Study claims 'highly engineered explosive' found in WTC rubbl

reply to post by evil incarnate


LMAO I'm sorry to have stepped on your toes; obviously, from my standpoint on the street 4 blocks from where the WTC was, there must've been a *hell* of an optical illusion... or else I was in the path of the mass-hypnosis beam the Mossad rigged up for the occasion. In any case, I think it's rather bizarre that the accounts of people well close enough to see what *actually* happened get conveniently shoveled under so that the public gets bombarded with the most ridiculous and least likely hypotheses (mini-nuke, anyone? I mean, *really*). I wonder what the agenda is, myself; it frequently seems to have something to do with Palestine or big, bad Israel, or it just comes down to, "if the government said it, the opposite happened", whether that's idiotic or not. I think it's very easy for somebody to sit around armchair-quarterbacking like they know what they're talking about, because, by and large, the people who do so have no vested interest in the topic at hand. I'd be interested to know whether any of this affected you in any meaningful way other than the usual knee-jerk, temporary patriotism... maybe it did, but it doesn't seem that way to read the crap you have to say on it. The fact of the matter is that, for many people, 9\11 was a terrible day on which friends, family, and coworkers died miserably; though, increasingly, this seems to have happened so people with no lives can dig for secret evidence that doesn't exist, or at least means a lot less than they think, amid the ruins of a very destructive and horrific event. I mean, globes of iron? And it proves what- do any of you have *any* other experience in exploding-skyscraper theory, or would you be honest and admit that this is about it, and many of your precious "facts" about 9\11 come from the mouths and keyboards of people with agendas to put forth?

Oh, and just as an aside- much as I'm sure you're hoping I'm gonna be mad about your little interrogation crack... if that's how you react when people's opinions differ from yours, you're going to have a very lonely, shunned existence. Grow up; you're in the company of adults.

reply to post by Warbaby


Yeah um....you are just rambling on about other people's conspiracy theories. I never said one thing abount mini nukes or lazer beams or no planes or any of that crap. Are you telling me that you identified the terrorists from 4 blocks away? Please explain how your proximity to ground zero makes identifying the terrorists more or less possible.

That was not a crack, that was a guaranteed wager. It is a 100% real offer.

I am not making wise cracks, I am questioning you. Your reaction so far is to wander off into Alex Jones land where I never went.

Can you simply answer my questions?

Are you turning down the money?

I am actually asking. If you respond, please do not wander off on tangents about things I have not said, ok?

Thanks, you're a peach!

Our world changed that day,and not for the better.We all have an interest in this whether we lost personal friends,co-workers family,etc.The events were sold to us as the plot of Fill-in-the-blank-here.Has the official story settled on the alleged perps,yet?Yet there are holes in the story.And the evidence was whisked away ASAP.Yet doubts remain and grow as new evidence which has escaped the cleaners continues to emerge.And it has to be small stuff to have been overlooked by the cleaners.Irrefutable.Like this evidence of the Jones variety.Where did these minute balls of iron originate?How about the actual nano thermate,not paint chip,drywall,flourescent tube,jet fuel,ingredient X,algamations of your imagination.This isn't to convict,just to demonstrate there's something terribly wrong with the official story and now it's time for a real investigation.These tiny balls just might be enough to take down Goliath.

reply to post by Warbaby



I guess that answers my question. It is amazing how the people that try so hard to promote the 'official' story run whenever they get cornered by reality, logic, and facts. I am not here just to fight and argue. I am looking for a real discussion on the matter and so far, for the most part - it is the CT people that are making sense while the 'official' story folks just say things that usually have nothing to do with what they are responding to and then fade away.

This in itself is evidence enough for me that there is more to it than anyone would want us to believe.

Originally posted by evil incarnate
reply to post by Warbaby

 

I guess that answers my question. It is amazing how the people that try so hard to promote the 'official' story run whenever they get cornered by reality, logic, and facts. I am not here just to fight and argue. I am looking for a real discussion on the matter and so far, for the most part - it is the CT people that are making sense while the 'official' story folks just say things that usually have nothing to do with what they are responding to and then fade away.

This in itself is evidence enough for me that there is more to it than anyone would want us to believe.

People who are agenda driven to the point of being self-deluding interpret the lack of prolonged argument from others as a demonstration that their arguments are sound.

The delusionally fixated just keeps ranting on with their unswerving opinions they truly perceive as empirical knowledge and point to the lack of conflicting evidence or testimony as proof of their position.

A reliable indicator of this is the compulsion to get the last word in.



Mike

Originally posted by mmiichael


A reliable indicator of this is the compulsion to get the last word in.



Mike

Actually, I agree for the most part but I very much like having the last word because I really enjoy watching these 'official' story folks fade into the shadows whenever you corner them with logic.

Yeah I get the latest word in.If we're right,murder has been committed and the perps will have gotten clean away,leaving a dust cloud in their wake where a mighty brave country once stood ,with an actual Bill of Rights.A bunch of the Cognatively Dissionate live in fear instead of pride because of all the lies.We all get to face our deeds.I may be wrong,but I am not deluded.

Pressing the 'return' button,I return to the topic.Now,has the class read the paper?Good.Did anyone pick up on the enormous energy in these alleged nano thermate bits?They reacted in midair,reaching an incredibly high temperature,considering they were so tiny and were shooting through the air,which tends to cool it off.How to explain their remaining after the reaction?Ought they have rather been consumed,being subject to so much heat and fire,etc?A theory proposing the thermate was applied as a fake firecoating might explain it as a mix edge where both materials served to isolate patches of the bad stuff.Just a thought.

reply to post by trueforger


You hit on an interesting point that I think is relevant here. Temperature. There seems to be quite a bit of difference between the 'official' story of the collapse and the temperatures involved. Each time a believer tries to explain what brought those buildings down, everything they say requires far greater heat than was ACTUALLY PRESENT. They can never actually argue the whole story, just little bits and pieces as long as none of them connect to each other.

reply to post by evil incarnate


Your phrase "corner them with logic" is not logical. You have not proven anything other than the fact that you have a "feeling" that something was amiss. The chips found and analyzed by the Jones team were not analyzed correctly for thermitic reaction. Their stoichiometry is questionable as most, if not all, of the aluminum present is an aluminosilicate clay. The "proof" that they weren't a cured paint of some sort was so amateurish as to be laughable. Jones has nothing and his paper in a vanity journal is so bad that it will be disregarded by anyone with a technical background while being highlighted as "proof" by those who do not understand how it was botched. If you want to believe in a 911 conspiracy, find one with a better shill.

reply to post by pteridine

I presume you are referring to the use of a magnet to separate the nano thermate chips when you disparage Dr.Jones' methodology?Therein lies the point,the fact that these were/are attracted by a magnet,which the paint is not.Sometimes the simplest solutions are best.Big words don't do much to bolster an argument,looks impressive,tho.

reply to post by pteridine

The chips found and analyzed by the Jones team were not analyzed correctly for thermitic reaction

According to which scientists?

Their stoichiometry is questionable as most, if not all, of the aluminum present is an aluminosilicate clay.

Where is your proof ?

Jones has nothing and his paper in a vanity journal is so bad that it will be disregarded by anyone with a technical background while being highlighted as "proof" by those who do not understand how it was botched.

No fewer than eight scientists examined the material in question and all agreed it was Thermit and thermate.

If you want to believe in a 911 conspiracy, find one with a better shill.

If you do not believe in the 911 conspiracy, why are you in here all the time posting such negative nonsense on every 911 thread?

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by pteridine

 

According to which scientists? .....According to every qualified analytical chemist who bothered to read the paper, me included.

Where is your proof ?...The proof regarding elemental aluminum is in the EDAX data from Jones' experiment.

No fewer than eight scientists examined the material in question and all agreed it was Thermit and thermate...Those scientists may not have seen the final paper that had their names on it. If they did, and allowed it to be published without objection or having their names removed, they should turn in their labcoats. There is no evidence for either thermite or thermate.

If you do not believe in the 911 conspiracy, why are you in here all the time posting such negative nonsense on every 911 thread? ...I have to tell those who are suckered in by Jones and those like him that they are being scammed. I tell them that evidence is not what is posted on blogs and that the web is the font of all rumor and misinterpretation in addition to being a good source of information. I provide a reality check to those who would obfuscate and delude the untrained with scientific misconduct. I feel obligated to counter any nonsense that is posted on 911 conspiracy sites so that those same untrained folks who need a good conspiracy will get a fair view of things, what scientific evidence is, and, in this case, the standards that a scientific paper must be held to.

reply to post by trueforger

Actually, I referred to the bogus solvent test with MEK and the conductivity test.
Magnetic separation would separate magnetic iron components and that which is attached to them. That is one cut. They could have done any number of separations but selected this one. The problem is not their choice of separation, but how the screwed up the analyses of their samples and completely misinterpreted the results.
BTW, if bulk thermite was present, magnetic separation would eliminate the elemental aluminum component, assuming that a magnetic oxide was used. This crew would have discarded their evidence and only analyzed the iron.
Bad science = fraudulent or incompetent scientists. Your choice.

Consistent with the level of scientific acumen and ethics associated with Jones, the actual editor of the Bentham publication has quit over it being placed in their so-called journal without her being informed.

This on top of the fact that authors pay to be published, which is not the procedure for bonafide peer review.

Even then they tried to maintain some standards where an overseeing editor has to approve an abstract before consideration.

Out of the many thousands of scientists in the world, as with any profession, there are always a handful willing to compromise their credibility by attaching their names to something dubious when they see an opportunity for media attention. When they have no credibility, they have nothing to lose.

This is all about self-promotion and deception under the guise of science.

Let the buyer beware.

Mike

videnskab.dk...

(minor edit cleanup of a Google translation)


Marie-Paule Pileni [was] never informed that the [Jones] article would be put [in] The Open Chemical Physics Journal, which is published by the journal juggernaut Bentham Science Publishers.

"They have printed the article without my authorization ... I cannot accept [this], and I have written to Bentham, that I withdraw myself from all activities with them, says Marie-Paule Pileni, a professor specializing in nanomaterials at the prestigious Université Pierre et Marie Curie in France.

She feels [troubled] that the article on dust tests after the terrorist attack on U.S. 11 September 2001 has actually found it’s way to The Open Chemical Physics Journal.

"I cannot accept that the [work] is put in my journal. The article is not about physical chemistry or chemical physics. I believe that there is a political point of view behind the publication. If anyone had asked me, I would [have] said that the article should never have been published in this journal."

[edit on 6-5-2009 by mmiichael]

pteridine would have us believe his science has more mojo than the science of eight others.
let's see, some anonymous web guy vs. a published paper authored by phd's.
and, how many times has pteridine found posted on this thread to 'protect' the uninitiated? it's almost like he has nothing else to do with his time.

dr. frank greening, the famous debunker, has no problem with the paper's conclusions, and he's a phd. chemist. he, however, is taking the tack that the thickness of those chips is not enough to do more damage than raise the temperature of a thick steel beam by a few degrees, because the chips are so thin.

maybe you should go with that angle, pteridine, for your debunking effort.
normal paint chips of any kind are not more energetic than thermite, dude. you suggest thermite only works in a vacuum. that is ridiculous. like, thermitic reactions cannot happen in open air? red herring much?

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by evil incarnate

 

Your phrase "corner them with logic" is not logical. You have not proven anything other than the fact that you have a "feeling" that something was amiss. The chips found and analyzed by the Jones team were not analyzed correctly for thermitic reaction. Their stoichiometry is questionable as most, if not all, of the aluminum present is an aluminosilicate clay. The "proof" that they weren't a cured paint of some sort was so amateurish as to be laughable. Jones has nothing and his paper in a vanity journal is so bad that it will be disregarded by anyone with a technical background while being highlighted as "proof" by those who do not understand how it was botched. If you want to believe in a 911 conspiracy, find one with a better shill.

You must be replying to someone else since I never said anything about Jones. You just wasted an entire paragraph trying to correct me on something I never said. Nice!

reply to post by evil incarnate
No I was replying to your "corner them with logic" humor and noted that there was no logic in the paper that was the topic of the thread. You aren't cornering anyone with logic if this paper is the example.

reply to post by billybob


Thermitic reactions work in air and also work under inert gases such as argon. To discriminate between a thermitic reaction and burning of carbonaceous binder, you must run the DSC under inert gas. These guys ran it in air totally invalidating their so-called proof. The burning of carbonaceous material in air will provide more energy per gram than thermite and will not show the presence of thermitic material, only something that burns. I explained this several times along with the laughable incompetence of the Jones team in their other attempts to find what they desire in spite of reality. I find it amusing that you assume all are competent and have advanced degrees and are respected in the scientific and engineering world when they have to pay someone to publish their magnum opus in a vanity journal. When you get to college, sign up for a chemistry class to help you understand this sort of thing a little better.

[edit on 5/6/2009 by pteridine]

reply to post by pteridine

I have to tell those who are suckered in by Jones and those like him that they are being scammed.

pteridine, your comments are disingenuous, if you believe Steven Jones is running a “scam” I would like to see you prove it.

I tell them that evidence is not what is posted on blogs and that the web is the font of all rumor and misinterpretation in addition to being a good source of information.

Hello! We are in a conspiracy forum; we debate facts in here about topics that are posted.
Who made YOU the evidences police? I think you have ATS confuses with another web sit. We are supposed to respect each other’s opinions in here, and talk to one another with respect. I am finding having a conversation with you is becoming unsettling to say the lease.

I provide a reality check to those who would obfuscate and delude the untrained with scientific misconduct.

Really and what are your credentials?

I feel obligated to counter any nonsense that is posted on 911 conspiracy sites so that those same untrained folks who need a good conspiracy will get a fair view of things, what scientific evidence is, and, in this case, the standards that a scientific paper must be held to.

pteridine, What Journal have you writing to disprove Professor Steven Jones work?
I would like to read your work and has Professor Jones seen your paper?
What makes you the leading authority on Professor Jones report?




[edit on 7-5-2009 by impressme]

reply to post by pteridine


Greetings,

You should publish your objections to Steven Jones latest paper in a scientific journal.

I would definitely appreciate your doing this, as there are no Objections against Jone's paper that have yet been published.

*Stephen Jones has had all of his papers published and peer-reviewed.

However his detractors have yet to publish their designated Objection...

In the area of peer-review, Objections are not even considered until the 'Objector' publishes his objection in an established journal. Until the objector does this - his objections are not even considered by his peers in the peer-review forums.