Yep, It's Thermite! So Much for the "Oxygen" Excuse

i made Thermite once, that stuff is dangerous lol

Originally posted by undermind
His experiments can't be reproduced.

My friend, the GOVERNMENT's hypothesis can't be reproduced. You are so hypocritical, you would probably deny that fact vehemently, when it is plainly obvious that NIST never actually tested their truss connection failure hypothesis, even though they DID rebuild the office floor structure, trusses and all, in their labs, and set them on fire. There is absolutely no precedent or evidence at all to suggest their hypothesis is possible.

When the truth gets too close for comfort, you suddenly seem to care about these things for which you have generously let others slide. When your own federal government is even lazier, and even less rigorous, and less scientific, you don't even pursue it, as if it doesn't matter. You are a hypocrite. Find something less hypocritical to whine about, until you can find me NIST's lab test and reproducible hypotheses.

Since at least one poster has referenced Dr. Greening as some type of authority on this subject, I am sharing the following analogy regarding Dr. Greening's ideas, authored by one Gordon Ross:

gordonssite.tripod.com...

Dr. Greening is, I believe, a chemist so it is only fair to look at this field of study first of all. One of his most well known arguments is that there could have been natural thermite reactions within the tower fires. He lists those ingredients which are necessary for this natural thermite and shows that all of these ingredients were present, so his argument follows that a natural thermite reaction could have taken place. Now I will never claim to be good at chemistry but I know that if I leave margarine, flour, sugar and fruit in a cupboard, when I next open the cupboard I will not find a fruit crumble. Some mechanism is required to convert the ingredients. Similarly, if I take these same ingredients, set them alight and throw them out the window, I still will not get my fruit crumble. The mechanism must have some order. Dr. Greening fails to provide any explanation or narrative for these required mechanisms but rather relies on simply ticking off the ingredients and falling back on the unfailing support of his accolytes. It came as an enormous surprise to me that some educated people have been taken in by this, most notably and recently was Manuel Garcia, in his Counterpunch article. What we are being asked to swallow in place of our absent fruit crumble, is that the tonnes of aluminium aircraft parts were powderised upon impact, thoroughly mixed with tonnes of rust from the towers steel superstructure in exactly the required proportion to form tonnes of thermite, which then hung around for about an hour before distributing itself to key structural points throughout the tower, then igniting in a complex sequence to cause the towers' collapse. It is granted that a good imagination is a requirement for a good scientist, but this just abuses the privilege. Perhaps the name for this natural thermite should instead be intelligent thermite, or intelligent malevolent thermite.

Emphasis mine.

Originally posted by turbofan


BS! Show me one link and let's cut to the chase. I have Steven Jones
on the line for direct comment on anything you can produce.

Before you submit you links, you better read the discussion between two
Ph.D's on the link above...ya know...just to make sure it already has
not been examined by anonymous kids posting on ATS...

I don't want this to turn into the usual mud-sling match virtually every ATS 9/11 threads becomes.

So you have Jones on the line. Seem the whole world does too.

Millions of PhDs in the world and two have joined the bandwagon.

Jones has already told one the nano-thermite might be just a triggering device and that gets ignored. This is the word of the renowned Dr Jones. Why no comment?

In the real science world they make every effort to ensure bad science doesn't enter the the field. Here it's encouraged. Wouldn't the scientific world be great if in peer review people told researchers they were brainwashed by the MSM, not thinking out of the box, etc.

I'm witnessing not discussion of a scientific issue but a Boy's Club pep rally.
Only a handful of people really give a damn about the scientific evidence supposedly being presented and whether it's the real goods or more bogus pseudoscience.

Myself an 999,998 PhDs probably have reached the same conclusion.

Say Hi to your new pal Dr Jones, wish him my love.

Mike


[edit on 4-6-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by turbofan


BS! Show me one link and let's cut to the chase. I have Steven Jones
on the line for direct comment on anything you can produce.

Before you submit you links, you better read the discussion between two
Ph.D's on the link above...ya know...just to make sure it already has
not been examined by anonymous kids posting on ATS...

I don't want this to turn into the usual mud-sling match virtually evet ATS 9/11 threads becomes.

So you have Jones on the line. Seem the whole world does too.

Millions of PhDs in the world and two have joined the bandwagon.

Jones tells one directly the nano-thermite might be just a triggering device and that gets ignored.

In the real science world they make every effort to ensure bad science doesn't enter the the field. Here it's encouraged.

Only a handful of people on this thread really give a damn about the scientific evidence supposedly being presented and whether it's the real goods or more bogus pseudoscience.

Myself an 999,998 PhDs probably have the same conclusion.

Say Hi to Dr Jones, wish him my love.

Mike




[edit on 4-6-2009 by mmiichael]

You've really outdone yourself on this one. Are you done? Exactly what point are you trying to convey?

Firstly, you don't want this thread to turn into a mud-sling like all the rest. Guess what? Neither do I, or anyone else here. This is why we've asked you and your pals to MULTIPLE TIMES to deal with Dr. Jones directly. You STILL continue to post your opinion time after time. Guess what happens when you do that? A mindless "mud-sling" like every other thread.

Next, there are millions of PHD's in the world. So what? Just because it's not the new fad to join the 9/11 truth movement, we should disreguard this man and his scientific evidence? Really? Are you serious? I didnt realize this was a numbers game.

Moving on, your next ramble goes on about bad science, and how it is encouraged here. Please point me in the direction of any bad science that has been shown in this thread. Be careful - I don't want your opinion of bad science. Be prepared to show my WHY its bad science. The fact that it doesnt agree with your beliefs is not proof. You are yet to show us your qualifications despite being asked to. I'm sure your credentials are far beyond those of Dr. Jones.

Then you claim that only a handful of people care about the scientific evidence. Again, this is not a numbers game. Would a judge in a court of law dismiss evidence because it was given by a single person, even if it had all the answers?

Did you contact Dr. Jones yet? You are extremely good at avoiding that question.

Originally posted by P1DrummerBoy

Firstly, you don't want this thread to turn into a mud-sling like all the rest. Guess what? Neither do I, or anyone else here. This is why we've asked you and your pals to MULTIPLE TIMES to deal with Dr. Jones directly. You STILL continue to post your opinion time after time. Guess what happens when you do that? A mindless "mud-sling" like every other thread.

Next, there are millions of PHD's in the world. So what? Just because it's not the new fad to join the 9/11 truth movement, we should disreguard this man and his scientific evidence? Really? Are you serious? I didnt realize this was a numbers game.

Moving on, your next ramble goes on about bad science, and how it is encouraged here. Please point me in the direction of any bad science that has been shown in this thread. Be careful - I don't want your opinion of bad science. Be prepared to show my WHY its bad science. The fact that it doesnt agree with your beliefs is not proof. You are yet to show us your qualifications despite being asked to. I'm sure your credentials are far beyond those of Dr. Jones.

Reasonable response. Realize I overreact when I see common sense and procedure requirements dismissed - then get chastised bacause I raise these issues.

I am not a chemist, but yes have edited a peer review journal in a related scientific field. That is why I get annoyed when I see Jones getting away with murder with his pseudo-scientific shenanigans.

I've read and to some degree posted on other threads relevant concern, and it becomes impossible to track, rewrite, relink, the sound information I've seen just on other ATS threads.

The beauty of science is that it records it's findings, successes and failures. Everything is scrupulously archived and accessible. Here on ATS every time a question arises, those with knowledge and insights are asked to reinvent the wheel. And this is done under less than comfortable circumstances.

The people with real scientific background are often hounded with accusations of blindly accepting the so-called Official Story, being trolls, debunkers, whatever.

Science asks for debunkers. It means getting rid of the bunk so that real scientific inquiry can proceed.

Around here there is a reverse paradigm. If you want to introduce proper scientific data and procedures to ensure it, you're maligned for your efforts.

Some of us hang around these threads more out of morbid curiosity. The people who spend their time forwarding scientific information generally get irritated by the shabby treatment and lack of respect and just leave.

This leaves the door open for demonstrably questionable scientists like Jones to have their sway. The scientific community at large ignore his efforts and declines to publish his works. The immediate response here will be that this is due to the controversial implications. In fact the reason is the inherent bad science.

Over and out


Mike

reply to post by mmiichael


The Jones/Greening exchange you posted only quoted what Greening said followed by what Greening said Jones said. That looks rather disingenuous.

This exchange includes direct quotes from both parties and gives an insight into Greening's grasp of fundamental physics (or lack thereof):

Greening: I would say that Chandler's slight [sic] of hand is the implied notion that Newton's 3rd Law is universally applicable, even to a collapsing building. The fact is that when a building is collapsing by multiple floor failures the reaction force obviously fails to balance the downward force because the yield strength of the failing columns is being exceeded.

Jones: No. This is a blatant and fundamental error. I have caught many a student on the equivalent of this nonsense, as I taught Newtonian Mechanics for over 21 years. Newton's 3rd law is always applicable, even in the case you mention, Frank. The key is that the "equal and opposite forces" must act on DIFFERENT bodies. Suggest you consult a basic physics or mechanics text if you don't understand that.

Frank Greening and Newton's Third Law of Motion

[edit on 4-6-2009 by EvilAxis]

This most excellent post applies directly to you. So I will post it next to your nonsense so others can make comparisons. You really have not one single clue what 999,998 PhDs are concluding do you?

Debate Dr Jones directly or go away. Enough of your worthless opinions.

Go debate Dr. Jones.

posted by Chronogoblin
This whole thread has been a joy to read. Some folks just can't let their ego deflate enough to admit they're wrong. The backpedaling and flat-out deflection going on by the OS believers is astonishing to behold. I often wonder why the 9/11 conspiracy is so hard for some folks to believe? Or to even comprehend? Are people so brainwashed, that they refuse to consider that their government could either knowingly allow this act to occur, or, that they would set this thing off themselves? Is it honestly that difficult to see what the government of America has gained through the advent of 9/11? Is it that difficult to see the forest through the trees? At some point, you just have to allow it to sink in, that there is something seriously wrong here. Even if it isn't exactly as some truthers say, isn't it enough to get you thinking? To sit back and say: "Wow, you know, there could be something in all this..." As opposed to: "Wow, you know, you are all so full of it." If even the smallest bit of evidence (or lack thereof!) doesn't jibe with the OS, then that alone, should be enough to get the free-thinker to say: "Huh.... I wonder what happened there..."

posted by mmiichael

Only a handful of people really give a damn about the scientific evidence supposedly being presented and whether it's the real goods or more bogus pseudoscience.

Myself an 999,998 PhDs probably have reached the same conclusion.

posted by mmiichael

I am not a chemist

Originally posted by EvilAxis
reply to post by mmiichael

 

The Jones/Greening exchange you posted only quoted what Greening said followed by what Greening said Jones said. That looks rather disingenuous.

This exchange includes direct quotes from both parties and gives an insight into Greening's grasp of fundamental physics (or lack thereof):

Greening: I would say that Chandler's slight of hand is the implied notion that Newton's 3rd Law is universally applicable, even to a collapsing building. The fact is that when a building is collapsing by multiple floor failures the reaction force obviously fails to balance the downward force because the yield strength of the failing columns is being exceeded.

Jones: No. This is a blatant and fundamental error. I have caught many a student on the equivalent of this nonsense, as I taught Newtonian Mechanics for over 21 years. Newton's 3rd law is always applicable, even in the case you mention, Frank. The key is that the "equal and opposite forces" must act on DIFFERENT bodies. Suggest you consult a basic physics or mechanics text if you don't understand that.

[edit on 4-6-2009 by EvilAxis]

Ok can someone clear this up for me them?

According to Greening then it should have taken longer for the buildings to collapse due to time requirements of the actual structure failure at each point.

That is what I get from that statement which appears to counter argue his own statement.

Now I'm sure I'm missing something here but that is what my primitive brain is discerning from that statement. Am I misinterpreting this?

Normally I try to stay away from these threads sense I obviously am no scientist or math genius but this statement has me confused.

Originally posted by EvilAxis
reply to post by mmiichael

 

The Jones/Greening exchange you posted only quoted what Greening said followed by what Greening said Jones said. That looks rather disingenuous.

This exchange includes direct quotes from both parties and gives an insight into Greening's grasp of fundamental physics (or lack thereof):

I only caught that portion of the 9/11 Forum discussion through a link from elsewhere. I got the impression Greening know what he was taking about as it was noted his 23 years lab experience.

A fuller sampling of their exchanges would be more useful than any of us cherry picking ones we think work for our arguments.

From the one you just quoted, I can't say whether Jones or Greening is right or wrong. Maybe neither.

This emphasizes why objective peer review is called upon in scientific debate.


Mike

[edit on 4-6-2009 by mmiichael]

reply to post by mmiichael


Fair enough.

Heres the deal. You have your argument, I have mine. I, like yourself, also am not a chemist, an architect, an enginner, etc.

This is what brings me back to all my previous posts. MOST of us dont have the credentials for prove any theory either way. We can agree on that I hope.

Because of this, we rely on the real professionals out there to do the research and we 'reap the benefits', so to speak, of their knowledge.

In this case, Dr. Jones conducted various tests, and he came to his conlusions, which is why the OP created this thread in the first place.

And once again, back to my previous posts - if you don't agree with the evidence, then take it up with the source - DR. JONES.

It does nothing, it says nothing, it PROVES NOTHING for you or anyone else to split hairs about O2, or the claims of other doctors, because, as you already pointed out, it turns the thread into a "mud-sling".

The OP was based on scientific findings. It was NOT based on opinion. Since the OP, however, many OPINIONS have been thrown into this mess.

Keep the opinions to yourself. If you think Dr. Jones uses 'bad science', then go prove it with credible evidence/sources. Your opinion holds no water.

If you think Dr. Jones' findings are incorrect because it was not conducted in an O2 free zone, go prove it with credible evidence/sources. Your opinion holds no water.

If you think Dr. Jones' test results cannot be repeated, prove it with credible evidence/sources. Your opinion holds no water.

Of course, you could debate Dr. Jones directly as well.

The bottom line is, NO ONES opinions are credible here, at least not without proper credentials. The credibility of this thread stems from Dr. Jones. No one here speaks for him, so again, if you think he uses bad science/improper tests/etc/etc, then for the love of God and the sake of us all, go debate him.

posted by EvilAxis
reply to post by mmiichael

 

The Jones/Greening exchange you posted only quoted what Greening said followed by what Greening said Jones said. That looks rather disingenuous.

This exchange includes direct quotes from both parties and gives an insight into Greening's grasp of fundamental physics (or lack thereof):

posted by mmiichael

I got the impression Greening know what he was taking about

So you as an alleged scientist form your opinions from impressions instead of applied science?

On second thought maybe you should not debate Dr Jones as your ego might not survive.

Originally posted by trebor451

I've been reading about and following Jones for years now, and the fact that he is no longer working at/teaching at BYU speaks volumes.

Yup it does... tells me if you have controversial claims your job may be at jeopardy because you are rocking the boat

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by rogerstigers
All the more reason to keep an eye on this and see how it holds up to peer review. This should be handled with scientific rigor.

Great.

WHAT "peer review"? What "peers" in the chemical/engineering/analysis field have reviewed this, besides a bunch of truthers and some wannabe Chuck Yeagers from PfT? How many professional journals has this declarative paper been published in, beside the pay-to-be-printed one? What sort of vetting and fact-checking process has this gone through?

I've been reading about and following Jones for years now, and the fact that he is no longer working at/teaching at BYU speaks volumes.

No it doesn't. BYU fires people for going against the grain, or drawing attention to them all the time. This is no different. BYU and the LDS church hate negative press.

Are we testing how a thermitic reaction occurs by applying heat or are we testing for residue left behind after a thermitic reaction with this test. To me as I read it more it is not making sense as what is accomplished. Please help me out....

I would think that if any type of thermite was used we would not find any left and that residue would not react. If I am incorrect please correct me...

Originally posted by siouxm

No it doesn't. BYU fires people for going against the grain, or drawing attention to them all the time. This is no different. BYU and the LDS church hate negative press.

So true, Professors tends to be very shy of rocking the boat, - especially when the discovery might imply that the President of the United States may have been involved in Treason against the American people, and breach of Oath...

Bugliosi writes, "4000 young Americans decomposing in their grave today died for George Bush and Karl Rove and Dick Cheney." His book is not only a scathing indictment of the President and his Administration but also a blueprint for holding him criminally accountable. Bugliosi accuses Bush of taking the nation to war in Iraq under deliberately false pretenses and thus holds him culpable for thousands of subsequent deaths, detailing in The Prosecution the legal basis for such a case and laying out what he argues is the requisite evidence for a murder conviction. While at the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office, Bugliosi successfully prosecuted twenty-one murder convictions without a single loss, most famously that of serial murderer Charles Manson. He also penned a number of best-selling true-crime books, including Helter Skelter and Outrage.

LINK to Interview Bugliosi vs Bush - The Nation

I trust long time Criminal Prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi's opinion far more than even ten thousand online yahoos or even Federal operatives trying to quash and discredit any inquiries.



[edit on 4-6-2009 by seataka]

Originally posted by esdad71
Are we testing how a thermitic reaction occurs by applying heat or are we testing for residue left behind after a thermitic reaction with this test. To me as I read it more it is not making sense as what is accomplished. Please help me out....

I would think that if any type of thermite was used we would not find any left and that residue would not react. If I am incorrect please correct me...

"We" are not testing anything. Dr. Jones is. Please direct your questions at him. You can obtain his contact info from Turbofan.

I'm not a thermite expert, but I believe you would find the answers to those questions throught this thread. I could also be wrong.

Knew I should of paid more attention during Chem. Seems to be a number of very bright individuals.

Not sure if this was already posted on ATS but I think it is on topic. It's Richard Gage on some MSM.
www.youtube.com...

Watching the split screen of WTC 7 come down beside a controlled demolition (1:47) is something that has to make even "Joe Sixpack" ask WTF. It is obvious that slowly more and more people are doing just that.

Strength in Numbers

Originally posted by P1DrummerBoy

Originally posted by esdad71
Are we testing how a thermitic reaction occurs by applying heat or are we testing for residue left behind after a thermitic reaction with this test. To me as I read it more it is not making sense as what is accomplished. Please help me out....

I would think that if any type of thermite was used we would not find any left and that residue would not react. If I am incorrect please correct me...

"We" are not testing anything. Dr. Jones is. Please direct your questions at him. You can obtain his contact info from Turbofan.

I'm not a thermite expert, but I believe you would find the answers to those questions throught this thread. I could also be wrong.

I'd suggest that he simply light a firecracker and then find one of the spent casing ends, and burn IT in an ashtray and observe the tiny flareups of unburnt powder...

reply to post by FewWorldOrder


It is laughable that this is seen as the answer to all three collapses. It is beyond ridiculous and actually more ridiculous then believing that thermite was placed in the buildings deliberately.