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.

 

An analysis of the DSC data in the Herrit-Jones paper

page: 10
14
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 

Good post and I agree with you.

Most professionals are scared to death to speak out against the NIST report because they do not want to risk destroying their careers and reputations, especially if their corporation are getting funding or contracts from the government.

People have to live; people have bills to pay, and families to rise. People who support the 911 government nonsense know this. OS supporters think that professionals being silence = support to the OS.

What’s more important paying your mortgage and car note, or 911 truth? We all know the answer.


edit on 22-12-2010 by impressme because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Well most professionals who draw their salary from the government, or who are employed by somebody who gets taxmoney in one way or another. Professionals in the private sector have no such qualms. There are many professionals who bit the bullet and committed treason in an empire of lies. While they did not exactly die for what they believe in they suffered setbacks that must have had some impact on their wallet.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


Most professionals have never read the NIST report.

Do you have anything to contribute on the thread topic?



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Funny how that is only true for the side that does not find fault with the official conspiracy theory.

No not a whole lot and unless you have an phd and experience in the related field neither do you.

But if thinking you do makes you happy, who am I to take that away from you.
edit on 22-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


I do. Did you think my critique was a cut and paste?



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


I am quite sure you are convinced you do. Like I said if thinking that makes you happy more power to you. It aint like he is the first one.

www.youtube.com...

Now he didnt publish a paper in a peer reviewed magazine, but Herrit did. But that means Herrit is not alone. I am sure those are just more people lying because they are out for fame and glory. If those are happy thoughts to you, well, may they make you happy. So its chemical engineer vs conspiracyguy on ATS board. Oh gee I wonder how that one will turn out
. You think you can debunk herrits paper? Make it official. Unless you run into a chemical engineer or the like on here I dont think anybody can judge if Herrits paper has been debunked or not based on the half page you wrote. There I saved you a whole lot of unproductive effort. You can thank me later.
edit on 22-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


Do you intend to discuss the paper or will you remain a cheerleader on this thread? I have shown why Jones cannot claim thermite and what he must do if he wishes to make that claim.
As you seem to be chasing these threads, why don't you take a crack at answering a few of these questions and showing everyone how clever you are. None of the truthers were able to provide any coherent answers.

1. Why did the super demolition material refused to burn completely in the DSC?

2. How could Jones tell the difference between burning and thermite reactions in the DSC?

3. How did Jones determine that there were no microscopic flyash particles in his DSC samples before testing?



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Me answering those questions and showing how clever I am? I am not the one who is delusional. Did you even bother to read my post? I think not.

Also I got confused, who is wrong when he says he found thermite? Basile, Herrit, Jones, Griscom? All of them?

This is what I wrote

I am quite sure you are convinced you do. Like I said if thinking that makes you happy more power to you. It aint like he is the first one.

www.youtube.com...

Now he didnt publish a paper in a peer reviewed magazine, but Herrit did. But that means Herrit is not alone. I am sure those are just more people lying because they are out for fame and glory. If those are happy thoughts to you, well, may they make you happy. So its chemical engineer vs conspiracyguy on ATS board. Oh gee I wonder how that one will turn out
. You think you can debunk herrits paper? Make it official. Unless you run into a chemical engineer or the like on here I dont think anybody can judge if Herrits paper has been debunked or not based on the half page you wrote. There I saved you a whole lot of unproductive effort. You can thank me later.
edit on 22-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by pteridine
 


Me answering those questions and showing how clever I am? I am not the one who is delusional. Did you even bother to read my post? I think not.

Also I got confused, who is wrong when he says he found thermite? Basile, Herrit, Jones, Griscom? All of them?

This is what I wrote

I am quite sure you are convinced you do. Like I said if thinking that makes you happy more power to you. It aint like he is the first one.

www.youtube.com...

Now he didnt publish a paper in a peer reviewed magazine, but Herrit did. But that means Herrit is not alone. I am sure those are just more people lying because they are out for fame and glory. If those are happy thoughts to you, well, may they make you happy. So its chemical engineer vs conspiracyguy on ATS board. Oh gee I wonder how that one will turn out
. You think you can debunk herrits paper? Make it official. Unless you run into a chemical engineer or the like on here I dont think anybody can judge if Herrits paper has been debunked or not based on the half page you wrote. There I saved you a whole lot of unproductive effort. You can thank me later


Of course you think not. Your post said mostly nothing except that you think Jones' publication is definitive and Mark Basile, a Jones sycophant, found what Jones wanted him to find.

I already have shown the flaws in Jones paper. None of the people you listed have shown thermite to be present in any debris from the WTC. Ask Henryco at the darksideofgravity how much thermite he found.

Asking you to explain Jones paper, which you value so highly, didn't seem unreasonable to me. I can only conclude that you have no idea about the technical validity of the paper and plan to be only a cheerleader. Turbo really needs your support. Get your skirt and pom-poms ready
edit on 12/22/2010 by pteridine because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine2. How could Jones tell the difference between burning and thermite reactions in the DSC?


Proof that Pteridine still doesn't understand what a thermitic reaction is, and how discussing excess heat
is the absolute incorrect method of proving/disproving a thermitic reactoin.

Let me post it again so he may learn it this time around:


A thermitic reaction is noted by the redox reaction between iron oxide and aluminum. The product is
metallic spheres



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridineThe combustion is the ONLY reaction we are sure of. Paint burns. Everything else is a maybe.


Says the anonymous expert that cannot source a DSC trace of paint that lights off at 430'C

Says the anonymous expert that wants to discuss excess heat when Jones' paper has absolutely NOTHING
to do with heat...nor does the thermitic reaction.

I've opened up the debate back to my thread which encompasses the entire paper, not just one aspect of
a DSC test. You are a fool to even begin debating excess heat.

Let's move onto my thread and discuss ALL OF THE TESTS WHICH SUPPORT EACH OTHER.

If you care not to, that's fine. I've already listed five of your blantant errors and the fact that you still don't
understand how to discern a thermitic reaction from combustion.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


If you'd like a encyclopedic list of blatant errors, you have only to reread your posts explaining DSC and the chemistry of the thermite reaction. Google U can really lead you astray, at times.

Cassie can't answer these questions either; maybe you can. I remember that you posted some goofy explanation Jones came up with for why the super thermite went out. Let's see if I can punch holes in that, too.


1. Why did the super demolition material refused to burn completely in the DSC?

2. How could Jones tell the difference between burning and thermite reactions in the DSC?

3. How did Jones determine that there were no microscopic flyash particles in his DSC samples before testing?
edit on 12/22/2010 by pteridine because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


We're done Pteridine. YOu were asked to join a debate in my thread which we agreed upon and then
you had to re-write you own to talk about one item in the entire science paper.

If science could prove a thermitic reaction with just a small part of a DSC test, then Jones' paper would have
been one page.

Unfortunately for you, Jones knows better and that's why there were a slew of additional tests.

Now you claim I have a host of 'blatant errors' after I listed five of yours with your own quotes nailed by
sourced science links. Please do the same for my list or "errors"


Actually, if you did it would be the first time you sourced a credible bit of information instead of posting your
opinion



As far as I'm concerned you are not the 'eggspurt' you claimed to be. You are essentially telling all of ATS
that Tillotson and science in general is wrong about the testing andproduct of a thermitic reaction.


The aluminium reduces the oxide of another metal, most commonly iron oxide, because aluminium is highly reactive:

Fe2O3 + 2Al → 2Fe + Al2O3 + Heat
The products are aluminium oxide, free elemental iron,[2] and a large amount of heat.



formation of iron–aluminates (hercynite) and iron; (iv) for the over aluminized mixtures, incorporation of Al into the iron–aluminates takes place with the formation of iron and alumina and, in parallel, Al reacts with iron to produce intermetallics.




You see, even Tillotson had to check for the elemental iron and al-ox to prove a thermitic reaciton, and HE KNEW WHAT HE HAD.

Sorry Pteridine, you are really out of your league.

$1000.00 if you debate Jones, or Tillotson based on your logic and win!

edit on 23-12-2010 by turbofan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 03:20 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Fact: You have not shown any flaw to Jones paper, you have only given your opinion nothing more.

What peer review report supports your opinions on the Herrit- Jones report?



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 03:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


I see you haven't gotten to reference the poll yet, so I took the liberty to search it myself. According to the latest poll (2010), 15% of the Americans believe explosives were used. World wide, a same percentage of 15% believes that the US government was involved (so believe in explosives is even less)

These were polls conducted under the general population. I dare to say that under the scientific population this idea is a lot less wide supported. I think it is very legit to say that the general scientific consensus is that planes caused the collapse, not explosives. And this is backed up by many publications accepted in the scientific community, while not a single publication that support explosives is accepted in the scientific community.

If you are really going with the experts, you will have to reject the explosives hypothesis. Unless, like I say, you suffer from confirmation bias, and you ignore the majority of experts and only listen to the ones that agree with you. Although I am not sure if even Jones and his gang agrees that explosives were used.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 03:49 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


The only fact I see is that people who believe in Jones paper won't even accept there is any flaw in the paper. I would like you to address a post I made earlier:



There is a list of pretty easy and cheap experiment Jones could do after which he would make a very strong case. It would silence tons of critique and would give those experts no other choice than to take his work seriously. He neglects to do those experiment. For me that causes huge alarm bells to ring. He wants to convince the world of his hypothesis, but he refuses to perform the experiments the world is asking him to do, for no apparent reason. Currently he basically only convinces people who were already convinced.


Why doesn't he perform the tests that would silence the critics, among which are renowned experts in that field?



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by impressme
 


The only fact I see is that people who believe in Jones paper won't even accept there is any flaw in the paper. I would like you to address a post I made earlier:



There is a list of pretty easy and cheap experiment Jones could do after which he would make a very strong case. It would silence tons of critique and would give those experts no other choice than to take his work seriously. He neglects to do those experiment. For me that causes huge alarm bells to ring. He wants to convince the world of his hypothesis, but he refuses to perform the experiments the world is asking him to do, for no apparent reason. Currently he basically only convinces people who were already convinced.


Why doesn't he perform the tests that would silence the critics, among which are renowned experts in that field?


We must have readed different polls then. Here is a whole host of them if you scroll down en.wikipedia.org...

After the 2006 results there seems to be no further polls on the topic by cbs/newyork times. Then the economy started turning sour and Americans losing their homes.

No boy it isnt about us accepting if there is any flaw or not in the paper, it is about the fact that unless pepertdine is lucky enough to run into somone with an PHD nobody can really follow his reasoning. He is conspiracyguy on ATS board. So in 2001 when some people posted it was odd what they saw it was like all, you are no expert, you are just some guy on the board, then experts came forward, a lot of them and they published papers.

When the official story is backed up, experts > conspiracyguy, when the experts challenge the official story, experts < conspiracyguy.

All I am saying is he wont find the discussion he is looking for on here, therefore he can stop waisting his time, seek out peers with the necessary education to go over the paper with, either online by posting on an appropriate board and publicly challenge the paper or offline.

I did not start calling the official story into doubt just because some guy on the internets said so. It will take more than conspiracyguy to convince me the official conspiracy theory is conspiracy fact.


edit on 23-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)


reply to post by turbofan
 


Do you have an education in a related field?
edit on 23-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
We must have readed different polls then. Here is a whole host of them if you scroll down en.wikipedia.org...


I use the same source, and in the poll you talk about the question was if people thought their government was lying. The subject we were talking about is how many scientist think explosives were used. How you go from "thinking they lie" to "explosives were used" is a mystery to me. Besides, a poll among the general population is by no means representative for the scientific community, let alone experts in that specific field.

This is a typical example of confirmation bias. You interpret the data exactly as you see fit so it agrees with your predetermined position.


No boy it isnt about us accepting if there is any flaw or not in the paper, it is about the fact that unless pepertdine is lucky enough to run into somone with an PHD nobody can really follow his reasoning. He is conspiracyguy on ATS board. So in 2001 when some people posted it was odd what they saw it was like all, you are no expert, you are just some guy on the board, then experts came forward, a lot of them and they published papers.


I don't have a PhD and I can follow his reasoning perfectly. He makes very valid points. He is not the only one. It doesn't take too much work to find critique of other experts. But you will have to be open for it.


When the official story is backed up, experts > conspiracyguy, when the experts challenge the official story, experts < conspiracyguy.

All I am saying is he wont find the discussion he is looking for on here, therefore he can stop waisting his time, seek out peers with the necessary education to go over the paper with, either online by posting on an appropriate board and publicly challenge the paper or offline.

I did not start calling the official story into doubt just because some guy on the internets said so. It will take more than conspiracyguy to convince me the official conspiracy theory is conspiracy fact.


You did in no way address the post you replied to. Why doesn't Jones do the experiments the critics are asking for?

edit on 23-12-2010 by -PLB- because: was not addressed to me



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Why is ATS good enough to debunk jones paper?



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Why is ATS good enough to debunk jones paper?

I can follow the reasoning behind jones paper too, but I would never go on a forum and say I can debate it.
edit on 23-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join