I've clearly exposed the ambiguity of the terminology. If you continue to exhibit this subhuman level of intelligence, I'll just add you to the ignore list.
Go ahead and put me on ignore. My responses are for bystanders and lurkers anyway. I simply point out the errors and misrepresentations in conspiracy fantasies such as yours. If you want to quibble about minituae like the presence of a common ingredient in thermate, go right ahead. But deliberate ignorance of facts is no way to approach social or scientific inquiry, and you are
deliberately ignoring the falsifications to the notion of incendiaries.
I see that you're still not acknowledging the presence of therm(a|i)te signatures in the debris. Denying real evidence just gives you more bonus points on "Who goes on my ignore list next"
Then ignore yourself, since you're the one denying real evidence. I'm not failing to acknowledge this so-called evidence. I'm falsifying it. There are no signatures of thermite or thermate left on the steel. There was no melting not attributable to surface eutictic reactions, nor did the separation points between severed beams show any signs of thermite cutting; instead, they showed distortion due to mechanical force. On top of that, there were no sightings of incendiaries use on 9/11, not by witnesses outside the towers or escapees within. And there was never any opportunity to rig the towers or WTC 7 with any such devices.
Does it have to? Is this relevant? What's relevant is this: If thermite was used, there is a good chance for the dust to contain thermite signatures. Oh, it does?
Wrong. It does not. Jones's work fails to establish that any incendiary was used. The presence of particles have a genesis which can be attributed to mundane events like welding during the construction phase of the towers. That simply does not prove thermite or thermate use on that day, or any other day. When you add that to the fact that other observations on that day indicate temperatures inconsistent with Jones hypothesis, it is simply not possible to conclude that such particles were created that day at all.
But, we know welding occurred during the construction of the towers, and that such an activity is a known source of such particles. So, what should the objective observer believe? A proposal that is contradicted by other observations, namely but not limited to the temperature ones? Or one that flows naturally from known events during construction?
The fact is, the particles in the dust identified by Jones simply does not indicate thermite or thermate use at all.
I've read that before. When I talked about horrible failures of attempting to disprove the thermite hypothesis, I was thinking specifically of that one. The guy uses photographs that shouldn't be used to falsify the chemical analysis and eyewitness accounts in the first place. Non sequitur, "I don't have a convincing photograph for thermite usage, hence there is no tiger in the bathroom." The guy doesn't understand basic principles of scientific theory and is about as convincing as the hobo telling me the other day we didn't land on the moon because the photos look shopped.
You do not understand basic principles of scientific theory yourself. For any argument that an incendiary was present and used on 9/11, evidence must exist that such incendiary was there and used. No such evidence exists. Steven Jones's proposition that observed particles indicate such use fail in that the formation of such particles can be attributed to pre-9/11 events, and wouldn't need the presence of an unobserved foreign agent (thermite) to have been formed during that time. It simply requires events known for certain to have occurred during the formation of the towers. You however continue to forward such evidence as if it's accurate, rather than falsified misinterpretations of phenomena that do not correspond to other observations in the towers (for example, the noted temperatures of the steel that was recovered, exterior column bowing, plus the time it took for the impact zone failures to occur. If, for example, Jones is correct about the use of thermite on steel, then more than the steel in the impact zone should show evidence of high temperature reactions, if not outright melting. It does not. Furthermore, the degree of column distortion is consistent with the temperatures NIST proposes, and so is the time before catastrophic failure. The temperatures associated with thermite use not only contradicts the observed amount of bowing, it does not track with any observed timeframe for failure. But you ignore
all that in pushing Jones's thermite theory).
Again, you really need to read the following:
http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm
http://www.google.com/search?q=ther...t:*&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1
So go ahead and put me on ignore if you want. Ignore the fact that observations contradict the possibility of thermite. Ignore the fact that Jones's reliance on particles not linked to the events of 9/11 fails to prove any such conclusion. It doesn't matter whether you're convinced or not; this information is out there for people who genuinely want to learn the truth about 9/11. If you want to exclude yourself from that group, go right ahead; nobody here is going to care. You've demonstrated that you'd rather indulge in the fantasies anyway, so instead of engaging you, we'll just use you as an object lesson for the rest of the readers and lurkers here.
