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.
No I'm not. I'm pointing out that steel rusts, and you know full well why I'm pointing it out- it means that the rust Harrit found was certainly from the building itself and you won't be able to use this bit to peddle your conspiracy stories anymore. It's just that you have such outer space blind devotion to these ridiculous conspiracy stories that you're have to resort to argue over idiotic things out of desperation like whether steel rusts. So, go ahead and show how I'm arguing against science by stating that steel rusts.
Incredible. Just incredible.
I am amused Dave most 10 year old kids know steel rusts, furthermore why don’t you just show everyone here on ATS how I claim to “not understand” such an elementary question? Please Dave this ought to be real interesting, please show how I peddle conspiracy stories where I have been caught saying this nonsense of “rusty steal” causing the WTC collapse? If you cannot answer this question then, I think we all can assume your are making up more fallacies against me personally probably because I dares to question you and your mindless rambles, towards all Truthers.
I have already debated where I stand with Jones science and have successfully stood my ground, something you lack the understanding or don’t want to understand for whatever your reasons are.
Dave, show us the evidence proving the size of the rust particles that you are talking about, and their heaviest concentrations in PPM.
I have to presume that no, Jones can't determine the difference between rust particles and thermite particles becuase he makes no mention of any distinction.
Point out to me where in this report that he conclusively shows the iron oxide he examines is actually pyrotechnic iron oxide rather than iron oxide that came from the buulding itself.
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World TradeCenter Catastrophe
2. Is the Red Material Thermitic in Nature?
Our observations show that the red material contains substantial
amounts of aluminum, iron and oxygen, mixed together
very finely. In the sample soaked in MEK, we observed
a clear migration and aggregation of the aluminum
away from other elements and determined that elemental
aluminum and iron oxide must be present. In the product
collected after DSC ignition, we found spheres which were
not initially present. Many of these spheres were iron rich
and elemental iron was found in the post-ignition debris.
Further, the DSC traces demonstrate that the red/gray chips
react vigorously at a temperature below the melting point of
aluminum and below the ignition (oxidation) point of ultrafine
grain (UFG) aluminum in air [18]. These observations
reminded us of nano-thermite fabricated at the Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory and elsewhere; [color=gold]available
papers describe this material as an intimate mixture of UFG
aluminum and iron oxide in nano-thermite composites to
form pyrotechnics or explosives [19-21]. The thermite reaction
involves aluminum and a metal oxide, as in this typical
reaction with iron oxide:
2Al + Fe2O3 Al2O3 + 2Fe (molten iron), H = 853.5
kJ/mole.
Commercially available thermite behaves as an incendiary
when ignited [6], but when the ingredients are ultra-fine
grain (UFG) and are intimately mixed, this “nano-thermite”
reacts very rapidly, even explosively, and is sometimes referred
to as “super-thermite” [20, 22].
We would like to make detailed comparisons of the red
chips with known super-thermite composites, along with
comparisons of the products following ignition, but there are
many forms of this high-tech thermite, and this comparison
must wait for a future study. Meanwhile, we compare with
products of commercially available (macro-) thermite. During
ignition of thermite, we have observed that many spheres
and spheroids are formed as part of the molten product of the
reaction is vigorously scattered. These particles tend to become
spherical due to surface tension and, being small, are
rapidly cooled and solidify as they fall through the air, thus
their spherical shape is preserved.
To facilitate comparisons between the products of
red/gray chip ignition and commercial thermite ignition, we
juxtapose the respective images and XEDS spectra.
We observe that the spheroidal residues from ignition of
red chips (Figs. 25, 26) possess a strikingly similar chemical
signature to a typical XEDS spectrum from a spheroid generated
by commercial thermite (Fig. 24). This similarity supports
our hypothesis that the red chips are indeed a form of
thermite.
This is neither here nor there since I can see you're playing bait and switch. YOU said, and I quote:
"If anyone is making “dishonest claims” it is you, and to prove you are making up garbage is easy, because you are making accusation against science without showing any scientific evidence to back your ridiculous claims, it is that simple."
...and I asked you to whow even one instance where I ever "making accusations against science." Are you going to answer the question or are you going to expose yourself as a damned liar?
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Originally posted by impressme
Jones has long been notorious for wanting to believe there was some conspiracy behind the 9/11 attack so it's no surprise he'd invent his own evidence to support it. Whether the evidence he invented has any credibility has yet to be proven.
Do not be fooled by opinions.
I agree, particularly the opinions being passed off as evidence. Jones is the quintessential conspiracy con artist passing off innuendo as fact, specifically in this case- nowhere has he been able to prove this supposed nanothermite he had found played any part in the destruction of the WTC. go ahead and insist it was nanothermite if you so desire, but as far as I'm concerned, all Jones has proved is that some guy might have dumped a bag of thermite into the WTC dust after it had already collapsed.
It is not an opinion that the towers were gigantic sources of aluminum and rust and it is not an opinion that said alimunum and rust would be found in the debris field. It is fact. You just don't want to acknowledge the fact because you know there's no way you can continue to milk this whole "thermitic material" for your perverse conspiracy mongoring any longer. If you attempt to refuse any of THAT, you will be lying.
peddle your conspiracy stories anymore.
I'm tired of you making these idiotic comments like a ten year old and then running away giggling when you're expected to back the claim up. It's not going to work this time.
Your own fellow conspiracy proponents here (I.E. Bonez) have already renounced you for your mindless devotion to every fringe conspriacy claim however absurd it sounds, as it's making them look like crackpots by association. Who should any of us take you seriously when they don't? We see right away how little credibility you have when you're even resorting to bickering over the towers being built out of steel and aluminum.
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I refuse to be a slave to the demands of the conspiracy theorists that I should mindlessly follow their dogma.
Dave, Dave, Dave. I shake my head in disgust at yet another meaningless rant.
If you "refuse to be a slave of conspiracy theorists", stop posting here! Stop reading these or any other conspiracy forum! Get a life and go outside of your house. Then you won't be near a computer to read conspiracy forums.
You put yourself in the position to post and read these conspiracy forums, then you rant, attack and complain about it. There are adjectives for those kinds of people who put themselves in certain situations and then blame other people for it.
You seriously need to talk to someone about your problems. Attacking "conspiracy theorists" or conspiracy websites because of your issues, is a serious issue......on your part.
Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by budaruskie
Agreed! You guys should all ignore and block the couple people who are just here to troll. Obviously they get a kick out of it or something. an obviously they didnt even bother to watch the movie, as their questions arent even relevant/making sense when i listen to the video.
Hey guys (hooper, dave, pterd ine), watch the movie, provide us specific points in the movie we can skip right to, that you disagree with. Otherwise you dont care about the movie, which is what this thread is about. And on top of that, you obviously dont care about the truth either.
Eagerly awaiting what specific points of the movie you disagree!
I did watch a portion of the movie but don't have 56 minutes to waste on Harrit's same old song.
He likes the idea of super-nano-thermite and talks of its explosive properties.
Of course, when you design a super nano thermite to be an explosive, what do you think it does? Hint: It explodes.
Did you hear any timed explosions on the videos? No.
Did the super nano-explosive explode in the DSC oven? No.
Did it even burn completely? No.
This super secret nano thermite explosive is so stealthy it behaves like red paint
The energetics in Jones paper disprove his assertion that the red chips are thermite.
His own data debunks his claims
The photos of partially burned red chips show incomplete combustion.
Still, true believers embrace this fantasy because they want a CD conspiracy and don't want to let facts get in the way.
Harrit, like Jones, needs attention.
People get more attention if they are outrageous than if they are skilled.
Many of the posters on these boards behave similarly. They spout the "deny ignorance" mantra as they jump into ignorance with both feet and wallow.
Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by budaruskie
As your buddy Impressme says "that is just your opinion."
Originally posted by budaruskie
Wow, this thread has really deteriorated. Its laughable that Impressme would be chastised for not answering certain questions by certain members. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, pa-lease! Dave, you avoid pointed questions like oil avoids water! I don't have to show you, all anyone has to do is look at any thread you've ever been in, and bob's your uncle. Also, we all know there are two threads dedicated to pteridine purposefully and conspicuously avoiding Turbofan's questions like the plague in a "debate" (of- sorts) that he chose to start. This is the height of irony!
However, in the end you guys still have accomplished nothing. The bottom line is that science and common sense do not support the OS, and as time goes on more and more people are getting the courage to say so. The strategy has always been and will continue to be to drag them through the mud and try your best to humiliate and discredit them, but as always STAY AWAY FROM THE SCIENCE! You know as well as I do that more scientists aren't speaking out about the BS, oops I mean OS, precisely because of what happened to Dr. Jones. They have jobs they like and don't want to lose them for no reason as well as be ridiculed by arrogant "internet scientists" who lack the balls to actually PROVE anything. I can't say I blame them for that.
Originally posted by impressme
I am amused Dave most 10 year old kids know steel rusts, furthermore why don’t you just show everyone here on ATS how I claim to “not understand” such an elementary question? Please Dave this ought to be real interesting, please show how I peddle conspiracy stories where I have been caught saying this nonsense of “rusty steal” causing the WTC collapse?
Dave, when are you going to start backing up your accusations? I asked you some question and you continue to flat out ignore every single one of them.
I have never made any claim to you that the iron oxide is pyrotechnic iron oxide. If it is not, what scientific evidence do you have to prove iron oxide “is not” pyrotechnic iron oxide?
Not only do you want me to point this out in Jones Journal, am I to assume you do not believe this is correct, base on what?
Here is a part of Jones Journal where Jones discusses his observation and why he concluded the iron oxide to be “pyrotechnic.”
Ok, here is an offensive and fraudulent remark you made against Jones and his science.
I agree, particularly the opinions being passed off as evidence. Jones is the quintessential conspiracy con artist passing off innuendo as fact, specifically in this case- nowhere has he been able to prove this supposed nanothermite he had found played any part in the destruction of the WTC. go ahead and insist it was nanothermite if you so desire, but as far as I'm concerned, all Jones has proved is that some guy might have dumped a bag of thermite into the WTC dust after it had already collapsed.
Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by budaruskie
Of course you must resort to the old faithful of calling people liars. You say you don't understand the science but you are sure I am lying and that Jones is unimpeachable. Have you considered that Jones is lying to get some attention from even the limited world of the CTer's?
I raised the issue of the self-extinguishing super thermite so that anyone, scientist or not, could see the fallacy of Jones' claims. In other threads, I have explained the errors in Jones' thermodynamics but many didn't understand that aspect. I have also explained the failure of Jones t run the DSC under inert gas because he cannot discriminate between combustion and thermite reaction when he did it in air. This means taht all of hs conclusions are not justified.
Originally posted by budaruskie
I have not once said that any of your conclusions were wrong, I have merely said that you refuse to officially disprove Dr. Jones's analysis. In the above quote you say "I have explained the errors in Jones' thermodynamics but many didn't understand that aspect." That is obviously because many of us are not scientists, and have lack the necessary understanding of thermodynamics to either argue with or agree with you. My point to you all along has been that you are telling jokes to dogs in this forum, we don't know what you're saying well enough to converse. If you have the apptitude you claim to have, and the confidence in your own conclusions that you also claim to have, THEN OFFICIALLY THROUGH A SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL, REFUTE HIS SCIENCE!!! Christ, I cannot make it any more plain than that. Your inability to understand such a fundamental flaw in your own choice of media to flaunt your own infallable science, really makes me wonder if you have the ability to understand intricate details regarding thermodynamics! That is what compells me to say I think you are lying. A real scientist would understand you don't go to a friggin' DAMN FOOL CONSPIRACY SITE to scientifically prove to the world that another scientist is wrong or a con. YOU DO WHAT JONES DID AND PUBLISH IT OPENLY TO BE CHALLENGED BY OTHER SCIENTISTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sorry, but I'm immune to children's games.
So go ahead, tell me that the lack of documentation of how the rust was distributed throughout ground zero is proof of a master conspiracy. I double dog dare you.
"Dave, show us the evidence proving the size of the rust particles that you are talking about, and their heaviest concentrations in PPM."
There is no way, shape, or form that I, you, Jones, or the Easter bunny can document just how the rust within the towers was redistributed throughout the debris field when the towers collapsed.
Based upon your false assertion that this report is relevent to how the towers collapsed.
You and I know the only reason why you care so zealously about this report is so you can use it to foist your "controlled demolitions" agenda onto others.
If this is NOT the reason why you're defending the report with such an emotional attachment, then please enlighten me.
He's not saying what he found is pyrotechnical iron oxide nor is he saying what he found was even thermite. He's saying his results reminds him of what he read in some other paper that discussed thermite, which is completely meaningless since that other paper discussed actual thermite while he was discussing the dust someone mailed to him claiming it came from ground zero. As rust is in fact iron oxide and iron oxide is in fact a component of thermite it necessarily means what he found had the same properties of thermite. He never says this was the cause of the collape nor does he document how the material got there. Everything else is a product of your own embellishment.
This is correct and I stand by my word. Jones IS passing off opinions as evidence. Nowhere does he show this is actual thermite rather than materials that came from the structure itself and nowhere does he show this mateiral he found played any part of the collapse of the towers. If you are claiming he did then you are lying.
I do concur I was in error about the "he proved someone might have dumped a bag of Thermite onto the ground", as it's a logical fallacy to state someone can prove something *might* have occurred. If it's proven, then it did occur, rather than "might" have occurred, and if it's something that might have occurred then it isn't proven. I therefore retract it...
but just how does this supposedly show I'm "making accusations against science"? THAT is what you accused me of, not whether Jones is misidentifying what he found.
You really have no credibility, Impressme. Answer the question already.
Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by budaruskie
I see you are just as confused and desperate as Impressme. You have no facts to support your position and have resorted to promoting Jones' equally groundless claims.