It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Based on what! The paint exotherm you came with yourself even shows a similar peak.
No it is not meaningless. You just don't understand what it means, you even started out with saying that you don't know much about the subject. Within 2 posts or so you became an expert? You are making an argument from ignorance.
A test in argon would ensure there is no combusion of carbon, and proves that another reaction takes place. This reaction could possibly be thermite.
You say this because you have no clue what the J/g figure means. That figure is the integral of the graph. This mean that when the shape of the curve is similar, so is the magnitude.
That only means that you don't know what you are talking about. I don't feel like explaining this to you, figure it out yourself.
Originally posted by Darkwing01
All that you are saying is that the graphs have a similar shape, not size, when even if they were the same shape AND size it would not prove what you would like it to prove.
The same applies even more to the paint exotherm cited by the Randi'ites, the peak of the exotherm is not even 1000 mW/g if you assume that there was 1g of material and the scale is just using shorthand. This is not an insignificant difference.
No, they also have similar size. Look on Wikipedia what an integral is, and how it relates to a graph. I don't "like" it to prove anything. It proves what it proves, I don't have any preference.
''Does the blue peak represents a combustion or a more like explosive/pyrotechnic event, when the tests were conducted with a linear heating rate of 10 °C per minute. During heating, the air was allowed to flow at 55 milliliters per minute. The plots were generated by acquiring data points at a rate of 20 points per °C or 200 points per minute. The plots were set to display positive heat flow out of the sample such that exothermic behavior of the sample would yield a peak and endothermic behavior a trough.''.. or something similar.
Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by Herkus
If you are telling me that the J/g figure is sufficient to identify paint I want to know why vastly dissimilar things (Paint or TNT) can have the same J/g figures. It doesn't take an expert in anything but logic to know that that ain't right.
No, since I haven't got a response, that either means that they haven't looked at their e-mail, they saw the e-mail but were too busy to give me a response and just deleted it, or they saw the e-mail and didn't know who Steven Jones is or what the Open Chemical Physics Journal is so instead of e-mailing me and saying "IDK", they just didn't respond.
No it is called reality. The fact that there has been no response in the scientific community whatsoever proves it (except for the handful of responses on the internet). Ironically, to truthers this very same fact means that it must be a good piece of work.
Originally posted by TupacShakur
The paper was published in 2009, and it's the middle of 2011. There's still plenty of time for him to release it.
Originally posted by TupacShakur
Let's call it a draw and talk about something else since we haven't accomplished anything in these 6 pages.
In 2006, a book critic with Time magazine noted that a major problem with films such as Loose Change and most 9/11 conspiracy theories in general is that "the more one thinks about them, the more one realizes how much they depend on circumstantial evidence, facts without analysis, quotes taken out of context, and the scattered testimony of traumatized eyewitnesses"
Linguist Noam Chomsky stated that, regarding US government involvement in the 9/11 attacks, "the evidence that has been produced is essentially worthless" and while the American government stood to benefit from the incident, "every authoritarian system in the world gained from September 11th." He argues that the enormous risk of an information leak, "it is a very porous system and secrets are very hard to keep", and consequences of exposure for the Republican party would have made such a conspiracy foolish to attempt. He dismisses observations cited by conspiracy proponents saying, "if you look at the evidence, anybody who knows anything about the sciences would instantly discount that evidence," arguing that even when a scientific experiment is carried out repeatedly in a controlled environment, phenomena and coincidences remain that are unexplained.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology engineering professor Thomas W. Eagar was at first unwilling to acknowledge the concerns of the movement, saying "if (the argument) gets too mainstream, I'll engage in the debate." In response to Steven E. Jones publishing a hypothesis that the World Trade Center was destroyed by controlled demolition, Eager said that adherents of the 9/11 Truth movement would use the reverse scientific method to arrive at their conclusions, as they "determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion.
In a research paper written in 2008, Cass R. Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule conclude that theories supported by 9/11 truth movement members "typically spread as a result of identifiable cognitive blunders, operating in conjunction with informational and reputational influences. A distinctive feature of conspiracy theories is their self-sealing quality. Conspiracy theorists are not likely to be persuaded by an attempt to dispel their theories; they may even characterize that very attempt as further proof of the conspiracy...those who hold conspiracy theories typically suffer from a crippled epistemology..
Calling conspiracy theorists "the truthers", Bill Moyers states they "...threw out all the evidence of al-Qaeda's involvement, from contemporaneous calls from hijack victims on the planes to confessions from al-Qaeda leaders both in and out of captivity that they had indeed done it. Then, recycling some of the right's sophistry techniques, such as using long lists of supposed evidence to overcome the lack of any real evidence, the "truthers" cherry-picked a few supposed "anomalies" to build an "inside-job" story line".[
Funny that, truthers have not accomplished anything in the last 10 years either, except for their conspiracy theories about what they claim happened getting sillier and sillier. They are no closer to getting another investigation.