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.
To my knowledge I came with that argument before pterdine did, although it is not really hard to figure it out.
None that I know of. Relevance?
According to Jones data and his acknowledgement that air oxidation of the organic component (aka combustion) probably took place.
Originally posted by impressme
Probably took place? Either it did or it didn’t which is it?
Originally posted by impressme
Probably took place? Either it did or it didn’t which is it?
I am claiming. Jones his results are inconclusive.
Originally posted by impressme
No you made the claim pteridine. You still have not addressed my question; I am asking you, not professor Jones. Jones is not here to debate the topic. It appears you are assuming what test results are, by stating “probably took place?”
Based on what science that proves Jones work is inconclusive? Besides your opinion pteridine, do you have anything else?
I already pointed out why a non-thermite reaction took place
Maximal possible theoretical energy reading: 3.9kJ/g. Actual energy reading: 7.5kJ/g. More that theoretically possible by thermite,
If it was only a thermite reaction
Jones would have broken the laws of physics, also according to Jones himself. What more proof do you need?
It is based purely on logic.
If a proves b, but a is not proven, then b is also not proven. This is not an opinion.
You reaction isn't making any sense to me.
I don't think it will be usefull to continue to communicate. We just think way too differently. Happy holidays.
Originally posted by -PLB-
Actual energy reading: 7.5kJ/g. More that theoretically possible by thermite, even according to Jones paper. If it was only a thermite reaction, Jones would have broken the laws of physics, also according to Jones himself. What more proof do you need?
Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by pteridine
So according to you it was the red paint that showed an reaction as depicted in Jones paper? Some red paint that is .Turbofan pointed out, that the reaction depicted in Jones paper is consistent with an highly thermitic material and therefore can not be red paint, because it is something that red paint cant do. At this point either the grafs are fudged or whatever it was is consistent with what many whitnesses described.edit on 26-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Cassius666
Sorry you are out of luck. I am a layman myself, but that is what i got out of the discussion. I tried before to convince one of them that he wont achieve a whole lot trying to have that kind of discussion here, unless he is happy to converse with one of the posters. But from what I got out of this, the reaction of the tested material cant be red paint, because it is something paint cant do.