Thermite Proven! Jones Science Proves Red Thematic Material not just Red Paint Chips

Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by pteridine

 

Well I disagree there. The way I see this is these are red/gray chips found in dust around Ground Zero hypothesized to be some form of thermite. I would like to read a thorough hypothesis showing that it's red paint.

"Well, it quacks like a duck, it waggles like a duck, it looks like a duck, maybe it’s a duck? This is all we can say."

Red and gray "chips" found in the dust that look like paint chips near a building who's steel structure was painted with gray primer and red finish. So, yeah, of course its pixie dust.....err....nanothermite.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is Dr. Neils Harrit...a good vid with some good findings. It would appear the testing being done seems to point to thermite in high levels being found in the debris. Interesting that.

Paint chips my ass!

Originally posted by daddymax
www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is Dr. Neils Harrit...a good vid with some good findings. It would appear the testing being done seems to point to thermite in high levels being found in the debris. Interesting that.

Paint chips my ass!

And of course, the $64,000 questions - and how does thermite get into the building and how exactly does thermite facilitate a collapse and how is it intiated without notice? Ever been around thermite when it starts? The light is blinding how was that done with no one noticing when the whole world was looking at the buildings.

reply to post by butcherguy


Great all we need to do is match it to the steel in the building somehow. Or even if we begin by assuming that an unknown steel in the building did match the gray layer, we must come up with a theory of how it got mixed in this red "matrix" during collapse. Any thoughts?

reply to post by hooper


I feel sorry for whomever you're quoting as I notice if that's all they can say, they may not be the brightest person to consult as they leave it as an open question (i.e. "maybe it's a duck?"). Or maybe they are just intellectually lazy? Would this person happen to work for NIST? FEMA? the FBI?

But feel free to demonstrate how this stuff "quacks" like red paint, how it "waggles" like red paint, and how it "looks" like red paint. You don't need to mention pixie dust or nanothermite in your exposition. I do believe you will have to mention the data of what we know about the "gray primer and red finish," though.

Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by butcherguy

 

Great all we need to do is match it to the steel in the building somehow. Or even if we begin by assuming that an unknown steel in the building did match the gray layer, we must come up with a theory of how it got mixed in this red "matrix" during collapse. Any thoughts?

I like the steel painted with gray primer and red coat on top actually.

Won't do much good matching it up with building steel if the steel was originally some sort of office furniture.

Even if it is building steel, has anyone ever checked how many suppliers there were for the steel when the towers were built?

reply to post by butcherguy


Actually, there was only one supplier, a Japanese company. The name escapes me. It was a huge contract. The Bethlehem Steel Company thought they had the contract all sewn up, they didn't think anyone could beat their price or their schedule as the plant was only about 90 miles away. When they didn't get the contract it was kind of the beginning of the end for the Bethlehem Steel.

But I think you may be right, there were potentially alot of sources for red and gray paint chips, plus the material tested was gathered quite unscientifically and who knows what was really "tested" or where it actually came from.

reply to post by butcherguy


So you think the gray layer is the primer and the red layer is paint?

If so, I think we don't have to worry at all about matching any steel as we would have no steel sample to try to match. All we would have is gray primer and red paint.

We would also not have to worry about who manufactured the steel, a sample of which we don't have in which to be concerned with where it came from. Is this correct? Or am I missing something? Or are we talking about two different things?

reply to post by hooper
Thanks for the info. I wonder if the Japanese company actually made all of the steel, or if they may have outsourced some of it( since it was a large contract)?

Yeah, the pile of rubble was basically what you would find in a landfill. Just about anything used in the normal city-dwellers daily life would have been in there.

reply to post by NIcon

If so, I think we don't have to worry at all about matching any steel as we would have no steel sample to try to match. All we would have is gray primer and red paint.

Really? What about the tons of steel from the World Trade Center they just shipped to a plant by my house?

Not that you would be allowed to take any, just want to kill the myth that its all gone. Its not.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by hooper

 

Thanks for the info. I wonder if the Japanese company actually made all of the steel, or if they may have outsourced some of it( since it was a large contract)?

Yeah, the pile of rubble was basically what you would find in a landfill. Just about anything used in the normal city-dwellers daily life would have been in there.

If my memory serves, it all came from one company. The Japanese at the time were "dumping" steel in the US in order to squeeze out the the US "big steel" and "little steel". It worked. I grew up in the shadows of the Bethlehem Steel's cokeworks smokestacks, almost literally, and the story is legend in the area.

The stuff collected could have come from anywhere.

Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by butcherguy

 

So you think the gray layer is the primer and the red layer is paint?

If so, I think we don't have to worry at all about matching any steel as we would have no steel sample to try to match. All we would have is gray primer and red paint.

We would also not have to worry about who manufactured the steel, a sample of which we don't have in which to be concerned with where it came from. Is this correct? Or am I missing something? Or are we talking about two different things?

Well, I do have to admit that I am not concerned.

I was just going by what you said in an earlier post:

Great all we need to do is match it to the steel in the building somehow.

I tend to believe that the collapse of the WTC towers were somehow connected with the airliners plowing into them, all full of fuel.
When people want to convince me that there were loads of nanothermite used to bring them down, and the airliners were a 'simple' diversion, my BS detector goes ding*ding*ding*.

Just to access those areas where the nanothermite would need to be placed would have meant an extensive job requiring a lot of people or a lot of time. That is kind of difficult to do without anyone noticing.

Then we get the stories of CIA/MOSSAD operatives dressed as bohemian youth that did all of this, with no real evidence.

Wait, there are pictures of them in the building, I am told! Yes, that is the first thing CIA operatives do when they are involved in a secret conspiracy, TAKE PHOTOS! ON SITE!

I must do what I did on Memorial Day this year with cigarettes, I must quit!

It is an utter waste of time, especially when so very few ever see any light.
I will take this time to congratulate Mikelee, as he is one of the few.

Originally posted by hooper
Ever been around thermite when it starts? The light is blinding how was that done with no one noticing when the whole world was looking at the buildings.

Oh hooper, don't you know it wasn't "ordinary" thermite??

No, no, no, it was super-duper-secret-silent-na-nu-thermite that only burns in air and in the color of invisible!


These threads are a hoot, I swear. I clicked on it thinking something new must have happened to warrant a "Thermite Proven!" title. But it seems that was wishful thinking, same old argument, still no evidence at all for thermite.

Fail!

No one in this thread has posted any scientific proof against Jones Thermite paper.
The OS believers want the readers to believe in their “opinions” being used as thier facts.
Pteridine, was asked to show his science and sources to back his ridiculous claims of accusing Professor Jones Thermite report a fraud. Anyone can “claim” to be an authority of science, yet when one is ask to produce scientific evidence and show credible sources to support his claims, and he does not, then who are you going to believe? A blogger that will not give his scientific background & or bio, and will not show scientific evidence against his claims.

Or perhaps, would you be more supported by real science in an open, peer-reviewed journal.

We heard all the “excuses,” phony claims; ridicule, insults, and opinions, from the OS believers. It is the debunkers who have to prove their claims and they have failed.

No, no, no, it was super-duper-secret-silent-na-nu-thermite that only burns in air and in the color of invisible!

Perhaps, this is how the debunkers demonstrate how you are to debunk science.

[edit on 17-8-2010 by impressme]

reply to post by impressme


Perhaps you didn't recognize the science part when I showed the scientific flaws in Jones' paper. It was not peer reviewed by anyone with an analytical chemistry background. Do you claim that Jones peers are non-scientists?

I can't help but feel the whole thermite thing is a red herring.

The "proof" is turning out to be bs. What does "thermitic material" even mean? You either find thermite, or you do not. Also, truthers were claiming super advanced "nano-thermite". A "1mm x 1mm chip" is several orders of magnitude larger than a nanoparticle. I think you'll find finer particles in most homemade thermite.

Originally posted by impressme
Or perhaps, would you be more supported by real science in an open, peer-reviewed journal.

Why didnt Jones post his paper in one of those journals then? Instead he posted it in a un peer reviewed journal that will post anything as long as you pay for it....

It is the debunkers who have to prove their claims and they have failed.

Still wrong, it is the truthers that have to prove their claims about silent explosives, super nano thermite, podded aircraft, beam weapons etc etc. but they are unable to back their claims up with any science.

reply to post by hooper


You are correct in that all of the steel was imported from Japan , other than the steel supports that framed the perimeter of the Twin Towers' first nine floors and lobbies .

This steel was forged in Coatesville , Pa., by the Lukens Steel Co. in 1969 .

www.dailymail.co.uk...

OMG ! Is that thermite in that photo ?!

[edit on 18-8-2010 by okbmd]

reply to post by impressme


" It is the debunkers who have to prove their claims and they have failed. "

Wrong again . The burden of proof lies with the prosecution , not the defense .

You are the Chief Prosecutor in this thread , and you have failed to make your case against the accused .

Originally posted by impressme
Anyone can “claim” to be an authority of science

Like Jones.

yet when one is ask to produce scientific evidence and show credible sources to support his claims, and he does not

Like Jones.

then who are you going to believe?

Definitely NOT Jones.

Perhaps, this is how the debunkers demonstrate how you are to debunk science.

Why don't you get Jones to actually supply some science first. Then we'll go from there, mm'kay?

Until then this thread is