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: 9
69
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 09:24 PM
link   
I see what I am dealing with here, many of you debunkers argument against the nano-thermite paper reeks of flawed reasoning and ignorance of the facts. Many of you who use illogical reasoning and alter and ignored the facts are not being skeptical, however some of you are behaving as a pathological skeptic, as it has been well demonstrated in this thread.
Pathological skepticism has absolutely no place in science or in this debate, this is not getting to the facts in here.

What most of you have done is given your opinions, which proves nothing in debating science. Many of you are demanding your opinions to be accepted as truth, “your truths”, without giving us anything to substantiate your claims.




posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


I can see how desperate you are for support but there is none. All who have read my explanations now understand why he has proved nothing, as yet, and what experiment he needs to do next. I would be surprised if he ever writes the followup paper he promised.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by impressme
 


I can see how desperate you are for support but there is none. All who have read my explanations now understand why he has proved nothing, as yet, and what experiment he needs to do next. I would be surprised if he ever writes the followup paper he promised.


You haven't given up yet?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You keep claiming that Jones has to do the test in the absence of oxygen. How were the Iron spheres formed if it wasn't thermite? Why is it an exact match to known nano themite? How come the paint from the trade center towers doesn't come close to a match? Your beating a dead horse.

[edit on 11-8-2010 by Doctor Smith]



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 03:51 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



I can see how desperate you are for support but there is none. All who have read my explanations now understand why he has proved nothing, as yet, and what experiment he needs to do next. I would be surprised if he ever writes the followup paper he promised.


We have all read your unproven opinions,
and that's all they are. Your truths are not the facts.
As far as Jones proving nothing, you are wrong.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 07:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Doctor Smith
 


Jones has not proved thermite. The spheres are "iron containing." The chips self extinguished. The energy balances are wrong. The DSC did not match with the known nano-thermite.
You, also, want a conspiracy to the point that it causes you to overlook reality and suspend reason. The DSC of paper in a stream of air would have shown it to have many times the energy output of the red chips. Paper was found at the WTC. Do you think all the paper was demolition material? Please explain the energy measurements so all can see why you think Jones discovered something other than red paint.

[edit on 8/11/2010 by pteridine]



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
We have all read your unproven opinions, and that's all they are. Your truths are not the facts.
As far as Jones proving nothing, you are wrong.

We have all read Jones' unproven opinions, and that's all they are.
As far as Jones being wrong, it's been proved.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme

What most of you have done is given your opinions, which proves nothing in debating science. Many of you are demanding your opinions to be accepted as truth, “your truths”, without giving us anything to substantiate your claims.


I must concur with Pteridine- you ARE getting desperate in your defense of this trash research. It is not opinion when I say that Jones is the only person on the face of the planet who arrived at these conclusions becuase has never given his samples to others to replicate his work. It is an established fact. It is likewise an established fact that Jones is trying to drop innuendo that the towers were brought down with Thermite, becuase if he instead reported that the majority of the toilet seats in the WTC were up when it collapsed you wouldn't have cared in the least what this report said.

I defy you to prove me incorrect- why are you so supportive of Jones' paper, if your intention isn't to use his innuendo that thermite was involved in the WTC collapse? It seems to me that the only one whose passing opinions off as fact here is you.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 06:00 PM
link   
Jones is on record stating that he will release a new paper that covers some of the issues raised here. Does anyone else think it a bit odd that he's gone so quiet?



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShadeDoes anyone else think it a bit odd that he's gone so quiet?


Not really, he probably realises his "report" is a load of bunkum and wants people to forget it



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


We have all read Jones' unproven opinions, and that's all they are.
As far as Jones being wrong, it's been proved.



Had you been able to prove Jones paper wrong, you would have shown your science to back your claims. We can go around and around with this circular logic and many of your unscientific opinions. However, none of you has disproved Jones Thermite paper as I have stated in my earlier posts, none of you have posted any sciences to back your opinions.

Bashing Jones personally is not debunking science. None of your opinions are proven facts.






[edit on 11-8-2010 by impressme]



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by smurfy
There may well be something wrong with the way the heat testing was conducted to produce a certain result as per Dr Jones's outcome. So, what I was asking was if, Dr Jones or whoever had conducted his tests properly and the outcome was an explosive type of combustion, what are the alternatives to Thermite? was the testing flawed? whatever, it behoves you to answer a little more than the way you did, and not horses for courses.

Reaction in the absence of air could be many things. If it is a combustion, it implies that the oxidant was included with a reductant. Examples are things like flash powders such as potassium perchlorate and aluminum dust or certain organic nitrate mixtures like Otto fuel.
The testing was flawed in many ways but the first flaw was running the DSC in air. The first test should have been the DSC in the absence of air. This would have allowed an immediate discrimination between the possibility of thermite and just plain paint. By doing the reaction in air, the test is inconclusive [although the energetics data presented say some burning is definite] and thermite is not proved.


What is the absence of air got to do with my question... precisely nothing. In fact, I ask the opposite.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


Read my response more carefully and you will see that I have provided possible alternatives to thermite if there is a reaction in the absence of air. I suspect that there won't be a reaction even if Jones is honest enough to run the analysis and report it.
This is what the absence or presence of air has to do with it:
1. Thermite will react in air or without air
2. Paint will burn in air but not without air
3. If you run the DSC in air and heat is evolved you don't know whether it is burning paint or thermite
4. Jones ran the DSC in air
5. He doesn't know whether it is paint burning or thermite
6. Because of this he can't claim thermite and hasn't proved thermite


[edit on 8/11/2010 by pteridine]



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


5. He doesn't know whether it is paint burning or thermite
6. Because of this he can't claim thermite and hasn't proved thermite


Here we go again with your circular logic again. Jones did prove the differents between thermite and paint. It’s already been posted on this thread, more than once.


3. Could the Red Material Be Unreacted “Super-
Thermite”?



7. Could the Red Chip Material be Ordinary Paint?


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


It appears you are so desperate, that now you are making up nonsense.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Jones conclusions are invalid. I have shown this using his own paper. You refuse to beleve Jones' own data but accept his erroneous conclusions.

There is no evidence of thermite. You'll have to find another theory to fullfill your needs for a conspiracy. Judy Woods' theory might be a good fit for you.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
There is no evidence of thermite.


While you have certainly created a series of words to end with that statement it is hard to believe that anyone who spends so much time responding to the evidence could actually believe that "no" evidence exists.

I really don't know if you believe what you type...



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Jones conclusions are invalid.


That is only your opinion, and is not a proven fact.


I have shown this using his own paper.


This statement is false, as you twisted Jones science to try and confuse the readers you have proven nothing, but given your opinion which is totally worthless when it comes to debunking science.


You refuse to beleve Jones' own data but accept his erroneous conclusions.


You do not know what I believe or what I accept.



There is no evidence of thermite.


Your statement has been proven false.


You'll have to find another theory to fullfill your needs for a conspiracy. Judy Woods' theory might be a good fit for you.


Your insults really make you vey credible.








[edit on 11-8-2010 by impressme]



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Jones is on record stating that he will release a new paper that covers some of the issues raised here. Does anyone else think it a bit odd that he's gone so quiet?


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.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 08:12 AM
link   

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.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 

If Jones' paper is so credible, why don't we discuss it point by point? 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.
Apparently, no experts will come to Jones' defense. Maybe they know that there isn't any defense.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Doctor Smith
 


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



new topics

top topics



 
69
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join