Thermite Proven! Jones Science Proves Red Thematic Material not just Red Paint Chips, page 2

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by okbmd

---

The author of this thread has even told another poster , in the past , that it is okay to post false and misleading information on the subject of 9/11 . ( That only applies if you are a truther though ., all others must meet 'proof' requirements ) .

Please post the source to this information. Show the thread to were I made such a statement?

If I had ever made such an appalling statement as to what you claimed, you would have eagerly posted the source to back your statement.

What that poster said would be considered libel if he used the person's real name. At the very least, ATS should censure that person.

reply to post by pteridine

---

Here are a few of the many failings of the paper: DSC done in air and not valid to prove thermitic reaction. Energy output inconsistent and shows simple combustion. "

“Not valid,” Please show with scientific proof not your opinions.

reply to post by Gorman91

---

I notice you did the math on the oldest poll and ignored the newer.
typical

NIST's investigation is often cited as proving the official theory that the plane crashes and fires caused the collapses. Yet the Report does not explain why or how the buildings totally collapsed, despite the lack of a single historical precedent for a steel-framed skyscraper totally collapsing for any reason other than controlled demolition. And, in contrast to the Report's voluminous detail about the plane crashes, fires, and loss of life, it makes no attempt to characterize or explain the demolition-like features of the collapses -- such as their explosiveness, pulverization, verticality and nearly free-fall rapidity -- except for two sentences in a half-page section added to the Final Report to address criticisms of the Draft.

NIST simply avoids these troublesome issues by placing them outside the scope of its investigation, claiming that "global collapse" was "inevitable" after the "initiation of collapse."

www.911research.com...

gotta guard the opium gents
and BP needs that oil



[edit on 4-8-2010 by Danbones]

reply to post by impressme

---

Who is Jones? What is he to me? Why should I care about his opinion?

I heard that the Jones family down the street can make a good baby-back rib sandwich. Are they who you are talking about?

Seriously, you want me to take the opinion of a professor who I have absolutely no knowledge about?

[edit on 4-8-2010 by Section31]

reply to post by Danbones

---

Nope. only a third of Americans believe this silly conspiracy. But hey, a fourth of Americans think the sun revolves around the Earth.

So really, there's plenty of room for unreasonably ignorance to this subject from people just believing whatever they want.

The facts are simple. They've done video demonstrations showing Jet fuel causing the same amount of damage faster. Took slower in WTC because it's a closed environment. In the nearly 9 years since the incident, there's not been much proof at all. WTC7 took a lot longer to fall then they say and you can see it falling apart piece by piece before the big fall. We can also see the WTC falling at the speeds they did because we've done the math and work.

Hell, technology has gotten so good since then that any chap with a decent rig can run the same simulators.

Demo would not bring down that towers, and the towers would fall at those speeds.
Oh and before you try to bring it up, the fps are sped up to normal speed because they run ans half normal speed while simulating.





I got a gazillion other videos of physics simulator running pure math. Towers could not fall from demos alone, but a plane? Definably with an explosion and some jet fuel.

Welcome to the GPU era. anyone can simulate anything.

[edit on 4-8-2010 by Gorman91]

Originally posted by davidmann

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by impressme

---

Why doesn't the good professor go collect some paint chips from some metal structures from in and around Manhattan and put them to the same "rigorous" lab tests?

No control group - no science.

That's right. There is simply NO EVIDENCE! We all saw the real deal on our telescreens that day, and besides all the scientific journals explaining how kerosene melts huge steel beams, there are countless eyewitnesses, true patriots, supporting the official story. THESE ARE THE REAL AMERICANS!!!

Strawman alert!

Please show me where anyone has said that jet fuel "melts" steel.

The point at which steel loses half it's strength is well within the maximum temperature of jet fuel.

reply to post by pteridine

---

The conclusion is that thermite was not proven to be present. Jones must do the experiment correctly, if he can, to show what the red chips really are.

Your conclusion, your opinions, nothing more, you have not presented any science to validate your opinions.

If you'd like to debate the points of the paper, rather than make repeated demands about "evidences", let me know.

Debating the paper is the evidence, and you have shown nothing to prove Jones paper wrong.

I have back up every single allegation you made to me about Jones paper. I showed proof that you were making up garbage against Jones Thermite paper in my OP.

You and I are debating Jones paper, either put up or stop making fraudulent comments about something and someone you know nothing about. Show your science, or bail out.

How about answering my questions on this thread. you talk the talk but...

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by impressme

---

Why doesn't the good professor go collect some paint chips from some metal structures from in and around Manhattan and put them to the same "rigorous" lab tests?

No control group - no science.

He did get paint samples from the trade center debris. The paints signature was way off from known nano thermite. Jone's chips are an exact match.

reply to post by truthcounts

---

I love America Dave because even garbage like you have freedom of speech.

What you have committed is called character assassination truthcounts and you cannot undo the damage you have done to GoodolDave.

reply to post by Danbones

---

Well that's really an incorrect statement. Even I don't believe they told the truth about 9/11. Most anyone can tell you the government allowed it to happen by incompetence or desire for a war.

But that does not mean we believe the towers were purposely brought down or anything.

It simply means a corrupt government saw the opportunity to start a war, and so let its enemies attack it to get that war. In many ways the US did the same with Japan but that's another tale to tell.


The fact remains that terrorists attacked and brought down the towers with hijacked planes by flying them into the towers. Like most Americans I think the government let it happen. They did not get involved with it at all.

[edit on 4-8-2010 by Gorman91]

reply to post by Gorman91

---

Well Gorman, than you and I are closer on this then I thought,
but you know I love good arguement and I suspect, so do you.

Have a nice day, and I do mean that sincerely

reply to post by Gorman91

---

What relevance do those videos have to the topic at hand? All I see is a bunch of simulated boxes falling and flying about. They don't come close to simulating a solid object. Also you said:

"Towers could not fall from demos alone"

...uh, what? Buildings are brought down with "demos alone" every day. Again you said,

but a plane? Definably with an explosion and some jet fuel.

Really? How many times have you seen a plane bring a building down? If it's so much better than a demolitions crew I say we just fly planes into buildings all the time! I mean how else are we going to get buildings to fall into their own footprint? /sarcasm And:

"Definably"?

Are you serious?

Originally posted by Doctor Smith

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by impressme

---

Why doesn't the good professor go collect some paint chips from some metal structures from in and around Manhattan and put them to the same "rigorous" lab tests?

No control group - no science.

He did get paint samples from the trade center debris. The paints signature was way off from known nano thermite. Jone's chips are an exact match.

No he didn't, from his paper:

On the other hand, paint samples in the same exposure to MEK solvent became limp and showed significant dissolution, as expected since MEK is a paint solvent.

He does not say what they were, where they came from or how they were obtained. Just "paint samples". Could be anything from anywhere.

No control = no science.

Flight 93 was headed for Building 7
  Posted 12 days ago with 48 member flags

9/11 INTERCEPTED
  Posted 4 days ago with 45 member flags

9/11: The WTC Elevator Key
  Posted 14 days ago with 43 member flags

WTC7, the smoking gun that just will not go away until the traitors are rounded up
  Posted 4 days ago with 39 member flags

What are your favorite 9/11 debunking tactics?
  Posted 8 days ago with 17 member flags

Who is the Joker on ATS radio now running their mouth?
  Posted 16 days ago with 13 member flags

Was the government a co-conspirator?
  Posted 18 days ago with 9 member flags

British Police Want Us To Present False Flag Terror Evidence.
  Posted 8 days ago with 8 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: