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: 7
48
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 06:58 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

It should be something like this. The samples were keep in laboratory grade glass sample containers filled with nitrogen to inert the atmosphere with in the container to prevent oxidation. The container was closed and dated with initials on a seal. The sample was locked in a cold, dark, and secured evidence locker for security and stop interactions with light. Any of those items listed in the paper?




posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Replied to myself, now that's funny.

Unlikely, but how do we even know the samples were not damaged, for lack of a better term, in shipping?



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux


Unlikely, but how do we even know the samples were not damaged, for lack of a better term, in shipping?


We don't.

And your "opinions" to what you believe about these dust samples are just that. "opinions"

Asking redundant questions concerning science that has no proof, doesn't make you right, does it?

You can ask any questions concerning science, however if there is no evidence to support your claims or questions then all you have left is an "opinion", or nothing at all.



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Again, there is no documentation or evidance the integrity of the samples was insured. Show me how my opinion is wrong with facts. Sight sources.
edit on 27-6-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux


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

Again, there is no documentation or evidance the integrity of the samples was insured. Show me how my opinion is wrong with facts. Sight sources.


Word games.

Again, just because you can asked a redundant question, where is your evidence of the dust samples being contaminated?

You do not have any evidence to support your "opinions".

The casual ATS readers are not interested in your "opinions" that you believe are the facts. Simply, you have no evidence.


edit on 27-6-2016 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Again, the burden of Jones proving the integrity and authenticity of the samples is on him when it's evidence of a "crime"

Take it there is no evidence any effort was take to ensure the authenticity and integrity of the samples over the five years. The samples probably were not sent certified mail. Chain of custody broken.

This is stalled out because you cannot advance the argument and admit the samples and paper are flawed from the start.



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux


Again, the burden of Jones proving the integrity and authenticity of the samples is on him when it's evidence of a "crime"

Take it there is no evidence any effort was take to ensure the authenticity and integrity of the samples over the five years. The samples probably were not sent certified mail. Chain of custody broken.

This is stalled out because you cannot advance the argument and admit the samples and paper are flawed from the start.


This thread is not about what you think of me.


Thermite backers praise a paper based on samples with no chain of custody?


Provide the evidence I asked for, if you cannot, then your assumptions are baseless.



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Still cannot come up with any proof Jones samples were preserved, gave a history of custody, or held to any standard of analytical authentication.

From: www.crime-scene-investigator.net...

"Establishing the Chain of Custody
The chain of custody is a tracking document beginning with detailed scene notes that document where the evidence was received from or collected. The chain of custody is initially established when an investigator takes custody of evidence at a crime scene, or when evidence is received from an officer or detective at, or from, the crime scene."

"Evidence Marking and Packaging
All evidence collected at a crime scene, or received at or during a crime scene investigation, is inventoried and packaged prior to leaving the scene to prevent loss or cross-contamination. Mark the item of evidence when possible. Evidence which cannot be marked, such as soil, hair and stains, should be placed in an appropriate container or envelope. Marking some items directly may interfere with forensic analysis of the item. Always mark the outer packaging.

Containers that have been inventoried and marked are sealed with agency-approved evidence tape prior to submittal or release to the custody of the investigating agency. Evidence tape is used to seal the packaging and is marked with the investigator's name or initials and the date sealed."




Still waiting on documented proof of Jones samples being authentic and evidence of a crime. You just cannot see what's wrong with getting samples in the mail five years later and saying they are from WTC. You don't get how much of a joke calling the samples evidence?



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

I don't suppose this ever went anywhere, because, of course, why would it?

First two paragraphs:

"James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.

Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, “Questions on the WTC Investigations” at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. “I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he said, referring to the NIST investigation. “I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.”"

edit on 27-6-2016 by Elbereth because: Add sarcasm



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 11:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Elbereth

There are other studies of the NIST reports. This paper on page 150 lists a few.

www.jod911.com...

The NIST does not hold a monopoly on the WTC. A lie of conspiracists. It just has throne the most money around.
edit on 27-6-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-6-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 11:16 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux


"Evidence Marking and Packaging
All evidence collected at a crime scene, or received at or during a crime scene investigation, is inventoried and packaged prior to leaving the scene to prevent loss or cross-contamination. Mark the item of evidence when possible. Evidence which cannot be marked, such as soil, hair and stains, should be placed in an appropriate container or envelope. Marking some items directly may interfere with forensic analysis of the item. Always mark the outer packaging.


But we are not talking about evidence from a crime scene are we?

No one on the ground was investigating dust samples on 911 were they?

Did you see any evidence of dust samples taken from our government marked and tagged?

BTW, who is calling the WTC dust sample a crime scene? You?

The fact is, the government mission was to cart away all evidence away as fast as they could.

As for thermite being found in the WTC dust samples, it was found under an electronic microscope, after Jones was able to separated every single micro in the dust particle. The fact is, Jones was not looking for thermite, he discovered it and ran several flash heat testing several times and was able to determining this was not any ordinary Thermite used in the civilian population. The fact is, this kind of Thermite was unheard of. It burned hotter and faster then normal Thermite. In the end of Jones paper, Jones himself states, there need to be more investigation into this Supper Nano-Thermite.

The fact is every single debunkers who has attack Jones science, has ridiculed it, and attack Jones character, but cannot challenge his science with anything credible.

Have you presented any scientific papers, or scientific Peer Review into rebutting Jones findings. No you have not. I rest my case here.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 12:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Science of Jones is wrong. A peer review, by physicist Dave Rogers.
www.internationalskeptics.com...

And there are sources of properly documented WTC dust.
www.internationalskeptics.com...
www2.usgs.gov...



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 12:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Scientists have debunked Jones work over and over again. To say it's never been peer reviewed is a lie. I think that has been pointed out to you once before.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 12:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Finally, Jones is trying to pass his samples off as EVIDENCE of thermite. The burden to prove the samples are authentic and not contaminated rests on Jones. Do to no evidence the samples were preserved, secured, and properly archived, the paper starts lacking in credibility and sound clinical procedure from the start. So its not even a legitimate paper.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 12:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
Provide the evidence I asked for, if you cannot, then your assumptions are baseless.


Prove the samples came from the WTC, otherwise any claim about them is baseless!

If you cannot prove they came from the WTC any claim about what they contained is meaningless.
edit on 28-6-2016 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 12:26 AM
link   
a reply to: gladtobehere

Do you get paid to be a 'truther'??

If not, you are not a professional



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 12:42 AM
link   
neutronflux said:

"The NIST does not hold a monopoly on the WTC. A lie of conspiracists. It just has throne the most money around."

--------------------------

Darn conspiracists. What a bunch of dummies! They lied and told me the NIST reports were most important because NIST conducted the official investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings. And now I find out that the NIST reports are only important because they were the ones who had "throne" the most money around. Who would have thought?
edit on 28-6-2016 by Elbereth because: snark reduction



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 01:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Elbereth

It's still a misconception the NIST is the only report. The NIST has legitimately been criticized in open debate. Sorry engineering firms, insurance companies, and universities have questioned the NIST but still found the WTC building collapses were due to fire. Sorry that your biases are showing and to inform you the NIST reports have been questioned.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
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.


I see you are back to your old tricks with your favorite word, "opinion" and demands for credible sources. You do this whenever you have backed yourself into a corner, which seems to be fairly often.

The Jones paper is the source of the sample collection descriptions. I provided that reference for you, but it seems that you have again failed to read the paper that you are so strongly opinionated about. Who is telling you what to think and say? Are you buying into Gage, et al., or some other half-baked website? Jones provided no information on storage, protection from humidity and oxidation, or protection from contamination of 5+ year old samples in his 'credible source' paper that you are purportedly basing your opinions on.

Unless you can show credible sources that describe the storage, protection from humidity and oxidation, and protection from contamination, the samples are suspect along with the scientific capabilities of the Jones team. Your 'opinions' don't count. Provide the reference or admit that you have no such evidence and it is only your 'opinion.'

My earlier challenge to you is still open. I made this general challenge in the past on several threads and no one has disproved my conclusions. No one has even tried. Either they are not capable or can see the truth to my analysis of Jones' data. You can start with Jones' thermodynamic data and we can work our way to the DSC and EDAX so we can discover that all of this fuss was over red primer paint.



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 04:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Informer1958
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.


I see you are back to your old tricks with your favorite word, "opinion" and demands for credible sources. You do this whenever you have backed yourself into a corner, which seems to be fairly often.

The Jones paper is the source of the sample collection descriptions. I provided that reference for you, but it seems that you have again failed to read the paper that you are so strongly opinionated about. Who is telling you what to think and say? Are you buying into Gage, et al., or some other half-baked website? Jones provided no information on storage, protection from humidity and oxidation, or protection from contamination of 5+ year old samples in his 'credible source' paper that you are purportedly basing your opinions on.

Unless you can show credible sources that describe the storage, protection from humidity and oxidation, and protection from contamination, the samples are suspect along with the scientific capabilities of the Jones team. Your 'opinions' don't count. Provide the reference or admit that you have no such evidence and it is only your 'opinion.'

My earlier challenge to you is still open. I made this general challenge in the past on several threads and no one has disproved my conclusions. No one has even tried. Either they are not capable or can see the truth to my analysis of Jones' data. You can start with Jones' thermodynamic data and we can work our way to the DSC and EDAX so we can discover that all of this fuss was over red primer paint.



By questioning the chain of custody you are effectively accusing the scientists and the citizens of conspiring to fake evidence by manufacturing high-tech energetic nanocomposites that only a handful of labs in the world can even make and adding them to samples! That sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory to me! And yet you find the idea of the government tampering with evidence ridiculous! Someone get Pat a tin foil hat!

Now that red/gray chips, or at least particles purporting to be them, have been found in professionally collected samples independent of Steven Jones', debunkers can now be assured that these red/gray chips, whatever they are, did not enter Jones' samples via accidental contamination, and were not intentionally added by 9/11 truth activists. So criticisms regarding the collection and chain of custody of Jones' samples are now null and void.

source


Physicist Steven Jones - one of the scientists who found thermite
in the World Trade Center dust discusses in depth his process of discovery
using the scientific method. Chain of custody of the WTC dust and nanothermite are discussed in depth.


edit on 29-6-2016 by Doctor Smith because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
48
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join