|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
9th April 2009, 07:39 AM | #1201 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,374
|
|
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison |
|
9th April 2009, 08:19 AM | #1202 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,883
|
According to your cult, everyone, no matter who is it, that doesn't play along with your cult, is on the gov't payroll. All the vicitims, every expert that disagrees, every person on the internet that disagrees, even me. We are all accused constantly of being paid off by the gov't.
Paranoid delusions and ridiculous nonsense like that don't cut it and only proves that your cult is full it. |
9th April 2009, 08:26 AM | #1203 |
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 31,398
|
|
9th April 2009, 08:29 AM | #1204 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
|
************************************************** *********************
''...The chips are tough despite being as thin as eggshells.'' '' Magnification reveals that the gray layers are composed of an opaque homogenous material,'' '' the chips are clearly a nano-engineered material with two types of extremely small particles, each highly consistent in shape and size, held in close stable proximity by a durable matrix which is laminated to a hard homogenous material.'' '' The particles are held in place and in close proximity to each other by the porous matrix.'' http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/t...chip_structure. ************************************************** ****** the gray layers are composed of an opaque homogenous material,''--Hoffman '' while the gray only contains iron and oxygen--Danish Professor '' Surely he iron would have oxidised over the last seven years ? Rusted away even. There has to be more to this ? |
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together *A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough * To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal' |
|
9th April 2009, 08:35 AM | #1205 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,207
|
I've got another buzzword for your list: structural nanofoils, p. 6, here.
Quote:
One can imagine fuel tanks incorporating thick nanofoils, which "ignite with high heat" on impact, giving a spectacular fireball. In this case, there'd be no need to mess with the buildings at all. |
9th April 2009, 08:39 AM | #1206 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
|
|
9th April 2009, 08:39 AM | #1207 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
|
Firstly let me say that I appreciate the questions and you asking them. The real loonytunes have turned up spouting nonsense and debasing the thread so I'm now only going to read and reply to anything sensible and I'll look to correlate some of the data in the paper using my posts on this thread.
Are you talking about Fig 31 on page 28 with regard to the 6 layers. (It would help if you could be more specific and lay your posts out a bit better so I can answer quicker - thanks). People have to realise that there are a number of different chips in Jones' paper, that they are not all the same, nor did they have the same testing performed on them. Samples and the tests performed. a-d - Photo - EDS red - EDS gray - 1µm SEM analysis of red layer - BSE (one chip) - DSC Unknown paint - MEK Chip from sample 2 - Photo - EDS red - MEK - BSE Chip Fig 31 - Photo - SEM photo - EDS gray layer (showing no Fe only C and O) When you look at the data and compare the chips it's fair to say that samples a-d (c has a slightly different EDS red layer spectrum) are identical. Chip from sample 2, we have no idea about because no detailed SEM work was performed and the EDS spectrum of the red layer (Fig 14) is completely different to samples a-d (Fig 7). They sidestep the issue by claiming S and Ca might be drywall contamination but don't show this. Therefore Sample 2 cannot be considered to be part of the same group as samples a-d. Fig 31 chip. Again this is clearly different from the other samples - the optical photographs show this.
Quote:
Look at Fig 33 - EDS of the "gray layer" of chip in Fig 31. Now compare that with Fig 6 spectra. Notice the massive difference? The "gray layer" shows no Fe and a substantially higher C peak. This means that the "gray layer" in this chip is not an iron oxide. So we have two clear distinctions between samples a-d and chip in Fig 31 - Significant Pb in the red layer, significant C in the "gray layer" but without Fe Therefore this chip cannot be classified as being part of the samples a-d. Subsequently it cannot be claimed to be thermite. And that neatly answers your question with regard to the "at birth photo". That photo is exactly what it is - a direct comparison between NIST experiment and the 4 chip samples a-d in Jones' paper. Nothing else, it does not compare to anything else. The chip in Fig 31 with the multiple layers does not compare to anything else. This fact should set alarm bells ringing because the two cannot both be thermite yet Jones is claiming they are. So why do we have these discrepancies? Well when we look at the source of the samples and then how these chips where separated then it's not hard to see that not all of the particles/chips come from the same source, namely the WTC columns. This is blindingly obvious to anyone who has more than 2 minutes to think about it. How many sources of paint or other material are there in this New York area? Dozens, hundreds, thousands, millions? Could some samples not be from the WTC but for example the Brooklyn bridge or other skyscrapers? Only if you start off with the premise that all of the chips in Jones' paper are thermite will you have a problem with realising that there are significant discrepancies between chips in the paper therefore one of them cannot be what Jones claims. What Jones et al should have done before they even started any experiment was to characterize the chips they have from each of the different dust samples - give each one a label and then group them by visual characteristic. This would also help to determine exactly which chips should go for further testing. Instead it looks like they have picked identical chips for SEM/EDS/DSC. I would have wanted that chip with the multiple layers as part of the samples a-d without a shadow of a doubt because it's different. I'll give you the courtesy you deserver and not be rude even though I find the idea, well lets say strange. The gray layer in the red chips is brittle in nature - you can tell this by looking at Fig4 and Fig 5 b) and d). It's not going to transport well and certainly would not be able to be rolled up without cracking all of it into tiny pieces. At 20µm thick they are going to be incredibly fragile and prone to damage - infact they'll just fall apart. Which rules it out completely. Have a think about the logistics of using that method - how big are the sheets? How do you transport them? They are around 20µm thick so how are they going to support their own weight and not get damaged in the handling process? How do you attach them to columns? etc, etc. Answered above. Yes it's an important clue and there is a precise, easily understood, down to earth explanation. These multi-layered chips are not the same as samples a-d, therefore not thermite, they come from who knows where and are more likely to be paint on a sealant or epoxy that anything else. Do you scrape of all the paint to bear metal or wall everytime you paint something? No? Well how many layers do you think will build up over the years? It's not hard to work out now is it? |
9th April 2009, 08:46 AM | #1208 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,885
|
|
9th April 2009, 08:49 AM | #1209 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
|
The conspiracy keeps on getting bigger and bigger everyday.
|
9th April 2009, 08:55 AM | #1210 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,127
|
If a thermite coating was all over the columns, and could be ignited by the heat of the plane crash, wouldn't all of the little chips knocked loose in the impact and ignited by the fireball be easily visible? Thermite burns very bright white, the impact would have looked like a starburst firework.
|
9th April 2009, 08:57 AM | #1211 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Central New Jersey
Posts: 7,032
|
Go ahead boy genius, lets see you weld it into tanks/tubes/structural shapes Still waiting for a steel destruction demonstration.
Quote:
The Inflationary Model of Conspiracy Theories http://www.internationalskeptics.com...46#post2320446 part two http://www.internationalskeptics.com...13#post2323813 |
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance. Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane? Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude. |
|
9th April 2009, 09:19 AM | #1212 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
|
No the sample doesn't just contain Fe and O - look at Fig 6 and tell me what the peak with the C is?
Page 12 states
Quote:
I can't find the specific reference as to why they dismiss the Carbon peak. But Fe and C is likely to be steel. Add in the O and it looks like oxidised steel. There is the possibility on an Mn peak at 5.9KeV on smaples a), b) and d) in fig 6. That would indicate steel without any doubt. What are the alloying elements of A36 steel? by wt% 0.29C max, 0.80–1.2Mn, 0.04P, 0.05S, 0.15–0.3Si, bal Fe. (P and S are always quoted because they are considered impurities and are detrimental to the properties of steel and are removed as much as possible in the steel making process - Mn is added so that Manganese Sulphide (MnS is formed) rather S segregating and forming FeS at grain boundaries (recognise the FeS anyone?) - Si is either for fluidity or grain refinement) There is the issue of colour and magnetism of this "gray layer", but when you understand that steel exposed to high temperatures like those seen in the WTC that the oxidised layer becomes hematite which is dark in colour and magnetic. See here for details http://www-staff.lboro.ac.uk/~mprlh/ So what is the most likely conclusion? |
9th April 2009, 09:26 AM | #1213 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,207
|
If, by "little chips", you mean chips the size of Professor Jones' sample, certainly not. They're hard to see with the naked eye - how could you see them in photos taken hundreds of feet away? Also, their range will be tiny, due to air resistance (drag).
Even thicker ones would have, I would guess, a range more like DIME weapons. Good for igniting kerosene fuel, perhaps, but lousy for emulating fireworks. |
9th April 2009, 09:31 AM | #1214 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Central New Jersey
Posts: 7,032
|
|
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance. Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane? Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude. |
|
9th April 2009, 09:45 AM | #1215 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
|
Please make an effort to at least make your posts easier to read - cutting and pasting with no formatting makes your posts almost unintelligible and it would be handy to put the page number of the report when you quote from it so we can find it easily (thanks), however, you ask good questions (a truther exception) and deserve a civil response.
One of the most ironic things about this paper is the lack of S in the majority of spectra. Truthers have been screaming about how S in thermite is able to liquefy steel (I wonder who that could be ) yet there is no significant quantity of S in the data. We have had people saying that the only source of S is thermite and dismiss wall board and gypsum out of hand. Now we have Jones et al claiming that the S in their samples is not part of the thermite but possible contamination with gypsum!! Truthers - which is it? The whole point of adding S to thermite is to produce a higher flame temperature and make ignition easier, but guess what it's not in this 10µm layer of "thermite" - why not? It's been a crucial component of the thermite theory for ages. Why is it not there? If they think that the Ca and S is contamination then they have the very tool to find out - a SEM. What they should do is go in at a higher resolution and find these particles they think are gypsum and confirm, not lazily wave it away with a possibility. It's these possibilities that alot of truthers then take up as definites when they are clearly not. What other sources of Ca and S could there be? Well Ca is most likely Calcium Carbonate - it's widely used in a huge number of applications (including paint). Zinc Sulphate is also very common. This is the exact reason why EDS/EDX/XEDS is not good for determining compounds and finding out what a material is. It does not distinguish between crystal types and only picks out elements. Using this data for any conclusion is not advised. With simpler samples you can determine compounds but it's best to use the built in semi-quantitative EDS/EDX/XEDS software. Jones et al have not done this. What we really want is XRD analysis - this will tell us EXACTLY what this material is. I've found a place in the USA that will take posted samples from around the world and charge $40 for the service. These samples need to have that test performed. Screwing around with the SEM is a pointless exercise with these samples, because it can only give so much information. |
9th April 2009, 09:51 AM | #1216 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 401
|
This person's argument reminds me of the guy who said he was going to launch a rocket to the sun. When told he's burn up before he got there, he replied that he already thought of that and he would launch at night.
He then asked if the discussion could be moved to the mental pygmies section. |
__________________
"There's this thing about being so "open minded" your brain falls out". --Unknown |
|
9th April 2009, 09:53 AM | #1217 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,207
|
I don't understand this. According to you, samples a-d are not thermite. Call this set A. Therefore, according to you, yet another chip, not a member of A, cannot be thermite.
If U is the universal set, then the multilayer chip is in U - A. But U - A contains thermite chips (well, I suppose that's debatable : - ), including a subset of multilayer thermite chips . Thus, U - A contains multilayer thermite chips, but you are claiming that the fact that Jones' multilayer thermite chip is in U - A is the reason that it is not thermite. Contradiction (Unless you are now going to claim that multi-layer thermite chips did not even exist on 9/11 - good luck proving that.)
Quote:
|
9th April 2009, 09:54 AM | #1218 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,207
|
|
9th April 2009, 09:55 AM | #1219 |
Guest
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,986
|
|
9th April 2009, 09:55 AM | #1220 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
|
|
9th April 2009, 09:57 AM | #1221 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
|
Excellent post. I'll apologise now for having a go earlier (I was a bit tired and irritable from work) because with this post it's obvious that you have the ability to think and reason clearly, and come up with very good questions.
This is something that I have been meaning to get on about but haven't had a chance but seeing as you mention it. All of the materials that I have seen for particulates of either Fe2O3 or Al have been crystals or spheres in the order of magnitude of 1µm. I haven't seen platelets of Al. I have no idea how you can manufacture platelets that small and have them contain both SiO2 and elemental Al and keep the platelet as a structure. Surely we would see individual particles of (elemental) Al just as clearly as we see sub-micron rhomboidal crystals of Fe2O3 in the red layer. If as Jones claims the elemental Aluminium separates from these Al/Si/O platelets then he should be able to demonstrate, a before and after, 50,000x resolution shot, of the degradation (shape change) of theses platelets and clear distinct shapes of the now freed elemental Aluminium. Why has he not done so? Edit: Also note that the chip he claims the Al separated from is not one of the samples a-d, it's red layer spectrum is distinctly different and it did not have any detailed SEM work or photos produced (which would show Rhomboidal Fe203 and these platelets) before or after immersion in MEK. |
9th April 2009, 10:01 AM | #1222 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,316
|
KreeL, if it was universally applied to the extent that it would effect the stability of the entire structure, you are talking about nearly the same mass as all the steel. On the order of 100,000 tons per building. I hope you can see that implementing your theory in practice would be an impossibility. This would also reduce the safety factor to a dangerously low level, at least in the core.
|
__________________
"My father would womanize, he would drink, he would make outrageous claims, like he invented the question mark. Sometimes, he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy - the sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament." - Dr. Evil |
|
9th April 2009, 10:07 AM | #1223 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,127
|
A chip the size of jones' sample, if it was thermite, would be easily visible from a long distance when ignited (thermite burns brighter than the sun) and air resistance wouldn't be an issue as the small chips would easily be blown out of the building by the large fireball.
|
9th April 2009, 10:08 AM | #1224 |
Hoku-maniac
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,905
|
good. tell Jones to ignite it and see what happens.
|
__________________
"If God wants 10% of my paycheck, he can get it himself. Or at least work for it -Kochanski "I may not be easy, but I am fast." - Hokulele "Oh CRAP... DQ!!" - Ol' Hokey, yet again |
|
9th April 2009, 10:10 AM | #1225 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Central New Jersey
Posts: 7,032
|
|
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance. Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane? Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude. |
|
9th April 2009, 10:15 AM | #1226 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
|
Look up particles size distribution and packing density. That will answer your excellent question.
This is very relevant because for example if you were using 2 powders then you can never achieve full density because the particles will always leave gaps - packing density is a way of measuring a giving how dense a powdered material is. Couldn't find a decent article on "Packing Density" so here's a quick For example - get an ice cream tub. Fill it with marbles (of the same size) in the most efficient way possible (so most space is taken up). Now pour water into the tub. Take the marbles out. Pour the water into a measuring jug and take the reading. Put water back into the ice cream tub and fill to the top with water and then pour that into a measuring jug and take the reading. The ratio between the two is the packing density of the marbles. Now use marbles of different sizes. Does the packing density increase or decrease? |
9th April 2009, 10:18 AM | #1227 | |||
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
No nanofoil needed for your doltish paranoid claim.
Why do you display such stupid statements? The impacts of flight 11 and 175 had large fireballs because that is what happens when the engines are running the jet is smashed while smashing the ground or a building. At least you have a delusion as big as Jones' paper. Before you get your mind in overdrive the nanofoil is real, but your idea is pure poppycock save for adding to the idiotic scenarios of the dirt dumb 911Truth movement as you add more people responsible for 911. Sorry, a jet at 470 and 590 mph with the engines running at and above cruise as they were on 911 give you a giant fireball. I can prove it, but I was beat by reality, and studies, and experience. At least you like to apologizes for the terrorist by implying other people beside 19 terrorists are murderers. Sad pathetic people makes up lies like Jones and 911Truth to satisfied some perverted bias they have. What is your anti-intellectual bias to make you spew delusions and make up lies? Thermite? What a bunch of crap; standard products from a large building destroyed on 911 have been found and Jones leaves out all the possibilities so he can back in his nut case evidence to make his delusion real to those who lack knowledge and the capacity to think for themselves. At least you are making up your own perverted ideas on 911. |
|||
9th April 2009, 10:22 AM | #1228 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 401
|
Its funny when Truthers post things that emphasize and underscore their level of ignorant with regards to how things work.
"...piloting heavy commercial aircraft..."? You think that's difficult? You are a fool if you do. "...defeated the air defenses of the United States?" Now THAT was a brilliant statement. My dog makes an equally brilliant statement every morning when I let him out. "Defeating" 4 NORAD alert aircraft in an air defense system that I'll admit had become lazy and complacent and accustomed to watching an ocean radar horizon that hadn't even had Soviet bombers fly past for a number of years is not my idea of anything special, especially when you consider hijacking an aircraft and killing the pilots to take over the cockpit would have been the most difficult part of the evolution. After that, your only enemy is time and when your intentions are to crash the aircraft into some skyscraper or a military headquarters, you don't need much time for that with a weapon that travels 7 miles a minute. |
__________________
"There's this thing about being so "open minded" your brain falls out". --Unknown |
|
9th April 2009, 10:23 AM | #1229 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 60,375
|
|
9th April 2009, 10:27 AM | #1230 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
|
No and thrice no. Please stop with this silly insinuation that nano is somehow special or that only thermite or some super special material can contain material of a nano-scale. It's blatantly not true.
We have been producing powders and other materials that have a nano-scale for decades, it is nothing out of the ordinary. Stop being sucked in by this nano-obsession and go and look at materials in the real world. There are thousands of applications that when you look at them very closely with a SEM have structures on the nano-scale. I used to work for a company in the satellite industry and they were always at teh cutting edge of micro-electronics. We had a program of looking at the best method for attaching "fine wire gold bonds" - wires between electrical components http://electronicmaterials.usask.ca/...os/photo13.gif - they were forever reducing the size of these things and we had to make sure that the bond on the bottom of the foot was solid. Foot - http://archive.evaluationengineering...s/xrayFIG2.jpg. The wire was only 17.5µm thick. Now we had to mount, grind and polish these sections in order to get a view through the foot like a cross-section, examine it under the microscope. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/fig/2180250106005.png which is astoundingly difficult to do and takes great skill. That was a nano-sized material and that was in 1997. There is nothing special about nano. What size does a material have to be before it's classified as a nano material? I'm after a general figure Bill. |
9th April 2009, 10:28 AM | #1231 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
|
If these two statements are true what can be the explanation ?
the gray layers are composed of an opaque homogenous material,''--Hoffman '' while the gray only contains iron and oxygen--Danish Professor '' Sunstealer says there was also some Carbon though I'd say it was likely to have been very little given that the Danish guy did not think it worth mentining in his statement above. We know that properties can change at nano-levels including a change in colour. So maybe the grey stuff IS actualy iron and oxygen- just a nano variety. If that is true the jig is up. |
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together *A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough * To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal' |
|
9th April 2009, 10:29 AM | #1232 |
Muse
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 974
|
Please forgive me if this has been covered already but I posted the following on another forum comments?
The tests performed by Harrit et. al. to eliminate the possibility the chips were ordinary paint were inadequate, they only performed two I] –
Quote:
1) though they had several chips they only tested one, since they reported a six fold variance for energy output there is no reason to expect other characteristics to be consistent. 2) The chip as they noted was very small, the size of a grain of sand. They reported having much larger ones. No explanation was given as to why the only chip tested was one of the smallest ones they had or if this could if have led to an erroneous reading 3) The title of the cited paper is “Zinc-ferrite pigment for corrosion protection” which suggests the table in it only covers a very specific class of paint. It costs GBP £14.50 “and VAT where applicable” if anyone is willing to spend the money OR has free access. The title also indicates no one should be surprised to find iron on paint. emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContentItem.do;jsessionid=8C534FEDD35CAB1C15D0 85260A224173?contentType=Article&hdAction=lnkhtml& contentId=876638 4) They never explain why resistivity to electrical current should be considered a defining characteristic of paint. A Google search for: "specific resistance" paint omhs turned up only 2 hits. Though the terms were on the same pages the specific resistance of paint wasn’t discussed in either. 5) They never explain why low resistivity should be considered indicative of the material being a thermitic compound II] –
Quote:
|
9th April 2009, 10:31 AM | #1233 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
|
I think I've answered that in another post - see page 31 of this thread.
What people have to realise is that the samples that Jones has are not all of the same type. This is an indicator that all of his samples are not thermite. The NIST photo that i refer to ONLY relates to samples a-d in Jones' paper - nothing more nothing less. So yes it is void when talking about the other chips but I think I covered that in the earlier post - page 31. You have to start looking very closely at each individual chip and the EDS data associated with each one. Only then will you see that the chips are indeterminably different - you cannot take them as a whole. |
9th April 2009, 10:35 AM | #1234 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
|
Dross - it's already been shown in the paper that
Quote:
The person who wrote what you quote has never ever sat in on an SEM session otherwise they wouldn't be so wowed. I do a facepalm everytime I see people with zero experience start waxing lyrical about this and that - they plainly have no clue. |
9th April 2009, 10:45 AM | #1235 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
|
It is rust most likely in the form of Hematite, see postings on this page and all my others. For rust to occur you need oxygen and water. These samples will have been kept in bags away from water hence why the rust hasn't completely vanished.
Opaque homogenous material! WTF! Opaque! Is he saying the "gray layer" is see through? Honestly these people have absolutely no clue, the last thing you can describe that material as is bloody opaque! He doesn't even comment on the cracks and their morphology in the "gray layer", clearly indicating a brittle material. oh /facepalm, it's too much stupid to comprehend. |
9th April 2009, 10:48 AM | #1236 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,368
|
|
9th April 2009, 10:49 AM | #1237 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
|
Is the paint argument holding it's own ? I'm not sure that it is. The paint s all there is though as far as I can see. Concerned citizens reading this thread might be starting to form conclusions.
|
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together *A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough * To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal' |
|
9th April 2009, 10:52 AM | #1238 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,368
|
Greg;
Thank you for the thoughtful comments. I would say that the discovery of the nano-thermite shows that the explosions might not be picked up on tape, if that is really the case that they weren't. I heard a lot of loud noises that day. Many windows were blown out by steel beams that flew 500 feet through the air. |
9th April 2009, 10:53 AM | #1239 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 401
|
Originally Posted by metamars
What a 500 or 1000 lb blast frag warhead is going to do to "open a hole" for a 90-ton compilation of aluminum and titanium and steel and fuel and people traveling at 7 miles a minute is really pretty funny to even think of. But, that is the Truther Way. |
__________________
"There's this thing about being so "open minded" your brain falls out". --Unknown |
|
9th April 2009, 10:58 AM | #1240 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
|
Sorry I wasn't clear enough. Chip seen in Fig 31 is significantly different to samples a-d, therefore he cannot claim that both are thermite. He is claiming that both are thermite. It's a no go.
Bearing in mind I have shown beyond any reasonable doubt that samples a-d are hematite and red paint then sample from Fig 31 must be looked at in more detail. Having done that then I can conclude that that one is even further away from what thermite can be. The chips are obviously paint, but from different sources. Why is it so hard to imagine that amongst the dust samples collected are flecks of paint from many different sources. The largest element reported in the dust was Titanium iirc (must find the link to the substantial report) due to all of the white paint present in the samples (TiO2) No, obviously not but how hard is it to realise that some one paints an item once every year, producing 5 layers of primer and 5 layers of paint and that a tiny bit of this flecks off and is collected in the sample? There are literally thousands of sources for this material to have come from or are truthers suggesting that the only building painted in NY is the WTC? One of the samples was collected from close to the Brooklyn Bridge - I bet there is a hell of alot of paint flaking off of that each year. Why - any layered substance is going to show layers in a SEM. Infact I'll do it and that's a promise. I will use the exact same paint that Jones used in the MEK test....... ...... damn, metamars, be a good chap will you and find the bit in Jones' report where it details what paint he used. Thanks. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|