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.

 

9/11: Science and Society. Dr. Steven Jones' presentation and challenge to all scientists.

page: 5
15
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by budaruskie
reply to post by pteridine
 


Well, since I'm not a scientist and currently lack the ability to answer your question, why should I attempt to answer your question?


So you are supposed to doubt you intelligence because you are not a SCIENTIST?

Did you learn to walk by experimentation or not?

www.youtube.com...

psik




posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 04:10 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


"How can a super thermite extinguish itself before burning completely?


Pteridine, I bet you cannot answer your own question, much less show any science to support your opinions. Why would you expect any ATS member to answer a question that you concocted that is absolutely irrelevant to Jones tests results, furthermore if there was anything relevant to your question then why aren’t scientists from around the world scrambling to prove Jones science is flawed? There not because your question is ridiculous to real scientist.

Fact, you cannot prove something like (un-burnt thermite) that never was proven.
Apparently Jones didn’t concentrate his testing concerning your question, because once na-nothermite was discovered the rest of his testing was to validate his findings. What happened to the un-burnt Supper na-nothermite was not important. Jones had set his goals out to try and prove what type of Supper na-nothermite it was. The problem was there is no known Supper na-nothermite known in the civilian population to compare his test results to. That is why Jones said we are now talking military science. Military patents such as compounds, or ingredients used in making highly explosives weapons are Top Secrete, everyone already knows this.


Can a physicist pretending to be an analytical chemist expect his botched experiments to be taken seriously?


Pretending? Who told you Jones is “pretending”?
Botched? What known scientist has said Jones botched his experiments? I do not think you can answer or give any real sources to your false allegations.

Slandering people’s good name will make you less credible.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 05:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
if there was anything relevant to your question then why aren’t scientists from around the world scrambling to prove Jones science is flawed? There not because your question is ridiculous to real scientist.


"There" (sic) not because Jones' work is a non-issue. Completely unimportant and self-evidently flawed. Scientists around the world don't care about him or his ideas.

I'm fascinated that you see Jones as enjoying mainstream acceptance. Do you really think he does?



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by budaruskie
reply to post by pteridine
 


Well, since I'm not a scientist and currently lack the ability to answer your question, why should I attempt to answer your question?

In all honesty, if you have the technical aptitude to prove Dr. Jones conclusions wrong, why not do your own experiments and publish your findings? Or has ATS become the leading scientific medium to do so? Also, why isn't anyone else doing so just to officially destroy his credibility? Rhetorical indeed.


I asked this as a "common sense" question because some did not understand my technical critiques of Jones' paper and the fact that all the data I was using was directly from the paper. The paper I refer to was published in Bentham's "The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, 2, 7-31" and is available for public view. Jones claimed that the chips were "highly engineered" and a form of super thermite. He postulates no mechanism of action or use in a consistent fashion. If this is true, the super thermite should be very active material although he estimates 10-100 tons were unburned and present in the dust from the towers collapse. My question, unanswered and assiduously avoided by the true believers is simple. If the material is super thermite why didn't it burn completely in the DSC oven? Look at Figure 20 [on page 20] which has the caption "Fig. (20). Photomicrographs of residues from red/gray chips ignited in the DSC. Notice the shiny-metallic spheres and also the translucent spheres. Each blue scale-marker represents 50 microns." and shows red chips with spheres attached. These chips were in the DSC oven with no chance of moving to a cooler location so they were kept at the oven temperature throughout. They were only partially combusted. Why did the super thermite go out? The conclusion is that maybe it isn't thermite at all but this is rejected by some "truth seekers" because it doen't fit their predetermined notions.

Look at the picture in the paper. Note that there are still unburned portions of red chips after combustion. Explain why a super thermite wouldn't burn completely if it was indeed super thermite.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

I asked this as a "common sense" question because some did not understand my technical critiques of Jones' paper and the fact that all the data I was using was directly from the paper. The paper I refer to was published in Bentham's "The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, 2, 7-31" and is available for public view. Jones claimed that the chips were "highly engineered" and a form of super thermite. He postulates no mechanism of action or use in a consistent fashion. If this is true, the super thermite should be very active material although he estimates 10-100 tons were unburned and present in the dust from the towers collapse. My question, unanswered and assiduously avoided by the true believers is simple. If the material is super thermite why didn't it burn completely in the DSC oven? Look at Figure 20 [on page 20] which has the caption "Fig. (20). Photomicrographs of residues from red/gray chips ignited in the DSC. Notice the shiny-metallic spheres and also the translucent spheres. Each blue scale-marker represents 50 microns." and shows red chips with spheres attached. These chips were in the DSC oven with no chance of moving to a cooler location so they were kept at the oven temperature throughout. They were only partially combusted. Why did the super thermite go out? The conclusion is that maybe it isn't thermite at all but this is rejected by some "truth seekers" because it doen't fit their predetermined notions.

Look at the picture in the paper. Note that there are still unburned portions of red chips after combustion. Explain why a super thermite wouldn't burn completely if it was indeed super thermite.


Uhh, sorry but there is nothing "common-sense" about super-thermite. You've asked this question a million times, so obviously its important to you and may very well hold the key to proving Dr. Jones's science is a farce. However, I know nothing about "super-thermite" all I know is that NIST says there was no explosives used, yet they admit they didn't check for any and that they cannot explain the collapses of the buildings. One scientist did check for explosives, and claims to have found proof, and published his findings. Although it cost him his job, the findings have to my knowledge never been challenged or disproven by any scientist, This seems just a little odd to say the least.

So I asked you a very "common-sense" question: If you have the technical aptitude to prove Dr. Jones's conclusions wrong, why not do your own experiments and publish your findings? You'd be a hero to the 4-5 people out there who believe the OS.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by budaruskie
 



Uhh, sorry but there is nothing "common-sense" about super-thermite.

Boy, did you just say a mouthful. The most unique charateristic that I can see about "super-thermite" is its ability to poses any charateristic that proves 9/11 was an "inside job" and no charateristic that would allow for the scientific disqualification of its existence.

You've asked this question a million times, so obviously its important to you and may very well hold the key to proving Dr. Jones's science is a farce.

No, it is the "key". How does something thats so super-duper constantly fail to conduct its most basic function, burn?

However, I know nothing about "super-thermite" all I know is that NIST says there was no explosives used, yet they admit they didn't check for any and that they cannot explain the collapses of the buildings.

Yes, they can explain the collapse of the building and "checking for explosives" is as silly as it sounds. Why? Where? and for What?

One scientist did check for explosives, and claims to have found proof, and published his findings.

Which, when you think about it is a very basic violation of the scientific method. Which is one reason among many that no one takes this internet essay seriously.

Although it cost him his job, the findings have to my knowledge never been challenged or disproven by any scientist, This seems just a little odd to say the least.

Yes, doesn't it seem it odd that this supposed "scientific" paper is so uniformly ignored by all the scientist? Now, it can be one of two things - all the other scientist are all in on it, or, its not worth anyones' time or effort.

So I asked you a very "common-sense" question: If you have the technical aptitude to prove Dr. Jones's conclusions wrong, why not do your own experiments and publish your findings?

That's a riot. One-off samples, gathered by non-professionals under God know what circumstances and conditions and you expect persons to conduct their own experiments?

You'd be a hero to the 4-5 people out there who believe the OS.

Yeah, you keep telling yourself that.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by budaruskie
 


Once again, a "truth seeker" feigns ignorance and won't answer the key question of why a super thermite didn't completely burn. If this really is ignorance, then I can understand why the "truth seekers" are having such a tough time discriminating between reality and fantasy.
Impressme said earlier that I couldn't answer my own question even though I have answered it many times. Here it is, once again.
The incomplete reaction may be due to the combustion, in air, of all available organic binder in the red paint that Jones discovered. This would leave behind the red iron oxide pigment and kaolinite filler which were also present in the red paint covering the structural members of the WTC. Red paint also explains the estimates in the tons for the weight of the unburned red chips. For truth seekers this means...get ready...there is no evidence for thermite and all evidence points to red paint.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


The incomplete reaction may be due to the combustion, in air, of all available organic binder in the red paint that Jones discovered. This would leave behind the red iron oxide pigment and kaolinite filler which were also present in the red paint covering the structural members of the WTC. Red paint also explains the estimates in the tons for the weight of the unburned red chips. For truth seekers this means...get ready...there is no evidence for thermite and all evidence points to red paint.




The incomplete reaction may be due to the combustion, in air, of all available organic binder in the red paint that Jones discovered.


“May be?” Really pteridine, your opinions are not the scientific facts.


This would leave behind the red iron oxide pigment and kaolinite filler which were also present in the red paint covering the structural members of the WTC.


And your scientific evidence is? Proof?


Red paint also explains the estimates in the tons for the weight of the unburned red chips.


No it does not and this is your “opinion,” and nothing more.


For truth seekers this means...get ready...there is no evidence for thermite and all evidence points to red paint.


For the OS believers and armchair wannabe scientist … get ready...there is no evidence to support your “opinions,” against Jones peer review Journal.

You have been asked repeatedly to show your science and you always just give an “opinion,” you have never proven Jones science was flawed perhaps, in your imaginations but not in reality.
The fact is Pteridine your “opinions are not “above real science,” you have proved nothing.


Impressme said earlier that I couldn't answer my own question even though I have answered it many times. Here it is, once again.


Your question was:


Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by impressme


Great post. Now explain why the so-called super-thermite self-extinguished in the DSC oven. Jones may be able to help you out.


And you cannot even provide “any science” much less answers your own question or show your scientific results. This is what I would expect from wannabe armchair scientists.

The fact is I cannot give you an answer to your question and neither can you, much less anyone else. Your question in my opinion is irrelevant and has no value in disproving that Jones did not do his testing correctly.

We can go back and forth every day 24/7 on this topic, however your “opinions” against Jones personally, and his scientific methods are not proven facts.

Guessing, assumptions, speculations, opinions, are not proven science.

edit on 7-3-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


The answer is that it didn't burn like thermite because it is not thermite.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


The answer is that it didn't burn like thermite because it is not thermite.


And your scientific proof that it was not thermite is what again? Any armchair wannabe can give an “opinion.”



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Figure 20 in Jones paper shows that it didn't burn completely. If it didn't burn like thermite it isn't thermite.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Figure 20 in Jones paper shows that it didn't burn completely. If it didn't burn like thermite it isn't thermite.


Jones never “said it didn’t burn like thermite” he said it didn’t burn. You should stop making up fallacies.

Again, this is your “opinion” where is your proof?



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by pteridine
 


Figure 20 in Jones paper shows that it didn't burn completely. If it didn't burn like thermite it isn't thermite.


Jones never “said it didn’t burn like thermite” he said it didn’t burn. You should stop making up fallacies.

Again, this is your “opinion” where is your proof?



If it didn't burn it isn't thermite and Jones disproved his own hypothesis.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Earth to impressme, come in impressme, I know you can hear us.

The answer is, it didnt completely burn, ergo its NOT thermite. Or super thermite. Or super nano-thermite. Or Super super nano mil-tech, high tech, pixy dust laced paint on sol-gel thermite. It didnt burn. That right there DQs it from being any sort of thermite. Period. It is a FACT. It is not an opinion. Show me a backyard homemade thermite where it stopped reacting halfway. And Jones and his cheerleaders all claim how high tech, super dooper it is, because it it what most definately brought down the WTCs, and yet the stuff cant even keep itself lit.
And there are not enough excuses in the universe for you to make to explain why it sucks and why pteridine is wrong in his observation.

But hey, I'm giving you a chance to redeem yourself and Jones'. Just explain exactly how this super dooper high tech nano thermite cannot even burn itself to completion, or why, and how does that make it so super? How does being a failure, a complete and dismal failure, make it so super dooper, when regular homemade thermite can react better than it?

And no, dont take the easy way out with your fingers in your ears and shouting, "its just an opinion, its just an opinion lalalalalalala I'm right you are wrong!!! leave me alone!" You are an adult. Act like it.

Why didnt Jones send his work to an actual respectable NOT FOR PROFIT journal with actual experts and professionals? Answer me at least THAT question.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 




If it didn't burn it isn't thermite and Jones disproved his own hypothesis.


Who said it’s not thermite? You? And your scientific experiment is what again?




edit on 8-3-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Well, it's not quacking like a duck, it doesn't look like a duck, doesn't walk like a duck, doesn't even smell like a duck. It also barks. So it ain't a duck. Do you understand it yet?

It doesn't behave like thermite, doesn't look like thermite, has nothing thermite about it (except for some similar parts). It ain't thermite. And Jones didnt even bother to do the critical BASIC test of trying to burn it under INERT atmosphere (ie NO oxygen).

So no Impressme. It is not thermite. It is a fact. Any person with a basic understanding of the scientific method can see it. Too bad you cannot fathom that, due to your ignorant blindness thanks to the cult of Dr. Griffin and company. I'd bail out of that fast when they start passing out the Cool-Aid.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
..... that structural engineers have to figure out how to distribute the steel in skyscrapers? The grade school physics of 9/11 is a JOKE.
.....


No, the joke is your argument. The blueprints are out there. GET THEM. USE THEM. I can figure out the exact dimensions of the connections between the trusses and the columns, but you cannot calculate the area of a floor?

That's your own damn fault, nobody elses.


Yeah, people claim and claim and claim information is in those blueprints.

Try finding how the horizontal beams were connected in the core. The blueprints show where the toilets were but those horizontal beams aren't there.

psik



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   
It is curious that Jones only mentions the distribution of steel in segment 5 at about 9:30.

Most of the discussion is about thermate and controlled demolition. He brings up Newton's 3rd Law but does not discuss why the way steel has to be distributed in a skyscraper should make collapse impossible.

psik



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join