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.

 

Thermite Cutting Steel Experimentally Demonstrated

page: 21
10
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 03:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by Moneer189

These are very reasonable arguments, however there are several flaws. As stated, it is very clear that an oxidation reduction reaction occurred during calorimetry, as measured by solvent and ratio analysis, which is surely revealing a thermitic reaction.

furthermore, commercial thermite revealed nearly identical chemical signatures and post ignition iron concentrated sphere cores.

Also, remaining iron oxide simply makes sense, as it is not the limiting Reagant. Ratios of elements reveal clear interactions.

The fact that more energy was created gives evidence to the fact of a purer form of thermite, although it sure is possible that organic reactions occurred as well. because of the nature of dsc, flame ignition was also used and revealed very similar results.

The overwhelming similarities of commercial thermite analysis are really undeniable.


The oxidation reduction reaction is called combustion, as Jones errantly ran the DSC in a stream of air and invalidated his results. Note figure 30 in his paper. As you can see, the energies of chips 3 and 4 are far greater than thermite or any combination of thermite and the high explosives shown.

"The fact that more energy was created gives evidence to the fact of a purer form of thermite..." is completely incorrrect. The energy limit is based on a stoichiometric mixture of any size particles. If it were a 'purer form' it would not have self extinguished. Given its failure to react, it would appear that Jones found red paint.



Um.. I'm beginning to think you really have no idea what you're saying.

First of all, combustion would have revealed nitrogen and carbon, among others, in any type of elemental analysis.

The limiting reagants of any chemical reaction is based on stoichiometric quantities, of course, which obviously has to do with the ABSOLUTE quantity of the reagants.

Furthermore, Jones is not the only researcher and scientist involved in this research.
Harrit, Farrer, Ryan, Legge, Farnsworth, Roberts, Gourley, Larsen were several major contributors, some even more than Jones himself.

Schools that were involved were the University of Copenhagen, Brigham Young University, along with Departments of Chemistry, Physics, Astronomy, along with S&J Scientific.

"If it were a purer form it would not have self extinguished."

What? You're saying it self extinguished because of presence of reactant oxides after ignition? Lol do I really need to go into this?

Let me give you a little course in chemistry 101.

Fe2O3 + 2Al → 2Fe + Al2O3

Is a basic thermitic reaction, involving Iron Oxide transferred to Aluminum Oxide.

Based on quantitues of aluminum and iron oxide, along with catalysts, stoichiometric mole to mole ratios, and avogadros number, one is able to figure which reactants are limiting reagants. Obviously, iron is present in such amounts that it will not ever be fully reacted.

You're saying that because the entire world trade center wasn't surrounded by molten iron, then it must mean that this isn't thermitic? Are you serious?

Please stop spreading these bull# lies and stick to the #ing facts.

I've been very diplomatic with you, but my long fact-based claims have been rebutted with what? ... You saying stupid things like "Jones wants thermite to be there."

Why are you picking and choosing which anomolies to argue?

Why do you refuse to believe a significant number of other scientists are involved with this research?

Why do you refuse to acknowledge the nearly IDENTICAL chemical signatures of commercial grade thermite and the samples from the WTC?

"Failure to react"?? THE SAMPLES REACTED AT 400 CENTIGRADE! Do you understand why this is so significant? 400 Centrigrade is such a small temperature compared to NORMAL burning and melting points of control samples.

I don't understand what your issue is.

What is your scientific explanation for the reactions that occured, then?

Did the elements you say are available from different sources RANDOMLY come together IMMEDIATELY after plane impact, in the SAME EXACT STOICHIOMETRIC QUANTITIES OF COMMERCIAL THERMITE?

Can you PLEASE not avoid the striking revelations that have been illuminuated?

Can you also please explain the presence of these reactions in the world trade center that WAS NOT EVEN HIT by airplanes -- but revealed the EXACT same building core slanted cuts CHARACTERISTIC of thermite?

You're absolutely ridiculous at this point.

The chemistry is undeniable.

There is OBVIOUSLY many more tests to be conducted to further confirm and analyze the data, however chemical signature tests are one of the most widely used tests to confirm things like this.

Can you explain the FLAME ignition analysis? If you're so worried about combustion?

You replied to EXPERIMENTAL data and HARD evidence with a statement like, "Oh, must have been combustion." Who are you kidding?

Okay, where was the nitrogen?


I know you've tried to manipulate the people on this forum for a while now, taking advantage of most people's lack of knowledge in the scientific field.

But, you have been exposed.

You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

I think your statements are coming from other web sites because it's clear that it's reiterated and the way you discuss things tells me you have no idea what the word Chemistry means.

I'm a medical student, specializing in biochemistry and pharmacology, and it's very easy to determine when someone is bull#ting.

You clearly are.

I'm done trying to have a civilized discussion with you, you clearly are a joke and want to persist on lies.

If I leave any impression on you, please take the following into account..

For a moment, even though I understand your vehement opposition to the claims, pretend your wrong. Just for a moment, please.

Look at the FACTS, and you can also compare to further questions that you have that may verify data. Anybody outside of the debate who has knowledge in the scientific field would surely not outright DENY thermite. The evidence is pretty overwhelming and compelling at this point, but in science you can never be too sure; which is why things are analyzed so many times.

NOTHING has been rebuted.

And wtf are you talking about Jones revealed information revealing "NO THERMITE". PLeaes reference your bull# claims.

Moneer




posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 03:17 AM
link   
For those elements from your sources to come together in such a way as to oxidize/reduce each other, and in nearly the same exact chemical composition/makeup/relative quantity of commercial-grade thermite, with high surface area/volume ratios, in the presence of fine grade aluminum, to have been separated from their original forms and combined, to be found in strikingly similar anatomies from samples coming from several different areas, to be naturally made fine grade to a point that can ignite at 400 centrigrade, is almost as possible as winning the lottery for for 30 days, consecutively.

When I said this earlier, you replied with "oh, combustion".

Please also explain how analyses of the energy of electrons jumping and returning from different energy orbit quantum levels were measured and revealed EXACT measurements of thermite.

I knew you were bull# when you tried to tell me how the major analyses can only reveal elements, and not quantities, ratios, integrity of compounds.

You're a joke at this point. I'm honestly laughing out loud.

Moneer
edit on 19-4-2011 by Moneer189 because: Just had to make sure he knew he was garbage



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 04:23 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Yes, thermite can react in the presence of oxygen. But because oxygen was present, the DSC data cannot prove thermite.


It doesn’t matter if there was oxygen or not. You do not know what kind of na-nothermite Jones discovered in fact Jones himself said more testing was needed because he couldn’t compare this particular type of supper na-nothermite to any known thermite and you know this, and yet you ignore what was stated in Jones’ Journal.


Examination of figure 26 shows a residue after DSC that still contains iron oxide, meaning that some, if not all of the iron oxide did not react.


Wrong, this is your interpretations.


If some of the iron oxide did not react then the chips may not be as "highly engineered" as claimed. Maybe they are merely lowly engineered or not thermite at all.


Maybe they are “highly engineered” as Jones claimed, they might be highly engineered and are na-nothermite. You cannot prove why some of the iron oxide did not react.


if thermite, would not really do anything to the metal that they were on. When confronted with this, Jones said that maybe the chips were electric match ignitors for other explosives. So now there were 10 to 100 tons of unlit electric match material for explosives of some kind. This would imply that many more tons of explosives never went off or the plotters decided that they wanted to be caught and just added tons of unnecessary material to be discovered.


Jones said he believe the reason why some of the chips did not react was because they behave like a “heat sink” why don’t you stick to the facts and stop cherry picking and twisting Jones, words, science, care to prove this statement wrong?


[color=gold] 3. Could the Red Material Be Unreacted “Super-
Thermite”?
We have noted that ordinary thermite acts as an incendiary
when ignited. However, when the ingredients are ultrafine-
grain and are intimately mixed, the mixture reacts very
rapidly, even explosively [20]. Thus, there is a highly energetic
form of thermite known as an energetic nanocomposite
or “super-thermite,” composed of aluminum and iron oxide
with at least one component being approximately 100 nm or
less, often along with silicon and carbon [19-28].
“Reaction rates between nanosize aluminum
and metal oxides can be significantly greater
than those observed with traditional micron-size
thermite powders. Reactions occurring between
metal and metal oxide powders are accompanied
by the generation of high temperatures
(>3000 K). Super-thermites, formed by mixing
of aluminum and metal oxide nanopowders result
in energy release rate by two orders of
magnitude higher than similar mixtures consisting
of micron size reactants” [22].
The red layer of the red/gray chips is most interesting in
that it contains aluminum, iron and oxygen componentswhich are intimately mixed at a scale of approximately 100
nanometers (nm) or less. Now we compare a DSC trace obtained
for a WTC red/gray chip with a DSC trace obtained
for known super-thermite (see Fig. (29)).
Ordinary thermite ignites at a much higher temperature
(about 900 °C or above) and gives a significantly broader
trace than super-thermite [21]. All these data suggest that the
thermitic material found in the WTC dust is a form of nanothermite,
not ordinary (macro-) thermite. We make no attempt
to specify the particular form of nano-thermite present
until more is learned about the red material and especially
about the nature of the organic material it contains.

www.bentham-open.org...

I think the facts speak for themselves, not your opinions.


So now there were 10 to 100 tons of unlit electric match material for explosives of some kind.


False, that was not in Jones’ Journal, this is your opinion.


All Jones has to do to show thermite is to run the DSC under argon and show exotherms.


No, Jones does not have to change his testing to suit your bias opinions even if he ran his test different you will still deny every out come as you have demonstrated in every 911 thread concerning Jones and thermite. You can make all the claims and opinions all you like but that all it is you are doing, assuming, guessing, speculating and never showing any science to back you assumptions.


Until that is published, he cannot claim thermite.


But he has, and he did. Why because Jones is a scientist and you are not. Perhaps when you can write your own peer review paper proving Jones paper is flawed, then perhaps people might take you seriously. However your opinions are not the scientific facts and I hope most ATS readers understand this.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 04:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Moneer189
 


When you refer to " building core slanted cuts." Do you mean these torch-cut columns ?

www.youtube.com...

If not, what are you referring to please.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Moneer189
 


Just a note, but to my understanding, it was not the exact same as thermite. It was supposedly a far more volatile reaction. Jones claimed that meant that it was a secret government type of thermite dubbed super-thermite, though there is no evidence to support such a claim. Burning something at a high enough temperature "ought" to make it combust, wouldn't you think? I mean, what else was it suppose to do, gently melt away when you are combining Rust and Aluminum?

I had a physics teacher a while back who had these two iron balls. One was soaked in water and rusted while the other was coated in aluminum. Just hitting them together caused a thermitic reaction and created a loud spark. Since there was both aluminum and rust present in the world trade centers which would naturally get dispersed into the collapsing debris, why "wouldn't" the materials generate a thermitic reaction. 400 centigrade is around 750 fahrenheit. Since Aluminum has a melting point of 660 and would become far more volatile in that state, and assuming that the impurities of the sample would slightly raise the melting point, getting his reaction at 400 centigrade makes sense. I don't see a reason to claim super-thermite though.

Scratch that last part. I just tried checking my celcius/fahrenheits and found myself to be wrong. Aluminum melts at 660 C, not F. So 400 degrees would be somewhere in the realm of extremely heated, possibly red hot. I still feel that it would not be surprising for it to react with the rust.
edit on 19-4-2011 by Varemia because: edited



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 



Thermitic reactions require a specific composition of reactants, along with a binder to mix with, followed by heat (and even catalysts).

The fact that the anatomies through BSE imaging and other analysis was extremely similar to commercial thermite strongly suggest that it is thermite.

The fact that it burns at 400 suggests (but doesn't prove) that something in the reaction was much more concentrated, pure, or fine.

Furthermore, thermite which is composed of what's called "nano" particles is referred to as a nano or super grade of thermite. The results illustrate such particles.


Unless your experiment included some type of binder, significants amounts of heat, and a catalyst, I don't believe that was a thermitic reaction at all.

Combustion is different than oxidation/reduction. Some volatile substances "combust", while others transfer electrons and need the presence of heat.

The science that went into the creation of the world trade centers specifically took into account the possibility of airplanes attacking them, and the potential temperatures that would have been created should not have had any type of effect that we have seen.

Yet, for some reason, the samples reacted at extremely low temperatures.
edit on 19-4-2011 by Moneer189 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Moneer189
 


400 degrees celcius is not an extremely low temperature. That's like sticking it into a furnace and then being surprised by a chemical reaction!

Also, the trade centers were designed to be fine in the case of a lower speed, smaller plane, accidental impact. They were not expecting a max speed head-on impact with a larger plane. You literally cannot assume that they could have designed for something that didn't exist yet. Also, the towers were about 30 years old. That's 30 years for the accumulation of rust, which would become finely dispersed upon being impacted, if you've ever seen someone hit rust with a hammer. It makes a fine powder in the air. Since contrary to popular belief, solids are not actually entirely solid, ejecting particles into the air over time and into material that touches them, it is not difficult to imagine that particles, and a lot of them, made it into the dust.

The way you're talking, you're saying that literally tons of unreacted super-thermite permeated the dust, though Jones is the only person to have tested the material and come to this conclusion. He's probably the only one who tried cooking them at temperatures way higher than your oven can go, though. I just have to wonder. Why the heck would the government use a material that requires such high ignition temperature and leaves so many traces in everything? Since the material doesn't have an actual record of existence (the type of thermite was in-fact, invented by Jones.), I don't see how anyone can definitively say it was a weaponized thermite type. You love throwing around the word "nano," but that just means very tiny. Nano does not mean engineered, unless you can explain to me conclusively that the ONLY way particles of aluminum and rust could get into a collapsed building which contained aluminum and rust, is through the application of an unknown thermitic compound.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Moneer189
 


You are making statements that are just wrong.

"First of all, combustion would have revealed nitrogen and carbon, among others, in any type of elemental analysis."
The combustion products were not analyzed. Carbon was found by EDAX in the red chips before combustion. There is something called a 'binder' in paint that polymerizes as the paint cures. It contains carbon. Nitrogen was not found.

"What? You're saying it self extinguished because of presence of reactant oxides after ignition? Lol do I really need to go into this? "
Yes. That is what I am saying. Unreacted iron oxide means that it did not react completely and may not have reacted at all other than combusting the binder. That means that it self extinguished, your cute Lol included. Go into it all you want.

"Is a basic thermitic reaction, involving Iron Oxide transferred to Aluminum Oxide."
Iron oxide doesn't transfer to aluminum oxide. It is an oxidizing agent that oxidizes aluminum and is reduced by the aluminum. Look up Redox.

"Based on quantitues of aluminum and iron oxide, along with catalysts, stoichiometric mole to mole ratios, and avogadros number, one is able to figure which reactants are limiting reagants. Obviously, iron is present in such amounts that it will not ever be fully reacted."
It is Iron Oxide that is present in excess, not iron. As the reaction itself is in question, you have no idea of the limiting reagent. It could very well be the carbonaceous binder that is limiting.

"You replied to EXPERIMENTAL data and HARD evidence with a statement like, "Oh, must have been combustion." Who are you kidding? "
The experiment was flawed, as I pointed out. Carbon was present. The DSC was done in air. Carbonaceous material burns in air. The thermodynamics show much more energy output than thermite could produce, so combustion definitely occurred. Your earlier statement about a higher purity of thermite providing more energy was humorous and definitely belonged to a med/premed.

"Okay, where was the nitrogen? "
Nitrogen was not shown to be present in the reactants or products. Why are you worried about nitrogen?

"I'm a medical student, specializing in biochemistry and pharmacology, and it's very easy to determine when someone is bull#ting."
That may explain your lack of chemical knowledge and attempts to use big chemistry words. Medical students are famous for 'bull#ting' and bluffing and you have proved it once again. Stick to dissection.

"Why are you picking and choosing which anomolies to argue? "
This is a telling statement. Which ones do you think that are there that I should argue? Are there anomalies that I should avoid? Do you want to reach a predetermined conclusion?

"Please also explain how analyses of the energy of electrons jumping and returning from different energy orbit quantum levels were measured and revealed EXACT measurements of thermite."
I have to believe that you are referring to the EDAX analyses using terms from your gen chem book. That analytical technique only shows elements and not compounds. If you'd like to say that the elements of thermite were present, in that iron, aluminum, and oxygen were seen, you may. You really can't say what the compounds were; the aluminum could have been present as an aluminosilicate, or aluminum oxide. That is why other techniques, such as XRD would be useful. Note also that aluminum is sometimes erroneously found in EDAX analyses. That is because the SEM stages are aluminum and shine through will show the stage if one is not careful.


"I knew you were bull# when you tried to tell me how the major analyses can only reveal elements, and not quantities, ratios, integrity of compounds."
EDAX only tells you the elements present, not the compounds they are in. There are other techniques for that that Jones, et al., have not used, for some unknown reason. If you explain what you mean by "integrity of compounds" I'll tell you if EDAX can do it.

Now that you have had a little basic chem, you could opt for a thermo short course. You might want to check into anger management, too.


edit on 4/19/2011 by pteridine because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 12:25 AM
link   
Weird. I haven't posted on these boards for a few weeks. But, what struck me was the amount of INACTIVITY.

Who defeated 911 truth?

The Powers that BE?

Or two little pests like Varemia and Pterrry?

HAHAHAHAHA

If that's all it took was bad actors like these plus Hooper and WMD_200???
to sidetrack.still our voices...

then perhaps we don't deserve our voices....

Becasue if this is the opposition...

and they have silenced us...

Then I don't want a voice...

because it is unheard.
edit on 25-4-2011 by Game_Over because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 06:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Game_Over
 


You got a star for literally posting nothing. Good job! You really have brainwashed the people on this site.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Game_Over
 


You got a star for literally posting nothing. Good job! You really have brainwashed the people on this site.


I think someone is agreeing with him that, in its 10th year, 9/11 "truth" really is going down the tube.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Game_Over
 


You got a star for literally posting nothing. Good job! You really have brainwashed the people on this site.


I think someone is agreeing with him that, in its 10th year, 9/11 "truth" really is going down the tube.


Yeah, I just thought it was funny how it was off-topic, paranoid, and blames everyone else for not being successful. It's the kind of psychology of "if you're not with me than you're against me," that we need to avoid when debating here. No one is "with" or "against" anyone. Some of us fight over some facts more than others, but every person holds individual beliefs over the facts of that day. I believe that treating it as a movement when the movement is so discombobulated simply leads to more confusion and dissent among Truthers. If you want to find the truth, the first thing you need to do is to stop assuming that there is a conspiracy. Come at it from a blank slate literally every time, and if you can't come to the same conclusion in an unbiased manner each time, then your views are biased and unreliable.

For example, when I first saw WTC 7 collapse, I was a believer. It was my initial reaction, and I got real conspiracy real fast. Then, I went over it again and again and discovered "oh, there are other factors here." The more I learn, the less conspiracy I see (in terms of tower destruction and planes). I still have no comment on the actions of the government, whether or not they played a major part, as I have found the argument to swing both directions. Therefore, I can't take a stand on the government's involvement. I think it's a possibility that can and should be investigated, but I don't think it's something to go crazy over.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Game_Over
Weird. I haven't posted on these boards for a few weeks. But, what struck me was the amount of INACTIVITY.

Who defeated 911 truth?

The Powers that BE?


Maybe the lack of something significant to post has something to do with the inactivity. The world may have run out of youtube videos with lines and arrows supposedly showing.....whatever. The 911 truther posts have been recycling old material and the true believers have been chanting the mantras in sequence, shifting the subject every time a popular truther theory is again debunked.
It is possible that for the first time in your life, you are correct and the Game is really Over.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   
The reason the topic is dead is because people had enough of a few debunkers railroading every 911 topic and making up fallacies in supporting the OS. The fact is the OS is a lie, and none of you debunkers can show any evidence to prove it true. The fact is none of you debunkers have debunked anything disproving thermite” was not used” in the WTC. I guess people are tired of some of you claiming your “opinions are facts” when we all know there not.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


I agree...I have lost interest...I have done thermite welding of steel...just google how long it's been around. And, Moneer, no binder needed-a thermite reaction consists of the reduction of a metal oxide in general...thermate uses sulfur in the mix to lower the reaction temperature.

This has been known for MANY, MANY years...thermite explosions have destroyed aluminum casting shops due to rusty (iron oxide is then reduced) metal handling tools. Steel can and has been cut using both thermite and thermate...the basic chemistry of the reaction and principle is the same.

Obvious debunkers caught up with BS from Jones who is a fraud created to make the idea of simple thermite or thermate look "loony" by doing obscure DSC work and claiming nano-thermite...great way to get the debate off topic Stephen...and, by the way, he is not a competent metallurgist.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ibiubu
 


I for one would be eager to believe that thermite was used to destroy the towers, if it made sense. I just find way too many far more likely scenarios that do not require imagining a ton of thermite to be pre-placed and the insinuations that brings.

The problem with Truthers many times is that, like Impressme, they believe that "debunkers" are trying to prove that 9/11 happened the way the OS says. That's not the case at all. "Debunkers" are simply pointing out the flaws in many of the conspiracy theories and collapse theories that Truthers churn out repetitively. The problem is that when a flaw is pointed out, the debunker then gets shunned and called an evil government agent out to get the Truthers. Apparently the average Joe who notices issues in a Truther theory has to prove conclusively, mathematically, and with repeatable models that the OS is completely 100% true in order to be listened to when pointing out that certain Truther theories don't make complete sense.

My word... this is a strange place.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ibiubu
I agree...I have lost interest...I have done thermite welding of steel...just google how long it's been around. And, Moneer, no binder needed-a thermite reaction consists of the reduction of a metal oxide in general...thermate uses sulfur in the mix to lower the reaction temperature.


Actually it was pteridine trying to claim that paint binder combusted and this is somehow why more energy was released than conventional explosives or thermite, even though he can't show a comparable study of paint binder. And actually he only explicitly makes the claim when he thinks no one is paying attention. Then when you call him on it he changes it to something like 'Jones didn't prove conclusively what it was', and ignores the fact that he just made a positive claim himself that has absolutely no evidence to support it.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
"Debunkers" are simply pointing out the flaws in many of the conspiracy theories and collapse theories that Truthers churn out repetitively.


It's always refreshing to see such simplistic thinking on the 9/11 forums. It really makes me feel at home. But have you ever considered applying all that "skeptical thinking" to the official reports themselves?

A lot of "truthers" are simply calling for re-investigation based on these reports. The original burden of proof to find what happened on 9/11, was placed on a few different organizations, but they were all federal government panels or agencies, and no formal burden was ever placed on "truthers." All the speculation people make is the natural by-product of the federal government churning out reports that didn't make any damned sense in the first place, and which blatantly neglected to explain critical testimonies and other evidence.

And as for me, I churn out nothing to explain 9/11 because I already realize it would equate to feeding the trolls, since the biggest problem at this point is a complete vacuum of critical evidence of anything in particular. Most "debunkers" come here specifically to rant over top of others' rants, and are at a loss for meaningful words once any burden of proof is ever directed to them. It was never my responsibility to investigate 9/11, but that doesn't stop me from pointing out to you any number of issues with the federal reports.
edit on 25-4-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


If you can't understand the thermo, just stop braying about and say so. Not everything is available on the web and some things require a bit more work than posting a link to wikisomething.



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


I understand more than you think I do. Like that you believe the analysis was of paint, but can't prove it, so you dance around the claim and sometimes make it explicitly only to have to back-peddle when you're called on it. How is that different from faith? Really, tell me how it is different. I know you well enough that your first impulse is to ignore the question and turn it back around on me without a second thought. Try to resist that urge.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join