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.

 

I Was A "Professional" 9/11 "Truther" (And I Still Am!)

page: 11
48
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Doctor Smith




At 38 minutes into this video the facts (with witnesses) of the gathering of a pristine dust sample is shown. Facts. Not regurgitated BS.

Right on the info line it says:


Buy the DVD Here with many extras:


Just someone else trying to make a buck off the 3000 dead people.




posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Doctor Smith

That's not the point. What's the only thing that makes spheres?
edit on 4-7-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 03:06 PM
link   
If spheres come from forging steel, welding steel, torch cutting steel, and structural fires of rusty steel, how many years has sphere contamination been building up in New York. Where did the spheres from the skeptic experiment come from.

And to say jones work has not been examined by scientists and debunked is a lie.



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux


And to say jones work has not been examined by scientists and debunked is a lie.


Sources please?

If Jones science was debunked where is the paper, who was the scientist?

What year was Jones paper debunked?

Was the paper Peer Reviewed?

What scientist had access to the WTC dust samples, besides Jones?



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

There is a whole bank / reserve collection of WTC samples with complete chain of custodies. Start with this question, there is nobody that has access to WTC samples?



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux


There is a whole bank / reserve collection of WTC samples with complete chain of custodies.


Yet, you cannot post this evidence? I guess "opinions" are facts now?

You made the claim, now back it up?


(post by UnderwearBandit removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 11:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

I have posted links already in this thread. You can go back and find them.



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 11:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: Doctor Smith




No peer reviewed papers challenging Jone's peer reviewed paper so I call BS.


Ok,

so name some of the researchers/scientists that "peer revived" Jones work and said it was valid.

His research wasn't peer reviewed in the sense many like yourself think it has , reviewed by his peers, other nuts that make a living of the conspiracy circle, well then yes it was "peer" reviewed.



Since you aren't going to challenge Jone's paper with a peer reviewed paper of your own. Why don't you lift a finger and look the information up yourself? Can you do anything. I'm sick of spoon feeding your kind.



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Doctor Smith

You been given links and information jones paper is invalid, pseudoscience, and blemished by scandal. And he is the strongest case for thermite? Jones has been debunked by skeptics and conspiracists. By the nuke bomb backers and Dr Wood?



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 11:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Just one set of WTC samples. Google link. www.google.com...://projects.nfstc.org/trace/docs/Trace%2520Presentations%2520CD-2/Petraco.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjzxe bru9vNAhVi2IMKHT1oC1YQFggyMAg&usg=AFQjCNEar0sPEKe3qFd6hcjWMuBdQ1pOnA&sig2=mD5p4ggU1oEQJAEmQQKxCw


This is not even counting the EPA samples and others. The problem with conspiracists, believe the lies posted in scores of sites and hundreds of YouTube videos. The numerous over produced noise that by design obscures the few quite links to boring public records.



edit on 4-7-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2016 @ 05:37 AM
link   
We might speculate about 9/11 and come up with millions of stories, but the truth is that we will never get to the bottom of this cos there is no conclusive evidence to prove any of the theories.



posted on Jul, 5 2016 @ 07:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Doctor Smith

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: Doctor Smith




No peer reviewed papers challenging Jone's peer reviewed paper so I call BS.


Ok,

so name some of the researchers/scientists that "peer revived" Jones work and said it was valid.

His research wasn't peer reviewed in the sense many like yourself think it has , reviewed by his peers, other nuts that make a living of the conspiracy circle, well then yes it was "peer" reviewed.



Since you aren't going to challenge Jone's paper with a peer reviewed paper of your own. Why don't you lift a finger and look the information up yourself? Can you do anything. I'm sick of spoon feeding your kind.


So I guess that's a "NO".




posted on Jul, 5 2016 @ 09:05 AM
link   
Links to information on the pseudoscience of Jones.
www.skeptic.com...
www.internationalskeptics.com...
www.google.com...://www.darksideofgravity.com/nexus_gb.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwif3YC9vtzNAhUF7yYKHXl7CHMQFggkMAE&usg=AF QjCNF8x4g8oZm_YgNzgygy7Bvam_fkvA&sig2=WSErjtw6Wt4fZ2b_WAcAQA
edit on 5-7-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-7-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2016 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: tracy18




we will never get to the bottom of this cos there is no conclusive evidence to prove any of the theories.

There are only a handful of professionals that believe in the conspiracies.



posted on Jul, 5 2016 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Doctor Smith

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Doctor Smith
a reply to: Doctor Smith

See how none of the theories hold up when slightly scrutinized by a modestly educated individual like myself. It's no wonder no peer reviewed papers have been submitted to challenge Steven Jone's peer reviewed paper.



What doesn't hold up when evaluated by a scientist is Jones' paper. Jones is a egomaniacal fraudster. His contrived paper is self-inconsistent and the data he includes disproves his hypothesis.
Peer reviewed means little as Jones' paper review was questionable at best. The samples were tainted, the protocols were incorrect, and Jones and his cohorts had little understanding of the chemistry involved.



No peer reviewed papers challenging Jone's peer reviewed paper so I call BS. They're afraid to challenge his paper. Just regurgitate lies.

At 38 minutes into this video the facts (with witnesses) of the gathering of a pristine dust sample is shown. Facts. Not regurgitated BS.



I see you are locked onto the "peer review" phrase again as though that guarantees some sort of legitimacy in his paper. Remember that many actual peer reviewed papers have been retracted when proven wrong. Jones won't do so because this is about fame and fortune for Jones. The reason that there are no papers challenging Jones' paper is because Jones' paper is so poorly written that no one bothers. Only a few of the scientific illiterate believe Jones, who was forced to resign his post as a professor because of his egomania. Note that he also has a publication about how Jesus walked among the Native American tribes. The other reality that Jones lives in carried over into a paper about 9/11 where he started with his conclusion and then rigged the analyses to find what he wanted. He didn't get away with it as his data disproves his conclusions. I have roasted Jones' paper in several early threads and challenged any Jones fanboy to show how the thermodynamics and analytical protocols are consistent with thermite and not red primer paint. Why would ten tons of the "highly reactive" material remain in the dust? Why did the chips extinguish them selves when he lit them with a torch? Only those gullible folk who want a demolition are promoting this in spite of the fact that there is no evidence and that a thin layer of such material wouldn't do anything more than gently warm the steel IF it could even be ignited.
Jones is a complete fraud.



posted on Jul, 5 2016 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux


Links to information on the pseudoscience of Jones.
www.skeptic.com...
www.internationalskeptics.com...
www.google.com...://www.darksideofgravity.com/nexus_gb.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwif3YC9vtzNAhUF7yYKHXl7CHMQFggkMAE&usg=AF QjCNF8x4g8oZm_YgNzgygy7Bvam_fkvA&sig2=WSErjtw6Wt4fZ2b_WAcAQA


The fact is, two of your links are nothing but people's "opinions" nothing more.

The third link is a 404 error.

If this all you have in debunking Jones paper, then you have failed to prove your "opinions" to every casual ATS readers in debunking Jones paper.



posted on Jul, 5 2016 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

The first link gives names of the researchers that find jones work flawed and not professional. Leads to work that debunks jones.

The second link gives a skeptics view. Links to more debunking. Examples of persons interested in the lack of science among conspiracists.

Third link. Hope you can manage to find the link to the English version. www.darksideofgravity.com...

Document name. nexus_gb.pdf

Physicist friendly to conspiracists, but finds evidence of thermite /explosives very lacking.

Might try to read skeptic forums. They outline how truly the conspiracists lack in science and objectivity.


Finally, there is no evidence of columns cut by thermite at the WTC. What does that say about jones pseudoscience?
edit on 5-7-2016 by neutronflux because: Added doc name



posted on Jul, 5 2016 @ 07:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958

What scientist had access to the WTC dust samples, besides Jones?



Still going with jones only one with access to WTC samples.

Sources please!



posted on Jul, 5 2016 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux


The first link gives names of the researchers that find jones work flawed and not professional. Leads to work that debunks jones.


"Opinions" only. No credible science here?


The second link gives a skeptics view. Links to more debunking. Examples of persons interested in the lack of science among conspiracists.


"Skeptics view," more "opinions," where is their science?


Third link. Hope you can manage to find the link to the English version.

www.darksideofgravity.com...


Most of us speak and read English, perhaps you can find a English version for us?

You must understand when debating science, one must produce science, or they have nothing but other people "opinions" and nothing more.

The website you gave are only "opinions" nothing more.

Speaking of pseudo science, why are you not complaining about the NIST pseudo science?



new topics

top topics



 
48
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join