| Welcome to Pumpitout. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| 9/11 Truth Versus The BBC | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 27 2011, 11:25 AM (716 Views) | |
| ScootleRoyale | Dec 4 2011, 06:45 AM Post #16 |
|
When Steven Jones first announced the findings of red-grey chips back in December of 2007 at a conference in Boston, he said that his initial assumption was that they were probably just paint, until he looked deeper and realized they weren't. Prior to the paper being published, debunkers were saying in 2008 that the red-grey chips are paint. Mark Roberts made the claim in a debate with Richard Gage on Hardfire. The authors were fully aware while writing the paper that people would claim they had just found paint and so they did everything they could to pre-emptively test and counter that claim and devoted an entire section of the paper to refuting it. What you are doing here is nitpicking. Just about every scientific paper ever published can be nitpicked in this way. The chips don't "catch fire", they react. It's basic chemistry. Thermite is a distinctly different type of chemical reaction to regular combustion. The DSC plot and the fact that iron microspheres are observed after proves it is a thermite reaction. Yes, paint chips may BURN when heated to 430 degrees, but they won't undergo a HIGHLY EXOTHERMIC THERMITIC REACTION. It's really that simple. And they did compare the DSC to a known nanothermite and the plot looked similar, but the red chip plot was in fact even narrower and at a lower temperature, meaning the material they found is even more explosive than a known nanothermite. And they didn't just do a DSC test, they also did a flame test. They heated a red chip with an oxy-acetaline torch and it reacted and a hot particle of iron was ejected. This test did have a control since they also subjected paint chips to the same test and they just turned to ash. But even ignoring the chemical behaviour, the chips LOOK nothing like paint. You won't find nanoparticles and especially not nanoaluminium in a paint. The existence of intimately-mixed nanoparticles of iron oxide and aluminium in an organic carbon matrix is not just evidence against the paint hypothesis, but it's also positive evidence for the nanothermite hypothesis. So the argument isn't just "it's not paint, therefore nanothermite". And no I'm not saying the passports at Shanksville were planted. According to the 9/11 Commission, Satem Al Saqami's passport that was found in New York was found by an unnamed civilian and given to a police officer prior to the south tower's collapse. It's not so much the fact that it survived the explosion that I find hard to believe, since explosions are chaotic and strange things can happen and the personal belongings of some passengers and things were also found. It's more the fact that some unnamed passer-by just happened to stuble upon it. Seems a little suspicious if you ask me. But it's not a major argument of mine, I just put the CNN clip in of the guy going "if you can believe that..." coz those are my sentiments exactly. Edited by ScootleRoyale, Dec 4 2011, 06:49 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| broken sticks | Dec 4 2011, 07:39 AM Post #17 |
|
Have you any evidence of this? Steven Jones is a fraud so if you are taking his word for it when he says he wasn't looking for the conspiratorial aspect initially then i don't believe him. Could you please show me any direct comparisons of test results between coated structural steel (ie painted, corroded steel) and the chips tested? It is not in their pay-to-publish paper. Pointing out massive fundamental missing sections in a paper claiming to have found nanothermite in WTC dust is not nitpicking. Its what should have been in the paper. The tiny chips react by catching fire at a certain temperature in air in their slapdash experiment. If i take a little chip from the drywall in my room i can get it to "react" at a certain temperature. Why not call that nanothermite too? If you argue then you're just nitpicking apparently. Where do they compare their results to thermite? The paper is online, you have video-editing abilities, a humble jpeg of this comparison will suffice. Iron microspheres shows there was steel in the chips, it does not prove nanothermite. And can you show me where the DSC plot for nanothermite is shown to be the same as their DSC plot for the chips? Of course, not all the WTC chips reacted at all! Some of that nanothermite must be a bit crap eh? Paint chips burn at 430degrees? You've gone a step further than Harrit and Jones now! Where is this in their paper? "looked similar"? Please show us how these two DSC plots looked similar. You go on to point out the non-similarities! You say "the red chip plot was in fact even narrower and at a lower temperature, meaning the material they found is even more explosive than a known nanothermite". So its nanothermite because it has different DSC results to nanothermite? Error. Because the WTC chips had steel in them. And many other ingredients. If you're going to compare a chip from a steel structure collapse to a sample of paint you must know they are going to contain different elements. You need to compare the chips to what they were supposed to be in the first place, not just the paint element. I'm not saying the chips are paint. I'm saying they could be chips of coated WTC steel. This would encompass steel, paint, aluminium, and 30 years of weathering. You need to compare the chips to what they were supposed to be in the first place, not just one element of it. The tiny flecks of aluminium in the chips are proof enough for you. OK. Did you know the WTC steel was clad in aluminium? 30 years of chemical bonding and the coastal atmospheric conditions of New York tells me that finding aluminium particles on the WTC steel chips is proof of nothing. Do they compare these results to anything remotely like a 30yr old structural element? No. Nowhere in the entire paper do they compare any of their results to anything remotely realistic. Or nanothermite. There were a lot of people in the street on 911. Many of them in a hurry or otherwise busy. I thought it was suspicious at the time when i thought the whole event was staged. Turns out that some charred papers can survive that type of event. Learn and move on. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Lates News · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2






9:42 AM Jul 11