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.
--That's just an extremely dangerous brand of highly reactive paint that has iron spheres in it.
--No those iron spheres didn't appear after the reation, Steven Jones and his colleagues are lying about that.
--Ignore completely and hope he doesn't notice.
--That's aluminum.....and with the, uh, combustable material energy....you know...stuff got hot down there.
Why did Jones sample not completely react? How could such a material be more dangerous than regular paint?
Why could the molten metal not possible be aluminum?
I know, you don't have answers to that. You will just respond with "Iron spheres" and "Molten steel". Your evidence is extremely weak. And I am kinda done with you repeating the same weak arguments over and over.
Originally posted by Darkwing01
What is happening here is simple: once the reaction starts the sample is small enough to be blasted away from the heat source before it can completely react. The sample chip is too small sustain a chain reaction.
Because it looks nothing like aluminium and behaves nothing like aluminium and black body radiation indicates that the temperature it was at was far too high too have been reached in an office fire.
There is no reason to suppose this was aluminium.
PROVE that something that is explosive must react completely under all conditions or that aluminium can be made to look or behave this way, then your questions will start having a little validity.
I could not confirm a reaction producing molten iron. I was told that my red-red chips may have already reacted on 11/9, or be deactivated by heat, humidity and oxygen of the air ( natural aging). But if my chips are the same as those S.Jones &co discovered and studied in the dust, shouldnt mine have remained reactive as long as their owns (but K Ryan also confirmed the presence of red-red inactive chips in his samples)? Indeed in their initial publication, S Jones and co clearly state that all their chips reacted when heated producing molten iron and dont even mention the existence of red-red chips.
And where is your experimental data to support this claim? Or did you just made that up because else your theory is rubbish?
How do you know it looks and behaves nothing like aluminum? Or are you just making an argument from ignorance?
As for the radiation argument, back it up with sources.
How about you prove that the substance that doesn't even completely react when put a blowtorch on it could take down those buildings?
Originally posted by Darkwing01
I cited an example of explosive material that will not fully react unless conditions are perfect, these things are regular parts of many armies. Flour explosions are common (or used to be at any rate). You can test petrol and diesel in your backyard.
I have, in my youth, made some chlorine bombs, gunpowder rockets and other boyhood toys. Are you going to argue that because there is chlorine residue that it didn't explode at all, that an imperfect burn means that gunpowder won't explode in a confined space?
How much do you want to bet that your average garden variety firecraker will have gunpowder residue on it after exploding. Do you really need to go test for unburnt powder afterwards?
Really PLB, this is beneath you, I know you can do better.
Please review this link.
You are the asking for us to believe that it is aluminium solely on the basis of the fact that we cannot PROVE to some absurd standard that it is not.
We know how aluminium looks and behaves, nobody but you is ignorant about it.
When I say chain reaction I simply mean that the heat from the reaction is not being efficiently transferred to the remaining material and thus not able to ignite it because the surface area is too small on the rest of the material due to the sample being so small.
You couldn't figure this out by yourself?
The hydraulic jacks used in Verinage don't react at all...
Interpretation by S Jones, N Harrit and associates confirmed:
Observations compatible with the hypothesis that a layer of nanothermite, usually a Si matrix with Iron oxide particles (red) and Al, was sprayed (?) onto the steel columns. Carbon : probable organic residue from the sol-gel solvents (isopropanol, organic epoxide).
Originally posted by iamaperson
Originally posted by TupacShakur
-- Our government had knowledge prior of the attacks and knew that airplanes would be hi-jacked, but they took no measure to prevent such an event from happenning. Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer worked with a military intelligence program "Able Danger" in 2000, and they identified 4 of the hi-jackers as possible Al Qaeda members. Beginning in September 2000, three meetings set up with the FBI by him were each canceled by military lawyers. Shaffer lost his security clearance to view classified information after going public. This prior knowledge blatantly contradicts George Bush's and Condoleezza Rice's statements that nobody could have predicted terrorists to fly airplanes into those buildings.
If they had prior knowledge, doesn't that mean it was not an inside job. What sort of prior knowledge did they have, if they only knew that there could be a terrorist attack involving planes, what should they have done about it? Put in the scanners that people (especially on ATS), are completely against, how would people have reacted to such a move pre911? Would people have been happy with it in 2000, more then they are now? I don't think so.
Didn't the hijackers that flew the planes have commercial pilots licenses, if so I would suspect they can fly planes. Perhaps the quote from the instructor was one of the earlier instructors, not the one who gave the license to fly.
Rest of it I probably cannot reply to, since I have no knowledge in this area, but will say that there have been heaps of these Undeniable Conclusive Evidence threads, and yet I haven't noticed anything major.
Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Herkus
Again, they didn't.
I suspect the spheres were already in the samples.
Until an independent party is able to reproduce Jones results, we can dismiss it as being scientific.
And we all know, the truth movement is not eager at all to have an independent analysis done. Why would that be...
Originally posted by Herkus
Maybe you are right, but there is no proof that this is the case. Only an unfounded opinion.
Preliminary Mark Basile reproduced Harrit et al findings and concluded in
that these chips are thermitic.
I don't know about others, but I am for an independent analysis. I would encourage ''debunker'' community to do their own analysis, but appareantly they are too lazy to do such simple tests.
Can you give a good explanation why that is?
Originally posted by -PLB-
what time should i skip to?
And did he ever publish something else than a Youtube video?
But its good you are for independent testing, although we both know that won't happen. Can you give a good explanation why that is? (I can)
Because Jones et al are running out of their samples and there are plenty of dust samples in other apartments in NYC....
Originally posted by Herkuswatch the whole video.
Because Jones et al are running out of their samples and there are plenty of dust samples in other apartments in NYC, but to get these samples you have to lift your ass up and it will never happen, if you, duh'bonkers, will chant this phrase "it's paint, it's paint". Let the actual testing begin. Go and get some dust from your local NY resident, take the sample to RJ Lee or to other independent lab. Maybe Mr.Sunstealer aka Sunny boy will perform a test on these red/gray chips.