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.
What happened to the idea that a single experiment can falsify a hypothesis?
One must first eliminate combustion
Jones also does not have a PhD in chemistry.
Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by -PLB-
One must first eliminate combustion
He did.
There were no spheres on the chip before the reaction.
There were spheres on the chip after the reaction.
Combustion cannot cause the spheres to form.
Thermite can cause the spheres to form.
There is no other plausible mechanism for the spheres to form.
Therefore a there was a thermite reaction
Originally posted by Darkwing01
Are you saying that only people who did there degree in analysis of nano-thermite residue after controlled demolition should be able to do experiments?
Why does your MASTER's is a completely unrelated field make you more qualified all of a sudden
1. He did not eliminate combustion because he ran the DSC in a stream of air.
2. He did not see any spheres in the SEM but that does not mean that spheres were not present as there is no proof that his survey was comprehensive or the spheres were not in the organic binder.
3. You do not know what combustion can do or not do.
4. Thermite reactions are not the only process by which the spheres form and we do not know if any were present to begin with. Note also that there should have been many spheres of iron had a thermite reaction occurred. There were not.
I have read that none of Jones team members had much experience with this type of research.
To be fair, Harrit is not an expert in electron microprobe analysis (EMPA/EDX/SEM) and this was the first time that he was co-author on a paper that used this measurement method
Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by pteridine
1. He did not eliminate combustion because he ran the DSC in a stream of air.
A DSC trace cannot exclude or confirm a thremite reaction as a source for the trace. It can describe a certain character trait and maybe tell you if thermite was the SOLE source, but that is it.
So rattling on about how the DSC doesn't positively confirm thermite is utterly irrelevant, because even if he did exactly what you ask it would STILL not confirm or exclude thermite.
2. He did not see any spheres in the SEM but that does not mean that spheres were not present as there is no proof that his survey was comprehensive or the spheres were not in the organic binder.
And aliens could have abducted JFK. Lots of things COULD HAVE happened.
Let us restrict the discussion to the facts that we actually have and leave character assassination for when after argument makes sense.
3. You do not know what combustion can do or not do.
You cannot melt iron through combustion in open air conditions. I have seen know reason except for your wishful thinking that it can.
If you have evidence that it can, please by all means now would be the time to present it.
4. Thermite reactions are not the only process by which the spheres form and we do not know if any were present to begin with. Note also that there should have been many spheres of iron had a thermite reaction occurred. There were not.
There have been lots of candidate sources, but they have all been "debunked" by your inability to show evidence for your delusions.
The chip in question did not have such a sphere before ignition and did have after, so the only candidate source is A) combustion or B) thermitic reaction.
Since you cannot substantiate your claim that combustion produce this particular sphere at this particular time and there is NO independent reason to even suspect that such a sphere could have been formed through combustion, it has, as a matter of fact, been shown to be thermite to anyone who is not willfully blind.
Not surprisingly, you are incorrect. If the DSC is operated under an inert atmosphere and there is no exotherm, then there is no thermite reaction.
Originally posted by Darkwing01
But why do we need to, we have already excluded the hypothesis by other means.
In my opinion there is no need for additional experiments until OS'ers can demonstrate a grasp of elementary logic.
Originally posted by -PLB-
Because nobody outside the truthmovement find Jones results compelling?
New paper published in the peer-reviewed Open Chemical Physics Journal by Dr. Steven Jones and 8 others discusses the "red chips" found in World Trade Center dust following the destruction on 9/11. Their conclusion: Thermite. Debunkers: submit your work for peer-review and publication.
Originally posted by ANOK
Regardless of what you think of his paper, which you've clearly demonstrated you do not have the education to criticize, people finding his paper 'compelling' makes no difference to its validity.
Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by pteridine
Not surprisingly, you are incorrect. If the DSC is operated under an inert atmosphere and there is no exotherm, then there is no thermite reaction.
Okay...
Technically that doesn't necessarily confirm the fact that thermite is causing the exotherm, since it could also be produced by random quantum effects, just folowing your method here....
But yes, you are right we can exclude the hypothesis that is is NOT thermite by that experiment for all intents and purposes.
But why do we need to, we have already excluded the hypothesis by other means.
What YOU are claiming is that we can exclude the hypothesis that it IS thermite by NOT doing the experiment. But that is illogical, the hypothesis that it is NOT thermite is already excluded, and you have failed to demonstrate that having combustion taking part in the reaction EXCLUDES thermitic reactions also taking place.
Either you are being ridiculously pig-headed or your grasp of logic is stunningly atrocious.
You need to demonstrate that there is ANY validity to your claims of the source of the iron sphere and ANY validity to your claim that the presence of combustion excludes thermitic reaction.
In my opinion there is no need for additional experiments until OS'ers can demonstrate a grasp of elementary logic.
There has been no exclusion of the hypothesis that it is not thermite. That one is still alive.
The experiment should be done so that a distinction between the combustion that we know is occurring and any thermite reaction hiding in that exotherm can be made.
I made no claim that the combustion excludes a thermite reaction. I said that thermite cannot be claimed because we are certain that combustion was occurring but had no idea if a thermite reaction was also occurring.
Your own grasp of elementary logic seems to be on a par with your stunningly atrocious grasp of elementary chemistry.
So a plane damage, fire and gravity only collapse cannot be claimed because we are certain that large pressure pulses occurred but have no idea if an explosive (or thermetic) event was also occurring.
It's perfect.
One "iron-rich-sphere" is hardly diagnostic of thermite.