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: 3
69
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:06 PM
link   
I have said it before and I will say it again.
If we continue to entertain the absurd "debunkers", we are wasting time. Their mission is to stall progress. It is a relatively easy task for them to do (it pays minimum wage), they just, and I quote their mission statement here...
"personally engage the 'would-be' detective and challenge EVERY assertion made as if it were the most ridiculous statement ever made. This will bog them down in personal attacks, drive out the uncommitted parties, and derail the 'investigation'."
Un-quote.
The solution to this organized campaign to obstruct the search for truth is this.
1. Have a personal set of criteria by which you judge the merits of a poster and their position.
2. Do not assume anyone is trying to obstruct, but do not assume they are NOT trying to obstruct.
3. Use this same criteria on someone you KNOW to be telling the truth, in other words, test your criteria to make sure it is sound.
4. Once you have determined you have a "perp", by all means use IGNORE, do not engage. They will remain employed because of YOU.

In a debate, the parties meet and shake hands before and after. On ATS, the parties do not meet, and they do not shake hands. We are the cast of a play that allows anyone, even our enemies, to participate, for the benefit (or detriment) of a broad audience. If you remember your lines a little TOO WELL, maybe you are indeed reading a script.




.




posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 




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.


Your comment is untrue,


5. Flame/Ignition Tests
The DSC used in our studies does not allow for visual inspection
of the energetic reaction. Therefore tests were also
performed with a small oxyacetylene flame applied to red/gray
chips. Samples were either heated on a graphite block (Fig. 22

or held with tweezers in the flame. Several paint samples were
also tested and in each case, the paint sample was immediately
reduced to fragile ashes by the hot flame. This was not the
case, however, with any of the red/gray chips from the World
Trade Center dust.

The first WTC red/gray chip so tested was approximately
1mm 􀀁 1mm. After a few seconds of heating, the high-speed
ejection of a hot particle was observed under the hand of the
person holding the torch (Fig. 22). The intense light and
bright orange color of the particle attest to its high temperature.
In this case, the attempt to recover the diminutive endproduct
of the reaction was unsuccessful. A short video clip
of the test (including slow-motion) is available here:
journalof911studies.com...
ow.mov
In a later flame-ignition test, the end product was recovered
and is shown in the photomicrograph and SEM image in
Fig. (23). Once again, the formation of iron-rich semispherical
shapes shows that the residue had been melted,
enabling surface tension of the liquid to pull it into spherical
shapes. However, the evidence obtained in the DSC analyses
is more compelling that a thermitic reaction actually occurs
as in that case ignition is observed when the red material is
heated to no more than 430 °C.
DISCUSSION
All of the dust samples that were inspected were found to
Contain


www.bentham-open.org.../2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

Here is the flame test results in Jones paper you do not know what you are talking about and are making assumptions based on your opinions



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Not much to attack. Starting at zero..'

Yup, you gots dit. Now dat chu spended allo yer branepowir agin me i gess its backk too the damn fool G_O_ D conspeerasey cartune netwerck/ Anuthir smart gal beets me.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by M0n0lyth
 


The win towers were a bunch of stacked boxes. Maybe you should take an architectural or engineering course. Every building is just stacked boxes, or other shapes. What you saw were those individual parts acting as a single solid and being simulated.

The twin towers were not a single item. They were thousands of pieces of bolts and iron and shapes intertwined into shapes and forms of tectonic order to create a structure.

Ask an architect about tectonic order. It's in every building mostly. Especially the twin towers.

If you cannot understand the relevance of the simulated videos, then how can you understand the physics involved in the wtc?



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Please show me where these "paint samples" were collected from the debris of the World Trade Center?

For all I know it was watercolors on parchment. "Paint sample" just isn't telling me much.

No control group = no science.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
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...



Even if someone did present evidence you would say the person was a quack.

If I present evidence will you listen to it without calling the guy a quack?

Why is Jone's a quack but your scientist are not?



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by M0n0lyth
 


The win towers were a bunch of stacked boxes. Maybe you should take an architectural or engineering course. Every building is just stacked boxes, or other shapes. What you saw were those individual parts acting as a single solid and being simulated.

The twin towers were not a single item. They were thousands of pieces of bolts and iron and shapes intertwined into shapes and forms of tectonic order to create a structure.

Ask an architect about tectonic order. It's in every building mostly. Especially the twin towers.

If you cannot understand the relevance of the simulated videos, then how can you understand the physics involved in the wtc?


I ask everyone to present their credentials. Redact your name but present your cred.

If not, then why should we believe YOU?

My cred is from the School of Common Sense. Matter of fact, I have a PhD in common sense.

Common sense tells me no way could they have put those fires out by conventional means. They had to bring them down. Who wants to see twin towers burning for weeks if not months?



[edit on 4-8-2010 by Come Clean]



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Come Clean
 


Well the funny thing about 9/11 is that it was not conventional. What with the planes crashing, the scale, and the lack of manpower.

Also NYC is renound for corporate bullplop. Never have they been efficient. They are good, but only when it's easy.

Want my credentials? I'm studying architecture. Want my stats? Simulate it for yourself. This is not 2001. This is 2010. Every computer made past 2009 can simulate a wtc-like event with a decent gpu.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Come Clean
 


Well the funny thing about 9/11 is that it was not conventional. What with the planes crashing, the scale, and the lack of manpower.

Also NYC is renound for corporate bullplop. Never have they been efficient. They are good, but only when it's easy.

Want my credentials? I'm studying architecture. Want my stats? Simulate it for yourself. This is not 2001. This is 2010. Every computer made past 2009 can simulate a wtc-like event with a decent gpu.


So you are calling the 1200 plus Architects and Engineering professionals who claim those buildings were purposely brought down quacks?

Why is their knowledge junk science? Why are they quacks?



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Oh my God, not again!!! Listen folks, thermite is used to weld large steel parts such as pipes and rails. It is also used to cut down steel. The photos of the cuts at the world trade center where you see firefighters standing around them were made after the buildings fell. Stop this Anti-American, paranoid rant!! My brother suffers with schizophrenia and paranoia and feels the same as some of you, the government is out to get us. Grow up!!! Things are not always as they appear, like the little invisible man standing next to some of you tell you an alien is gonna ea your brain.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Come Clean
 



So you are calling the 1200 plus Architects and Engineering professionals who claim those buildings were purposely brought down quacks?


I don't know about Gorman91, but yeah, I would call them quacks. If you are refering to the folks over at AEtruth or whatever it is called, I think if you look closely you'll find only about 300 of them are actually marginaly qualified engineers or architects and thats out of millions worldwide, so yeah thats about right for a quack ratio. You could probably extrapolate that to just about any profession. Quacks are often even better represented. So, to better qualify the statement, only a small portion of the actual quacks question 9/11.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by malachi777
Oh my God, not again!!! Listen folks, thermite is used to weld large steel parts such as pipes and rails. It is also used to cut down steel. The photos of the cuts at the world trade center where you see firefighters standing around them were made after the buildings fell. Stop this Anti-American, paranoid rant!! My brother suffers with schizophrenia and paranoia and feels the same as some of you, the government is out to get us. Grow up!!! Things are not always as they appear, like the little invisible man standing next to some of you tell you an alien is gonna ea your brain.


Okay smarty pants. Explain what this is dripping from the building at 22 seconds in? If you can't explain then I am calling you out as debunked.





[edit on 4-8-2010 by Come Clean]



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Come Clean
 


You know, I've only heard about that claim once. And their website is all but dead. So one must beg to question the validity, as I cannot find a named list.

In addition to this, they question the commission report. As would anyone.

Now I'm actually in the architecture ... "in-club" if you want to call it. And we're all a bunch of artsy fartsy show offs. So at the off chance we can make a big show, hell yea. We get our names out. It's only logical. However, I've not yet hear one major leading architect really question anything about the towers actively falling.

So no I'm not calling them quacks. I'm calling them architects. Because they're just doing what any architect would do to get attention to their name. That said. My point still stands. What are their names, why is their site dead, and why have none of the big timers said anything?

[edit on 4-8-2010 by Gorman91]



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91


So no I'm not calling them quacks. I'm calling them architects. Because they're just doing what any architect would do to get attention to their name. That said. My point still stands. What are their names, why is their site dead, and why have none of the big timers said anything?


No disrespect but why shouldn't we believe you are doing the exact same thing. No one needed to know you were an architect did we? You offered that little bit of information to bring cred to your post.

Why should we think you are different than them?

[edit on 4-8-2010 by Come Clean]



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 



Please show me where these "paint samples" were collected from the debris of the World Trade Center?

For all I know it was watercolors on parchment. "Paint sample" just isn't telling me much.

No control group = no science.


It is obvious you have not read Jones peer reviewed report. Read it. You already made a false assumption about the paint in your last post to me, now you are fishing. your answer is in Jones report.
If Jones paper is wrong then you all need to prove it, and by proving it you have to show science. Your assumptions and opinions are not proof, of Jones science being wrong.

[edit on 4-8-2010 by impressme]



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Come Clean
 



So you are calling the 1200 plus Architects and Engineering professionals who claim those buildings were purposely brought down quacks?


I don't know about Gorman91, but yeah, I would call them quacks. If you are referring to the folks over at AEtruth or whatever it is called, I think if you look closely you'll find only about 300 of them are actually marginally qualified engineers or architects and thats out of millions worldwide, so yeah thats about right for a quack ratio. You could probably extrapolate that to just about any profession. Quacks are often even better represented. So, to better qualify the statement, only a small portion of the actual quacks question 9/11.


What qualifies you to call Jones a quack? Or anyone a quack for that matter? If you're so resolute in your convictions then provide a published paper which refutes Jones's thermite theory.

Not something some other quack wrote but something you wrote.

BTW...Jones is published.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Sorry, read it. Not in there. No mention of collecting paint samples from the debris at the World Trade Center.

Just a reference to "paint samples"

No control group = no science.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 06:08 PM
link   
No matter how much solid information and genuine questions are put forward to support 'reasonable doubt' in the OS, those who disagree simply keep asking for more, and more, and more evidence/supporting information. All the preceding information, and there is a huge amount of it, is simply ignored and the cries for more evidence, more, more, more seem to lack a sincere motivation to know the truth, but show rather a strong motivation to dismiss the possibility, no matter what.

But the OS is backed by little or no reliable evidence...so come on you debunkers. You're always criticising 'the truthers' - how about you show us what you've got to back up the OS theory....after all, it is only a theory.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Come Clean
 


Because I'm still studying it and not bought by any cause.

Why yes, I am just as likely to yell something to get attention in the business. Architecture is a troll man's game. But you should consider this. Due to federal regulations, I don't get to practice architecture for years to come. I probably won't design my first project until 2018. Probably won't get to be on my own house until 2020. It's a great experience. I love it. But I have no special interests other than the fact that I am training to be one and love to proclaim that I like it.

However that is a derailment. You've not met my questions nor responded to my data. You've just asked about me. I have data. I'm happy to show you what I am working on and have done by PM. But that is off topic.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


That sweeping blanket statement seems to lack accuracy. A scientist can analyse the qualities of a given substance without needing a 'control group' A control group serves a different purpose.



new topics

top topics



 
69
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join