" that give HIS opinions.

All this distraction and yet nothing has come out of it. Jones can clear this up by doing the proper test, yet he doesn't. Why don't you truthers question that? You ask the us "paid goverment shills" for evidence all the time to satisfy you 100%, and you can't do the same?


It starts real simple. Have a TRULY independent (this is what you guys want right, an independent investigation) qualified scientist run the test in the absence of air, on verified dust samples. Publish the results, and then let's have the discussion.

Until then, this is proof of nothing, and this thread title and it's claims are total bunk.

That's a good idea, an independant investigation and, redo his tests again. why not e-mail Dr Jones and tell him yourself. I mean you were very thorough in your thread as to how a passport can survive a plane crash, using the Steve Fossett crash as "The example" BTW did they ever find his body? To add, talk about the Kettle calling the Pot black!

[edit on 19-8-2010 by smurfy]



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy
That's a good idea, an independant investigation and, redo his tests again. why
not e-mail Dr Jones and tell him yourself.


I'm not the one claiming it's "proven", when it clearly is not.



I mean you were very thorough in your thread as to how a passport can survive a plane crash, using the Steve Fossett crash as "The example" BTW did they ever find his body? To add, talk about the Kettle calling the Pot black!


Trying more off topic distractions? Yawn.

This is actually a perfect example, for years truthers were spouting off that no way a passport could have survived a plane crash, saying things like "give us evidence of just ONE, blah blah". And when the Fossett plane was found and there it was, they suddenly wanted to change their tune. They are forever faced with the FACT that yes, documents can and do survive horrific fiery plane crashes.


Now, relating back on topic and with that in mind, when are the truthers going to ask Jones to perform the proper tests instead of trying to point people towards a "shiny object"?

It's not working on those of us that refuse to buy into the nonsense.

Once again, this thread delivers fail.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
Chips measuring 0.5mm are not "nano". Why are you being so blatently false? The chip is actually 500,000 nanometers.


The chips are also not a single substance. They are a lot of different things put together. This is why the scale you are referencing, of the entire sample, is irrelevant.




This is from "figure 8" out of the Jones/Harrit/etc. paper, and there are 3 more images in the same figure.

world911truth.org...

You can read the caption yourself.


Here two layers of different compositions are shown, but the upper one in itself is made of many different, much smaller particles, as you can see:



The 20 micrometers is shown, but that's obviously not the scale of the small flecks in the red layer, which are shown closer in the other image above.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 12:06 AM
link   
Here's another thorough debunking of the claim that these are paint chips:

zelikow.wordpress.com...


CONCLUSION

The properties of the primer paint and the red/gray chips are inconsistent.

The red/gray chips cannot be the primer paint as it is characterized by NIST.


It talks plenty about what the DSC results mean in regards to it being paint.


The composition of these chips is already known not to match paint. No one has produced a paint with similar properties.

The paint theory is a theory with no evidence.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by turbofan
 
I can understand why you will need a videotape to believe that molten steel can cool below its freezing point while falling through air.

Or is it the part about molten steel forming a sphere while falling that you don't believe?

Maybe both?


Below it's freezing point while falling a few feet?


This is really getting out of hand. You're all just talking and backing nothing up. I've offered to perform experiments that will show paint
cannot "burn" to cause enough heat to melt iron into a sphere and
nobody takes me up on this?

I wonder why?

Nobody has found a scenario to sastisfy the four criteria outlined two
pages back. It's not surprising.

Nobody wants to arrange an exchange with Steve Jones to explain why
he's wrong? Come on people, I'm sure he'd love to know where all
that extra heat came from to make iron chips turn into a sphere through
combustion!


I guess i'll bring some dried paint to my next camping trip instead of wood!


[edit on 20-8-2010 by turbofan]



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by turbofan
 
I can understand why you will need a videotape to believe that molten steel can cool below its freezing point while falling through air.

Or is it the part about molten steel forming a sphere while falling that you don't believe?

Maybe both?


Below it's freezing point while falling a few feet?



It is new information to me that the WTC towers were only a few feet tall.

I know that you are not going to back that up.

Would I have to back up the fact that the sky appears to be blue?



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


So how many feet does it take for it to freeze, falling through cool air on a sunny, ~70-degree F day?

Let's see how long it takes you to figure this out.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 06:00 PM
link   
Even Wiki says,


Like conventional thermite, super thermite usage is hazardous due to the extremely high temperatures produced and the extreme difficulty in smothering a reaction once initiated.


You simply can't have unreacted nanothermite.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 

Your proposed experiments will prove nothing and you'll probably hurt yourself in the process. Using house paint from 2010 is not the same as using cured metal primer dating from the late 1960's and early 1970's. Since that time, vehicles and driers have been changed and lead was banned ca. 1978. [Steve finds lead in some samples and wonders what it means. It probably means that the contractor used whatever paint they could find at the time.]
Jones knows that there was some combustion in the DSC. His quote from Page 28 "We observe that the total energy released from some of
the red chips exceeds the theoretical limit for thermite alone
(3.9 kJ/g). One possibility is that the organic material in the
red layer is itself energetic." It is energetic....when combusting in air.
As is apparent from his bar chart [Fig. 30], there is no combination of thermite and an energetic material, like the explosives he shows, that will provide the energy in the chips without combustion. If combustion occurs, there is no way of telling how much energy is from combustion and how much from anything else.
The only solution is to run the DSC under argon and measure the energy without combustion effecting the results. Until then, there is no evidence for thermite.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridineJones knows that there was some combustion in the DSC. His quote from Page 28 "We observe that the total energy released from some of
the red chips exceeds the theoretical limit for thermite alone
(3.9 kJ/g). One possibility is that the organic material in the
red layer is itself energetic."


Jones knows this, and understands it. He was smart enough to acknowledge
this, and included it within his results.

He is smart enough to know that "stuff" that burns up in combustion is
TOO SLOW to create a narrow exotherm as shown in comparison to
the control sample.


The temperature peak and the time to reach peak temperatuer are
two entirely different things!


If you're still in the dark about this, there's no point debating you because
you just don't get it. You never will.

Combustion cannot create a transition in temperature FASTER than a known
control sample of nano-thermite.

Once again, Jones (and many of us understand this) and therefore can
still claim that the additional heat considered through combustion has
absolutely NOTHING to do with proving/disproving a thermitic reaction
in the absence of air.

My challenge to debate you 1-on-1 about DSC equipment and Jones' paper
still stands. Accept the challenge, and I'll set up the thread.


[edit on 21-8-2010 by turbofan]



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan

Jones knows this, and understands it. He was smart enough to acknowledge
this, and included it within his results.

He is smart enough to know that "stuff" that burns up in combustion is
TOO SLOW to create a narrow exotherm as shown in comparison to
the control sample.


The temperature peak and the time to reach peak temperatuer are
two entirely different things!


If you're still in the dark about this, there's no point debating you because
you just don't get it. You never will.

Combustion cannot create a transition in temperature FASTER than a known control sample of nano-thermite.

Once again, Jones (and many of us understand this) and therefore can
still claim that the additional heat considered through combustion has
absolutely NOTHING to do with proving/disproving a thermitic reaction
in the absence of air.



Jones knows this and is trying to avoid admitting he did the wrong experiment.
You are confusing temperature rise during reaction or combustion with temperature scan rate. Those temperatures are the temperatures of the DSC furnace, not the temperature of the burn. The temperature rise of the burn is not measured, only heat flow into or out of the sample. The 370 to 470 temperature range of the Macinlay chips, shown in fig 19, spans 100 degrees C. At 10 deg C/Minute this amounts to a ten minute burn.
The possibility of combustion has EVERYTHING to do with proving or disproving thermite. The thermite reaction occurs in the presence or absence of air. Combustion does not occur in the absence of air. Jones must run the DSC under argon or other inert gas to show the possibility of thermite. With this flaw in Jones OS, the truthers should immediately consider Jones as a paid disinfo agent perpetrating yet another red herring to lead people away from the truth.

All the laughable, ignorant guesswork about the spheres and the shape of the DSC curves is meaningless, as is Jones' paper, until he does this experiment.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridineYou are confusing temperature rise during reaction or combustion with temperature scan rate. Those temperatures are the temperatures of the DSC furnace, not the temperature of the burn. The temperature rise of the burn is not measured, only heat flow into or out of the sample.


I'm not confusing anything; you're just not getting it.

Since day one I have been saying 430 degrees cannot form the spheres
and YOU must account for the additional heat to melt the iron.

The heat transferred in and out of the sample is directly related to the
amount of heat achieved during the reaction as well as the amount of
time (duration) the heat reaches that peak, and remains at a specific
temperature.

The thermal profile is dynamic, it changes over time. The graph we
see in the charts is actually inverted to what you normally see in DSC
graph testing. It is perhaps you that is the confused person.

Will you accept the debate: yes, or no?



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan

Originally posted by pteridineYou are confusing temperature rise during reaction or combustion with temperature scan rate. Those temperatures are the temperatures of the DSC furnace, not the temperature of the burn. The temperature rise of the burn is not measured, only heat flow into or out of the sample.


I'm not confusing anything; you're just not getting it.

Since day one I have been saying 430 degrees cannot form the spheres
and YOU must account for the additional heat to melt the iron.

The heat transferred in and out of the sample is directly related to the
amount of heat achieved during the reaction as well as the amount of
time (duration) the heat reaches that peak, and remains at a specific
temperature.

The graph we see in the charts is actually inverted to what you normally see in DSC graph testing. It is perhaps you that is the confused person.



Once more, the temperature of the furnace is 430 C. The flame temperature is NOT measured, just the flow of heat is measured.

I don't have to account for any heat to melt iron; iron was not melted. The spheres are not metallic iron. Until the chemical composition of the spheres is known, melting point arguments are moot.

Why do you think that the DSC trace is inverted?



new topics

top topics



 
69
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join