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: 18
44
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 21 2016 @ 11:08 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yellow Journalism.

This websites reminds me of the National Enquirer.




posted on May, 22 2016 @ 03:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

If their study was correct. NIST and the military could have saved so much money that was used to develop known nano thermite! Who would have known paint primer has more explosive potential than known military grade nano thermite when tested in a calorimeter! LOL!

I wonder when they will challenge the Steven Jones peer reviewed paper.

Chirping Crickets......................................................




posted on May, 22 2016 @ 06:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Doctor Smith

There is no crickets chipping.
One, Jones has been proven a fraud by even other truthers. He was caught Photoshopping his evedance. His evedance was sent to him with no clear record it was from the WTC site.
Two, no cut columns found.
Threr, no slag found with Thermite byproducts.
Four, no evedance of casing found to direct the cut of Thermite.
Five, no complex system of wires found or blasting fragments found to ignite Thermite.
Six, Thermite hypothesis so weak, even truthers have given up on it.
Seven, the hoax sample of Thermite had elements that was accounted for by building materials
Eight, Jones paint chip flaming picture has other reasonable explanations.
Nine, Thermite paint would only start a fire. Not enough force or controlled direction to cut a column.

How I'm I wrong



posted on May, 22 2016 @ 06:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Jones peer review are a frauds. Why don't you believe any of the peer review papers that shoot Jones hypothesis down? You believe in the peer review?



posted on May, 22 2016 @ 06:39 AM
link   
And it's a lie that the WTC buildings fell at free fall speed. How many peer review papers prove over and over again that the buildings fell significantly slower than free fall speed? How many videos prove the buildings did not fall at free fall speed or completely collaspe floor by floor?



posted on May, 22 2016 @ 10:56 AM
link   


How I'm I wrong
a reply to: neutronflux

LOL!



posted on May, 22 2016 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Doctor Smith

Waiting for how I am wrong. Sad, most truthers have given up on Thermite.



posted on May, 22 2016 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux


One, Jones has been proven a fraud by even other truthers. He was caught Photoshopping his evedance. His evedance was sent to him with no clear record it was from the WTC site.


Wrong.

This information was created to discrete Jones from the Official narratives supporters, I have not seen any evidence that supports you silly claims.

As for the WTC dust sample, I can confidently claim the dust sample where proven to have gone through legal change of evidence process.


Five, no complex system of wires found or blasting fragments found to ignite Thermite.


True, however no one was looking in the WTC debris field were they?


Six, Thermite hypothesis so weak, even truthers have given up on it.


False, the only reason no one is supporting the Thermite paper because it was not properly Peer Reviewed.

No one has ever written a paper disputing Jones findings, and had it Peer Reviewed.


Seven, the hoax sample of Thermite had elements that was accounted for by building materials


Hoax thermite? You have absolutely no evidence to support that silly claim.


Eight, Jones paint chip flaming picture has other reasonable explanations.


Please do explain?


Nine, Thermite paint would only start a fire. Not enough force or controlled direction to cut a column.


Apparently you do not understand Jones paper or the science.

The fact is, Jones ran many flash burn test of this thermite and it burned faster and hotter then normal thermite.


How I'm I wrong


I just proved that your wrong, now go read Jones paper and prove me wrong.



posted on May, 22 2016 @ 10:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958




No one has ever written a paper disputing Jones findings, and had it Peer Reviewed.

Once again you have it backwards.



posted on May, 22 2016 @ 11:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Actually, you just ranted.

Did not prove how Thermite paint could be applied dense enough to cut a beam or why you would want to use Thermite paint?

You did not prove the origin of the dust samples, nor that it had anything not explained by building samples.

The peer review was done by a fly by night company with ethical problems. This has been documented over and over again. The peer review is meaningless.

And you skipped other points.

You didn't prove anything. Very sad.



posted on May, 22 2016 @ 11:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Most ethical studies of WTC buildings come out with the statement explosives and other means had no credible proof of contributing or being used to the buildings collapse. Why would they do research on something they already determined not used?
edit on 22-5-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2016 @ 11:29 PM
link   
So, yes. Engineering groups did look into the possibility of demo. Did not find any proof. It would be shown in the metallurgy. You don't even need dust samples to see if explosives or Thermite worked on metal.



posted on May, 22 2016 @ 11:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Doctor Smith
I wonder when they will challenge the Steven Jones peer reviewed paper.


Well, he has to write a peer reviewed paper first!



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

You can't dispute the Jones peer reviewed papers. Science doesn't lie when properly done. They don't dare try and dispute. Instead they hide in their little spider holes. Hoping it will just go away, but it won't. If his paper is sooooooo wrongly done surely they can try and get a peer reviewed paper to defend themselves. Unless. No. Say it isn't true.

Chirping Crickets.



edit on 23-5-2016 by Doctor Smith because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 07:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Doctor Smith
a reply to: hellobruce

You can't dispute the Jones peer reviewed papers


As we all know, as Jones has not written a peer reviewed paper, of course you cannot dispute a non existent paper!


Science doesn't lie when properly done.


Which is why no thermite was found at the WTC!



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 05:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Doctor Smith




You can't dispute the Jones peer reviewed papers. Science doesn't lie when properly done. They don't dare try and dispute. Instead they hide in their little spider holes. Hoping it will just go away, but it won't. If his paper is sooooooo wrongly done surely they can try and get a peer reviewed paper to defend themselves. Unless. No. Say it isn't true.


Which is why Jones is a joke.......

His alleged sample collection violated all the rules of scientific protocol

Jones claimed to have found "thermite" in a sample of dust allegedly sent him by woman who lived near WTC

In another case was seen filing off samples from a piece of steel for a memorial

If Jones wants can come to my town and test our WTC steel memorial for "thermite" ......."



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 04:29 PM
link   
I am back only because of one thing doc said, NIST would not examine the WTC dust. I thought it ment Jones could not get them to examine his dust. Also, nobody else would examine the dust.

One, Jones will not release his dust for study. Jones did not physically get most of his samples until 2005 or a later date. It seems all the samplrs were through second hand with no verification.

Two, James Millette has examined WTC dust samples with a chain of custody from the event for Thermite. He are the results www.internationalskeptics.com...

Its hard to dig through truther crap to find true research.
edit on 25-5-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Wrong button

edit on 25-5-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux



One, Jones will not release his dust for study. Jones did not physically get most of his samples until 2005 or a later date. It seems all the samplrs were through second hand with no verification.


False.

The fact is, your statement against Jones thermite study is completely wrong. Are you trying to win over the ignorant folks who have not done any research or read Jones paper?

As for some of us who have done research in Jones thermite paper, I might add Jones recorded every step he did in his studies and how he discover the thermite in the dust particles.

Jones explains how he was able to separate all the dust particles, the red paint chips, the primer, and other materials.

Jones ran different flash burn tests, which is how he was able to discover the thermite. However this particular thermite is unknown to the civilian population. Jones tried to compare this thermite with thermite that is used in Weldon, however it turned out, after several flash burn testing this thermite burned a lot hotter and faster then normal thermite, which Jones finally discovered it was a supper nano thermite.

Jones was asked to run his test again and the out come was the same.

The fact is, to this very day, no paper has been written against Jones findings, or his methods he used, and never published in a Peer Reviewed study, or paper.

I will agree Jones paper did not go though a proper Peer Review process, however it dose not mean his paper is scientifically wrong.

The other argument being spun here by official narrative supporters is attacking Jones charator, calling him names, as if that should have discredited him as a professor of science.

Anther fact is, Steven Jones had many credible Peer Reviewed papers done on many other subjects as well.

What I have wrote in this post is the hard core facts about Jones paper. It is undisputed in my opinion.



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

There is no documentation of where the samples were kept and how there were preserved for 4 or 5 years. It's well documented, is it benthem science, will publish anything. The fact Jones would Photoshop anything and pass it as evidence put his credibility in the toilet. Still calling all the engineers at NIST ASME criminals. Talk about unfounded aligations.







 
44
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join