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

a reply to: samkent

I am talking about stamps, engraving's, name plates placed on pieces of structural steel that indicates it's intended purpose and placement during construction. Like serial number, part tracking, and certification in jet manufacturing.

a reply to: neutronflux

Thermite backers praise a paper based on samples with no chain of custody? Yet, no scrutiny of this video?

Where is your evidence to back your claim?

a reply to: Informer1958

Because the paper states they were kept in houses with no method of preservation or method to prevent contamination. Only the private owners reassurance what the samples were and nobody used them for a ashtray or dust bin. Nothing like tamper seal. Not kept under lock and key. No documentation.

a reply to: Informer1958

However, what containers were used to get the samples and were they lab clean? Or just a pickle or pill bottle?

a reply to: neutronflux

Thanks for the video. I was wondering if the steel was marked to indicate location as installed.

Each piece of steel was marked with a code number indicating what floor, face, and section it would occupy

For example PONYA A251 92-95 Meant a panel for North Tower (A), spanning 3 floors from 92-95, east face (Starting from North 1 to 4 clockwise), the 51st column in the face

Engineers by decoding the code could tell from where the steel came from........

a reply to: firerescue

Thank you. That answers how they could know what piece was what.

a reply to: neutronflux

Because the paper states they were kept in houses with no method of preservation or method to prevent contamination. Only the private owners reassurance what the samples were and nobody used them for a ashtray or dust bin. Nothing like tamper seal. Not kept under lock and key. No documentation.

I am not interested in your "opinions" that you are claiming as facts.

Source please?

a reply to: Informer1958

The burden is not on me!

From: Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade
Center Catastrophe

"The earliest-collected sample came from Mr. Frank De-
lessio who, according to his videotaped testimony [17], was
on the Manhattan side of the Brooklyn Bridge about the time
the second tower, the North Tower, fell to the ground. He
saw the tower fall and was enveloped by the resulting thick
dust which settled throughout the area. He swept a handful
of the dust from a rail on the pedestrian walkway near the
end of the bridge, about ten minutes after the fall of the
North Tower. He then went to visit his friend, Mr. Tom
Breidenbach, carrying the dust in his hand, and the two of
them discussed the dust and decided to save it in a plastic
bag. On 11/15/2007, Breidenbach sent a portion of this dust
to Dr. Jones for analysis."

Paper itself doesn't outline or document how the sample was kept and maintained for six years. Nor gives how the sample was isolated from contamination. Or outlines any effort for the listed samples in maintaining sample integrity or preventing contamination. Now it's your turn to prove what effort and documentation used to keep the samples preserved and free of contamination.

a reply to: Informer1958

I guess all plastic leach chemicals with time? www.marksdailyapple.com...

a reply to: neutronflux

I'm often puzzled by the lack of interest in YouTube videos. Here on ATS we frequently see anti-YouTube propaganda. It's just video.

When I'm studying a particular issue I'll sometimes watch the video without the sound. Listen without watching the video. And watch several times looking at a different part of the screen each time. A lot can be learned from video.

a reply to: neutronflux

Thermite backers praise a paper based on samples with no chain of custody? Yet, no scrutiny of this video?

The burden is not on me!

The burden is on you, you are the one making these comments about the WTC dust sample.

Now you have to back up your claim with a credible source, if you cannot provide us with a source to back up your "opinions", then it is just your "opinion" and nothing more.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: neutronflux

Thermite backers praise a paper based on samples with no chain of custody? Yet, no scrutiny of this video?

The burden is not on me!

The burden is on you, you are the one making these comments about the WTC dust sample.

Now you have to back up your claim with a credible source, if you cannot provide us with a source to back up your "opinions", then it is just your "opinion" and nothing more.

Ah, once again with the "opinions" comments when you don't have an answer. The burden is on you since you are defending Jones' paper and this is a serious criticism. The 'credible' source was Jones' paper. Perhaps you didn't recognize the title or don't think that the paper is credible, which puts you in a quandary. My opinion is that you have never read the paper and are basing your opinions on the opinions of others. How's that for opinionating?
If you do ever bother to read Jones paper, he discusses the sample collection on pages 8 and 9 in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, Volume 2. Sample acquisition began in 2006 and extended into February 2008 from the various dust collectors. There is no chain of custody for the samples and no documentation other than the owners stating where they picked them up 5 to 6 years earlier. No one really knows exactly where they came from or if they had been modified in the intervening years.

outlining a reply to: Informer1958

Where is the documenttion outlining how the samples were not and kept form being contaminate? Simple question.

Actually, the person bringing allegations of a crime must document and account for the history of a sample. How that sample was obtained, preserved, and protected from contamination. Jones fiction is a joke to science. Starting with no accounts of the samples for years at a time and no archival methods applied to preserving the samples.

a reply to: neutronflux

Thermite backers praise a paper based on samples with no chain of custody? Yet, no scrutiny of this video?

Source Please.

You made this claim now back it up with a credible source. I did not make this claim you did.

You have to understand when debating an issue and one makes a claim, you have to back it up with a credible source.

The fact is, debating an issue is not a one sided issue.

originally posted by: Informer1958
Now you have to back up your claim with a credible source,

So you now think Jones's paper is NOT a credible source!

Thank you for playing!

a reply to: pteridine

There is no chain of custody for the samples and no documentation other than the owners stating where they picked them up 5 to 6 years earlier.

Prove it?

Where is your source on this "opinion"?

a reply to: hellobruce

So you now think Jones's paper is NOT a credible source!

Funny, Yet no one on here can provide any credible sources but only give their "opinions" and demanding for everyone to believe their "opinions are the facts.

Source Please.

a reply to: Informer1958

It's Jones that didn't provide evidance the samples were not tampered with, contaminated, nor properly archived and preserved. Who knows what interaction with the atmosphere, humidity, sunlight, oxidation took place for years on end? Does the paper outline how they were mitigated? Sorry, dilutions are not going to change that.

a reply to: neutronflux

It's Jones that didn't provide evidance the samples were not tampered with, contaminated, nor properly archived and preserved. Who knows what interaction with the atmosphere, humidity, sunlight, oxidation took place for years on end?

That is your "opinion" nothing more. Just because you "assume" the WTC dust samples were contaminate, it doesn't mean your "opinion" is a fact now does it?

Your assumptions are your believe, I get it. However you have no credible sources to back up that claim.

a reply to: Informer1958

No, there is no documentation or proof any means was taken to ensure the integrity of the samples. Show me otherwise.