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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by TrickoftheShadeDoes anyone else think it a bit odd that he's gone so quiet?
We have all read Jones' unproven opinions, and that's all they are.
As far as Jones being wrong, it's been proved.
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.
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
3. Could the Red Material Be Unreacted “Super-
Thermite”?
7. Could the Red Chip Material be Ordinary Paint?
Originally posted by pteridine
There is no evidence of thermite.
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.
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?
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.