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.

 

University of Alaska Fairbanks Professor Launches New 9/11 Research Project

page: 12
44
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2016 @ 09:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux

Certain USGS samples showed high levels of Thorium and other by products of a nuclear reaction.

Satellite sensors showed hot spots, and molten iron was present for about 3 months. That cannot happen from office fires on the upper floors as NIST claimed.

Maybe you can show me the records regarding any government samples of radiation that day showing normal levels? I won't hold my breath.


Can you show us any nuclear expert that agrees with you ?




posted on May, 8 2016 @ 09:07 AM
link   
In fact, do you know why smoking is really really bad. Tabacco contains one of the worst forms of radiation to expose live cells to, alpha radiation. The tabbaco picks up radioactive lead and polomium from the soil. The events at the WTC would have released natural sources of radiation which were inhaled. Along with many other toxins from large buildings collapsing and fires. Radiation sickness shares many similar symptoms of other toxic sicknesses.



posted on May, 8 2016 @ 09:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Thorium! Which is reported one of the two radioactive elements that still occur in nature in significate quantities? Look weapon radioactive grade material like uranium will prodictably spilt mosty into to radioactive elements. Upon there half-lives, will decay into other fission products. If all the fission products are not present, then it was not a nuclear reaction.

Finally, only runway nuclear reactions in fuel rods make ongoing molten metal. If there was enough nuclear reaction to keep metal molten for three weeks, people would have been dropping dead for three weeks. I'm not talking in a few weeks. I'm saying in hours being near the metal.

And if I remember right, a hot spot is an area where radiation is greater than background radiation. Not a very specific definition from the NRC.



posted on May, 8 2016 @ 09:44 AM
link   
Do you mean fire fighter hot spot? As in it can re-ignite? Or nuclear definition hot spot. As in there is no heat, but emitting alphas, betas, gammas... very diftent meanings.



posted on May, 8 2016 @ 10:16 AM
link   
The theory about nukes being used on 9/11 is one of the most absurd things I have read. If you seriously believe the towers fell in the manner of a building that had suffered an internal nuclear blast you are borderline delusional. They wouldn't have fallen they would have literally exploded and they would've been hurled in all directions. The blast and heat wave would've killed hundreds of onlookers. The area would still be irradiated to this day. There would have been no survivors pulled from the rubble. People would be dying of radiation poisoning. There would have been unusually high cases of radiation burns being reported. The list is endless.
edit on 29101642 by sg1642 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2016 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Doctor Smith


You think paint chips will have a higher spike energy release than known military nano thermite?

Is that a technical term?
I'm not familiar with it. What is spike energy release?

What is known military nano thermite and what is its spike energy release?


Look at the video at 38 minutes. These shills keep posting nonsense so you can't see what I'm talking about.




posted on May, 8 2016 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Still beating on the nuclear thing ....??

Thorium and uranium are naturally occurring radioactive materials - they occur in small amounts in many rocks, especially
those of igneous origin (ie granite)

The entire south side of WTC 7 was covered in granite panels ......



Uranium's average concentration in the Earth's crust is (depending on the reference) 2 to 4 parts per million, or about 40 times as abundant as silver. The Earth's crust from the surface to 25 km (15 mi) down is calculated to contain 1017 kg (2×1017 lb) of uranium while the oceans may contain 1013 kg (2×1013 lb). The concentration of uranium in soil ranges from 0.7 to 11 parts per million (up to 15 parts per million in farmland soil due to use of phosphate fertilizers), and its concentration in sea water is 3 parts per billion.


In addition once first plane struck North Tower NYC Department of Health dispatched health physicist with sensative
radiation detection instruments . He detected no concentrations of radioactive materials As did the EPA, FEMA,
FDNY Haz Mat unit and other alphabet agencies ........



posted on May, 8 2016 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Doctor Smith

He has no credibility. Peer review was unethical. Nothing to debate because it's all nonsense. Would you want to debate with me that we have a yellow sun so it's a conspiracy our sky is blue on a clear day. That is about how logical Jones arguments are to his scientific community. Should be all forms of thermite byproducts in any sample of slage cut by thermite. It really is that ease to disprove thermite was used. So where are the analysis of slag from building 7. There is a reason Jones would not go analyze a sample.



posted on May, 8 2016 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Jones is part of the truther conspiracy of disinformation and bad science for personal gain.

sites.google.com...

His pictures of molten material are even a sham.



posted on May, 8 2016 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
Jones is part of the truther conspiracy of disinformation and bad science for personal gain.

sites.google.com...

His pictures of molten material are even a sham.


The paper on that site is not peer reviewed unlike Professor Jone"s. Why don't they do a peer review rebuttal? If anyone can do it you would think they would make the attempt. That's the way science is done. I guess they don't have anything.

I didn't see Jone's use that photo. Some of the photo's could have been mixed up. Their are plenty of other photo's and witnesses on the molten metal so it's just a red herring designed to derail any real investigation.
edit on 8-5-2016 by Doctor Smith because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2016 @ 05:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Doctor Smith

He has no credibility. Peer review was unethical. Nothing to debate because it's all nonsense. Would you want to debate with me that we have a yellow sun so it's a conspiracy our sky is blue on a clear day. That is about how logical Jones arguments are to his scientific community. Should be all forms of thermite byproducts in any sample of slage cut by thermite. It really is that ease to disprove thermite was used. So where are the analysis of slag from building 7. There is a reason Jones would not go analyze a sample.


I guess nobody is ethical unless they are a lap dog or shill of the government. According to you all the professors world wide are unethical. LOL. The subject professor of this thread, Steven Jones.

Here's another from Europe that verified Jone's peer reviewed paper.

Eight Scientists Confirms ‘Nano-Thermite’ Brought Down WTC

Why do all the professors agree with me and not you? No examples of steel frame buildings collapsing from fire. They made full scale test buildings. Look for yourselves.




posted on May, 8 2016 @ 10:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Doctor Smith

Being ethicle is not starting your own journal to publish you own material as legitimate. Being ethical is not getting a peer review because you paid somebody, bought them off, to pass something as ligitimit. Being ethical is not Photoshoping pictures and passing them off as something they are not. Which Jones is guilty of. Being ethical is not having people in the truther mivement alone approving you work. Show me where even one percent of the persons involved in the disciplines involved in Jones research think his ideas have scientific marit. Sorry if you do not understand what a third person unbiased peer review is and there are protocals. If that is beyond you comprehension no point in arguing with out. Sorry you don't understand one slag sample is a thousands times better than a dust sample. Sorry you don't understand Jones has only found elements which are come to building materials. Sorry you buy into Jones paid for opinions and you don't see him for the unethical hoaxer he is. What ligitimit scientist has to try to change photographic records with lies to prove he is right? You are not worth my time. Jones has no credibility among those that strive for credibility. Thought there was hope for you. Keep drinking the coolaid.



posted on May, 8 2016 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Doctor Smith




I guess nobody is ethical unless they are a lap dog or shill of the government. According to you all the professors world wide are unethical. LOL. The subject professor of this thread, Steven Jones.

His claims have been out for years.
If there was any merit to them they would have gained traction by now.
It's not like the big bad gubmint is suppressing his results.
Claiming that the other 99.99% are in on it is just silly.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 05:49 AM
link   
a reply to: samkent

It's sad I'm this cynical. The truthers are obsessed with thier perception of the vast numbers of persons involved in the 911 conspiracies. Some truthers seem to use their own good old boy club and unethical research to push their naritive. It makes me wonder if they ponder why they were not part of their believed vast 911 conspiracy. The leaders of the truthers seem to have no trouble being in the spotlight? Again. Not all truthers. I'm probably bad for even having the thought.
edit on 9-5-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 04:47 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Reading from Jeff Prager's book America Nuked, on 17 and 18 September 2001, a USGS 2 man crew collected samples at 35 locations within a 1 KM radius of Ground Zero. Girder samples at some of those locations showed Thorium at 6 times the rate of the lowest level detected in their sampling. That was after it had rained on 14 September.

As far as any radiation sampling done by EPA or any other federal agency, I can't find any records. Maybe you can help in that regard.

I assume that since the EPA did not bother to test the air quality, and still informed the public that the air was just fine to breathe, neither did the Adminstration test for radiation samples. Maybe you can provide information to show what radiation sampling was done, by whom, and when and where?



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: firerescue

If that NYC health physicist was using a Geiger Counter, it would not have detected any radiation other than alpha and gamma. It would not have detected any neutron radiation, the most likely type released there.

Thank you for that information however. I wonder if you might provide any sort of link to the NYC Health Department data?



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 06:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Doctor Smith




I guess nobody is ethical unless they are a lap dog or shill of the government. According to you all the professors world wide are unethical. LOL. The subject professor of this thread, Steven Jones.

His claims have been out for years.
If there was any merit to them they would have gained traction by now.
It's not like the big bad gubmint is suppressing his results.
Claiming that the other 99.99% are in on it is just silly.


They tried to bribe Jones. Then they threatened and eventually he was forced to retire early from teaching. All of Jone's work has been verified by other scientists. No one dares dispute it with a peer reviewed paper. And they never will. They can't. The scientific method will prove them wrong.

When I heard they had found thermite in the dust samples I started paying attention especially with building 7. The Bush administration obviously obstructed the investigation. Witch pretty much incriminates them.

edit on 9-5-2016 by Doctor Smith because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 07:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Doctor Smith
All of Jone's work has been verified by other scientists.


Actually, it has not. Also it was not peer reviewed, but published in a "you pay us, we will publish anything" Journal, from which the editor resigned as she did not know anything about it!
screwloosechange.blogspot.com.au...


No one dares dispute it with a peer reviewed paper.


Funny how Jones refuses to get his article peer reviewed....


When I heard they had found thermite in the dust samples


They did not actually....



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Doctor Smith




They tried to bribe Jones. Then they threatened and eventually he was forced to retire early from teaching. All of Jone's work has been verified by other scientists. No one dares dispute it with a peer reviewed paper.

And now for the real story:



The university cited its concern about the "increasingly speculative and accusatory nature" of Jones' work and that perhaps Jones' research had "not been published in appropriate scientific venues" as reasons for putting him under review.

Notice they said increasingly speculative.



The review was to have been conducted at three levels: BYU administration, the College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, and the Physics Department.[32] However, BYU discontinued the review after the retirement agreement was reached with Jones.

So he retired rather than having them review his work.
Sound like he was afraid they would see through his BS.

He later published his work in Bentham Science Publishing.


The journals work on the model where the journal is available free, and authors pay to have their paper published.

You pay and they will publish. Good or bad.


Bentham was busted in 2009 accepting a paper for the Open Information Science Journal consisting of random sentences computer-generated with SCIgen, whose imaginary authors both worked at the Center for Research in Applied Phrenology (CRAP)

Basically Bentham publishes crap.

Bentham is on Beall's List of Predatory, Open Access Publishers.
So much for the validity of his work.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

Actually it is.

journals.indexcopernicus.com...

Probably many articles were published without the editor in chief knowing about it. But out of all the articles she quit over this one, as if controversial papers and research that are not set in stone, contested and ongoing are something unusual in the scientific world. One must ask oneself why she quit in such a panic.




top topics



 
44
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join