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.
Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
That's not what anybody said, Impressme.
Let's get on the same page here.
Originally posted by IvanKminek
Originally posted by impressme
No, we (we in JREF "paint thread") do not support OS of 911. OS does not care about paints, this is our job. Simply, a plain common sense tells us: red primer paints were provingly applied on WTC steel in large ammounts. Red chips found by Harrit et al (and also by Henryco and Mark Basile) looked like red primer paints (attached to oxidized steel), had a composition of two particular red primer paints and behaved like these paints. If you have some specific (and well-supported) objections against these findings, address them here.
No, we are on the same page.
I like how some of you debunkers “speculate” your opinions to what you believe is wrong with Jones science, yet none of you people can support your ridiculous claims with any real science. The reason why is because none of you have the dust samples that Professor Jones was given to run your own analysis and then do a peer review report that could prove Jones’ Journal is flawed.
Yes, Jones talked about red paint and he even suggested it may have been an application that was mix with the supper Nano-thermite.
Jones was able to separate all the particles in the dust samples and he does demonstrate that in his Journal. The one particle Jones’ discovered that was really important was the supper Nano- thermite.
Jones was able to conclude what type of thermite it was because of the small nano grains in the particles; however he couldn’t compare this type thermite to any known thermite used on the market today. That is why he said we are talking military science now. The Nano- thermite particles were the finest he had seen, it burned at a faster rate and at hotter temperatures than normal thermite.
Your opinions on this subject are not the facts, because you cannot validate any of it with real science.
edit on 17-10-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by beijingyank
reply to post by impressme
Very nicely put.
The primer paint used in the WTC was stable to at least 800 degrees Centigrade.
However, the nano-thermate was found to combust at 430 deg.
The jig is up.
You are right in one respect, impressme: we cannot write any official scientific rebuttal of Bentham paper without analyses of real red chips which we do not possess. But we have enough indirect clues that support paint therory.
(Your claim that red chips burned at "hotter temperatures than normal thermite" shows that you do not know what you are talking about;
Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by IvanKminek
You are right in one respect, impressme: we cannot write any official scientific rebuttal of Bentham paper without analyses of real red chips which we do not possess. But we have enough indirect clues that support paint therory.
That was all I had to read in your post to stop reading any further.
Clues and your ”opinions” on paint theories do not cut the muster as proven facts.
Where is your evidence, your science? The fact is you have none.
How many times do we need to tell you we know RED PAINT was one of the particals in the dust samples? Stop ignoring the facts that Jones PROVED with his demonstrations that he did discover nano- thermite and proved it in his testings.
Red paint did not blow up the WTC, perhaps in your world but not in reality.edit on 18-10-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by impressme
Red paint did not blow up the WTC, perhaps in your world but not in reality.
(Your claim that red chips burned at "hotter temperatures than normal thermite" shows that you do not know what you are talking about;
I never made any such claim you are now spreading lies to win your argument.
The Nano- thermite particles were the finest he had seen, it burned at a faster rate and at hotter temperatures than normal thermite.
Originally posted by impressme
As far as what I know about thermite, my past threads speak for themselves.
BTW, I don’t have to tell lies to win my debate.
We have now much more of such clues that Bentham paper investigated two red primer paints and not thermite. But the reading of our thread in JREF is not really matter for laymen like you, that is the problem.
Once again: what do you mean by sentence that "red paint was one of the particles in the dust samples!"? If you mean that one so called "MEK chip" was a particle of Tnemec primer, you are right and I agree. Even Jones seems to admit this now (although very reluctantly).
I never made any such claim you are now spreading lies to win your argument.
Here, you claim that exact thing....
]The Nano- thermite particles were the finest he had seen, it burned at a faster rate and at hotter temperatures than normal thermite.