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.

 

Face to Face with Dr. Niels Harrit: "There is no doubt that this building was taken down in a contr

page: 9
20
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
And you explain the nano-thermite, the microspheres of atomized steel and the presence of molten steel...how?

Like this: Nano thermite has never been proved nor has molten steel. Microspheres have many sources including welding scale and flyash.




posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 02:34 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



I used Jones data to rebut his paper. If Jones paper was science, I used science.


The problem you have here is anyone can spout drivel that *I debunk* Jones paper in every 911 thread that has anything to do about Jones or na-nothermite. The fact is you have never produced a single piece of science to back up your “opinions.” If you say you have shown scientific evidence in debunking Jones Journal, then I can honestly say you are lying and you should stop making false claims against accepted science. The fact is no one has debunked Jones science.

Perhaps it's time that you stop pertending that you have.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


I can see it is pointless to use logic and reason when discussing things with you. Most of the world realizes that Jones' paper is a sham to advance his theories which are without scientific support.
You don't want to accept that he has fooled you and others and still place your faith in him. I showed that his thermodynamics were inconsistent with his conclusions, using his own numbers. That is not opinion, it is thermodynamics. I have pointed out the flawed analytical protocols and used his own photographs to show that the nanothermitic chips did not completely react in a controlled environment.

Keep calling such "opinion" as that is your opinion.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



I can see it is pointless to use logic and reason when discussing things with you


I guess it is “pointless” in discussing Jones science with me, because I have asked that you show real science to back your nonsensical claims.

Logical?


The only thing you have proved that is “logical” is you have not provided any scientific evidence to your nonsensical claims and if you say you have then you will be lying.


Most of the world realizes that Jones' paper is a sham to advance his theories which are without scientific support.


I disagree, Jones paper is supported by experts and professional such as A&E and if you deny that then you are lying to yourself. As far as the rest of the world believing Jones paper is a sham? You have no evidence to support your ridiculous opinion.


You don't want to accept that he has fooled you and others and still place your faith in him.


Jones has not fooled anyone. The fact is it is you that is desperately trying to “fool” everyone by making false claims against Jones Journal and not providing any scientific evidence to support your opinions.


I showed that his thermodynamics were inconsistent with his conclusions, using his own numbers.


No you did not. You gave your opinions nothing more. We want scientific evidence and you have provided nothing and if you say you have then you will be lying.


I have pointed out the flawed analytical protocols and used his own photographs to show that the nanothermitic chips did not completely react in a controlled environment.


I can point out that the sky is blue… However you can point all you like, you have not provided any scientific evidence to prove your opinion and again if you say you have then you will be lying.


Keep calling such "opinion" as that is your opinion.


The fact is my opinions are in support of Jones science which are already establish base on proven science. I have never made a fraudulent opinions by making up lies against someone science, and if you say I have then you will be lying.



edit on 24-3-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Back on topic. Is the subject line "There is no doubt...." Harrit's opinion? It would seem so, as the paper does not address controlled demolition.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 03:11 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



Back on topic. Is the subject line "There is no doubt...." Harrit's opinion? It would seem so, as the paper does not address controlled demolition.


Excuse me if I was off topic, I was answering your nonsense that you address to me?.


"There is no doubt...." Harrit's opinion?


You mean your doubt, your opinion? you do not speak for the rest of the world or what people believe.

As far as Harrits opinions he provides science to back his opinions and if you say he doesn’t then you will be lying.


as the paper does not address controlled demolition.


No the paper does not address “controlled demolition” but what it does address is the discovery of particles found in the WTC dust sample, particles that are used in making military weapons. If you say that this discovery of unknown na-nothermite was never discovered then you will be lying.

Harrits paper is not about control demolition, so why did you even make the assumption that I assumed it did?



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by pteridine
 



Back on topic. Is the subject line "There is no doubt...." Harrit's opinion? It would seem so, as the paper does not address controlled demolition.


Excuse me if I was off topic, I was answering your nonsense that you address to me?.


"There is no doubt...." Harrit's opinion?


You mean your doubt, your opinion? you do not speak for the rest of the world or what people believe.

As far as Harrits opinions he provides science to back his opinions and if you say he doesn’t then you will be lying.


as the paper does not address controlled demolition.


No the paper does not address “controlled demolition” but what it does address is the discovery of particles found in the WTC dust sample, particles that are used in making military weapons. If you say that this discovery of unknown na-nothermite was never discovered then you will be lying.

Harrits paper is not about control demolition, so why did you even make the assumption that I assumed it did?


If Harrits paper is not about controlled demolition then the the CD that he has no doubt of is merely his OPINION.

The science behind the so-called discovery is flawed and the conclusions are invalid.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Harrits paper is not about control demolition, so why did you even make the assumption that I assumed it did?


If Harrits paper is not about controlled demolition then the the CD that he has no doubt of is merely his OPINION.


No, the fact is it is your OPINION.


The science behind the so-called discovery is flawed and the conclusions are invalid.


Based on what, Your opinion?

edit on 25-3-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 

I can see you cannot discriminate between science and opinion. According to your definition, Harrit and Jones do opinions and wrote an opinion piece for Bentham, right?



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


I just wanted to say that I have repeatedly proven your opinions to be false based upon the evidence you have given to support them, which as we all know is none. But, I'm a self-proclaimed expert on these matters and I supposedly spend all my time writing in scientific journals yet I lack the ability to see that posting my opinions on ATS has absolutely no significance in the world of science. See where I'm going with this?
edit on 3/25/2011 by budaruskie because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


I can see you cannot discriminate between science and opinion.


Funny, I said that about you recently.


According to your definition, Harrit and Jones do opinions and wrote an opinion piece for Bentham, right?


No, that is not according to me, the fact is, it is according to you, correct?



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by budaruskie
reply to post by pteridine
 


I just wanted to say that I have repeatedly proven your opinions to be false based upon the evidence you have given to support them, which as we all know is none. But, I'm a self-proclaimed expert on these matters and I supposedly spend all my time writing in scientific journals yet I lack the ability to see that posting my opinions on ATS has absolutely no significance in the world of science. See where I'm going with this?


Apparently, you can't understand the difference between science and opinion, either. If you have a specific question, I will repost some of my earlier reviews of the Jones paper since you can't seem to find them.

Do you lack the ability to see that posting your opinions on ATS has absolutely no significance in the real world?



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

Do you lack the ability to see that posting your opinions on ATS has absolutely no significance in the real world?


No, I understand that idea very very well. My point is....that YOU DON'T! You have made many claims on ATS throughout many threads for example: you've disproven Dr. Jones, other scientists don't take him seriously, and that you have written in scientific journals. I call BS. You have NEVER disproven Dr. Jones in any capacity, you only claim as much. You have NEVER even produced the name of ONE SCIENTIST who has ever claimed Dr. Jones isn't credible in any way, you only claim as much. I have no proof that you've never written anything in a scientific journal, BUT YOU HAVE NEVER PROVED THAT YOU HAVE. Christ, I'm so done with you and your nonsense.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by budaruskie
 


If you are done with me then stop posting and concede the point that Jones has not found anything even vaguely resembing thermite. I have proved Jones-Harrit wrong and invite you, as I invited BSBray to explain the thermodynamic data provided in his paper. It does not substantiate his conclusions and since you support Jones paper and zealously believe in his thermite nonsense, you should be able to explain it. You can ask Jones or anyone else for help if you want.
If that is too tough, then explain why the thermite didn't burn completely when held in an oven above its claimed ignition point. What a highly engineered nano-thermtic material that is.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 03:49 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



If that is too tough, then explain why the thermite didn't burn completely when held in an oven above its claimed ignition point. What a highly engineered nano-thermtic material that is.


You keep asking this same question in most 911threads that has anything to do with Jones or his science as if you have found the smoking gun. The fact is Jones explained why some of the thermatic particles did not burn Jones also states that some of the un-reacted red thermatic material in the thin layers does invite further experiments. If you disagree then you are lying to yourself.

What was discovered to only be paint was clearly demonstrated and what was the thermatic material in the thin layers was also demonstrated in many flash burn tests.
You can cherry pick any one of these tests and twist it to fit your nonsense. However, as long as I have a copy of Jones’ Journal I can prove you are making up fallacies against this accepted peer reviewed science.

Here is a snipped from Jones Journal discussing the un- reacted red thermatic material.


Thus, the middle-layer gray material contains carbon and
oxygen and presumably also contains hydrogen, too light to
be seen using this method. Since the gray inner layer appears
between two other layers, it may be a type of adhesive, binding
a red porous thermitic material to another, iron-rich material.
One might speculate that the red thermitic material has
been attached to rusty iron by an adhesive. The cooling effect
of the iron in such close proximity, acting as a heat sink,
might quench the reaction and explain the fact that unreacted
red thermitic material, always found by us in thin layers,
remains in the dust. These hypotheses invite further experiments.

No red/gray chips having the characteristics delineated
here were found in dust generated by controlled demolition
using conventional explosives and methods, for the Stardust
Resort & Casino in Las Vegas (demolished 13 March 2007)
and the Key Bank in Salt Lake City (demolished 18 August
2007). Of course, we do not assume that the destruction of
the WTC skyscrapers occurred conventionally.
The red material does burn quickly as shown in the DSC,
and we have observed a bright flash on ignition, but determination
of the burn rate of the red material may help to classify
this as a slow or fast explosive. It may be that this material is
used not as a cutter-charge itself, but rather as a means to ignite
high explosives, as in super-thermite matches [30]. Having
observed unignited thermitic material in the WTC residue,
we suggest that other energetic materials suitable for cutter
charges or explosives should also be looked for in the WTC
dust. NIST has admitted that they have not yet looked for such
residues [11].

www.bentham-open.org...

If you make any claim that Jones science is wrong then you need to bring your scientific evidence to the table.
If you cannot put up (scientific evidence) and not your un-proven opinions, then you need to stop telling everyone that you have debunked Jones science. I have to be blunt here, you need to Put up or shut up.



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


In your quotes, Jones states: "Since the gray inner layer appears between two other layers, it may be a type of adhesive, binding a red porous thermitic material to another, iron-rich material. One might speculate that the red thermitic material has been attached to rusty iron by an adhesive. The cooling effect of the iron in such close proximity, acting as a heat sink, might quench the reaction and explain the fact that unreacted red thermitic material, always found by us in thin layers, remains in the dust."

Consider the inner gray layer as an adhesive. It is iron oxide, according to the paper, and wasn't shown to have any adhesive properties.

Consider the cooling effect of the iron. If this is true, what was the purpose of 10-100 tons of unburned red chips on the iron that would have quenched it? If it didn't do anything, what did do something?

After talking himself into a corner, he shifts the focus:
"The red material does burn quickly as shown in the DSC,..."
We don't know how quickly it really burns, but why does only some of it burn? Why doesn't all of it burn?

Jones then comes up with a speculation because he realizes that he can't explain why super thermite that would be quenched by its target would be able to damage the target. Possibly, says Jones, "It may be that this material is used not as a cutter-charge itself, but rather as a means to ignite high explosives, as in super-thermite matches." If the super thermite is used in explosive igniters, what explosives would it ignite and why was so much of it painted on steel beams that would quench it?



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Why, why, why? You ask questions that no one can answer? But did you just debunk Jones science? No.

So what’s your point? At lease Jones shows his science that supports his observation from his many test that his team of scientist performed, and this my friend, beats all of your “opinions.”



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


I only pointed out the errors in Jones' logic to give readers some things to consider. I know you don't understand the errors in his paper so I expect that you will continue to lead the cheering section without question.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


For once you actually posted a true statement. You did in fact, point some things out, and you may be correct in your assessment, I really can't say. But, you didn't prove a damn thing, and finally you recognized that fact. If you would have continued with the old, I proved this I proved that BS you typically say, I would not have responded. However, in this case your maturation deserves recognition.
edit on 3/28/2011 by budaruskie because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by budaruskie
 


On this post I show the errors in thermodynamics that Jones ignores.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join