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.

 

A review of the Jones 'paper' part 1

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Prof Jones
Due to research and teaching commitments, I rarely have time to read and respond in the various forum discussions regarding 9/11.

In this case, I was invited to say something -- I will be brief.

Many of the questions raised above are answered here:

www.physics.byu.edu...

In particular, we (3 physicists and a geologist) have obtained new results regarding the solidified metal which provide compelling evidence for the use of thermate.

I would also like to call your attention to the peer-reviewed papers published in the
Journalof911Studies.com .

Comments on the papers by Prof Kenneth Kuttler, Dr. Frank Legge and Gordon Ross would be particularly welcomed. Don't ignore these papers...







Mr. Jones I was wondering if you could expand upon Swartz comments.
Its right after the line in your paper "We've never observed it in any sampling we've ever done," It states that the source of 1,3-diphenylpropane was "most likely produced by the plastic of tens of thousands of burning computers." I was wondering your thoughts. Or why you left this line of your paper.
timesunion.com.../18/2006

Also have you contacted Barnett regarding the sulfer. Did you ask what he thought the likely sources were?


Furthermore have you seen these papers?
www.jod911.com...

Best


[edit on 21-7-2006 by Clark_Kent]

[edit on 21-7-2006 by Clark_Kent]




posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 08:15 PM
link   
Isn't it a strange coincidence that WTC 1, 2 & 7 all happened to be the ones that caught fire on 9/11/01 and it was the same buildings that the government or whoever had previously chosen to plant thermite charges in?

WTC 1 & 2 I can understand... but how in the heck did they know in advance that burning debris would fall on WTC 7 and start a large fire there that would be the cover story for their thermite charges bringing the building down?



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 10:26 PM
link   
How do you Explain this; Construction-grade steel melts at 2795 degrees Fahrenheit. That’s a proven fact, as can be seen from the website: www.chemicalelements.com...

we’re beginning to have a problem trying to coincide how jet fuel can melt construction-grade steel. So, let’s ponder this question: what do welders or factory workers use to melt steel? Answer: acetylene torches, electric arcs, or bottled oxygen. And do they ever use jet fuel as their energy source? Never, because jet fuel doesn’t burn hot enough. It has an ignition temperature of 410 degrees Fahrenheit, and if they tried to cut or melt steel with it, they’d sit there all day because it never reaches a high enough temperature. What jet fuel (or a similar derivative) is used for is lamp oil, charcoal starter fluid, or to run lawnmowers – not to cut or melt steel.

Now, if the laws of physics aren’t enough to convince you that something is awry, consider these words from author Eric Hufschmid in Time for Painful Questions: “Fire has never caused a steel building to collapse.” Ever! In the history of the world, fire has never caused a steel building to collapse, yet on the morning of 9-11, TWO of them did! Even Philadelphia’s raging 1991 Meridian Plaza fire (often called the most significant fire of the 20th century) which blazed on eight floors for nineteen straight hours and was countless times more extreme than that which affected the WTC towers, still didn’t cause that building to collapse. But we’re expected to believe that these two relatively smaller fires on 9-11 reduced the world’s two tallest structures to dust.

Underwriters Laboratories have also remarked that the steel used in WTC met the specs to withstand 2000-2500degree temp for 2+ hours. If needed I can refer you to the exact specs.

At any rate... Jet Fuel - burns hot and most of the 10,000 gallons was seen in a burst combustion outside of the building.... And then observing the video that the government allows us to see you can with close obervation see other explosions.


Sincerely,
Raven



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 10:40 PM
link   
Why do you think the steel had to melt to cause collapse?



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 11:26 PM
link   
we’re beginning to have a problem trying to coincide how jet fuel can melt construction-grade steel.

Who the heck is we?Even the CTers know better than to try that arguement.You joined today, that is sweet.Nope, the melted theory you will accept later,really contains melted steel,at least the therite/mat nonesense.There will also be the melted metal ,you'll hear steel,mumbo jumbo. It will be just as far fetched.Do yourself a favor.Got to this page and read away it might help.Is this on topic?

www.geocities.com...

This is a good start there are plenty others.



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 12:09 AM
link   
No 9/11 researcher that supports the alternative view says the steel had to melt for a collapse to take place.



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 01:47 AM
link   
I see some of the points of trying to debunk the theroy of termite/mate. I not even sure that is what it is..... However I know if you go with the collasping effect and say the floors feel and collaped with pressure/oxygen canisters/ etc .... If you watch some squibs blow out straight fine but do explain how they blow out but please explain the upwards explosions. Clear sign of explosives.


Raven



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 08:47 AM
link   
can you show us so we can understand what youre trying to say



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The time has come, I think to look critically at one of the latest manifestos, as it were, for the 9/11 Truth Seeker crowd.


You must have overlooked or discounted the data from NASA. They collected data on thermal hotspots from the debris of the WTC buidings 1, 2 and 7 using a plane with the AVIRIS (Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer) system.

Sources: 1. aviris.jpl.nasa.gov...
2. pubs.usgs.gov...

[edit on 22-7-2006 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

You must have overlooked or discounted the data from NASA. They collected data on thermal hotspots from the debris of the WTC buidings 1, 2 and 7 using a plane with the AVIRIS (Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer) system.

Sources: 1. aviris.jpl.nasa.gov...
2. pubs.usgs.gov...

[edit on 22-7-2006 by ULTIMA1]


So what your point? Too hot, too long?



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


So what your point? Too hot, too long?


Well thats what i get from the report, unless you know something else that can burn that hot that long under debris without air.

NASA shows thermal hotspots of up to 1300 degress from 16 to 23 September.

[edit on 22-7-2006 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


So what your point? Too hot, too long?


Well thats what i get from the report, unless you know something else that can burn that hot that long under debris without air.

NASA shows thermal hotspots of up to 1300 degress from 16 to 23 September.

[edit on 22-7-2006 by ULTIMA1]


Without air?

[edit: fixed quote tags]

[edit on 7/23/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 04:38 PM
link   
With out is air is a joke.Do you do any research at all?There were tunnels feeding air the whole time.There was a *snip* load of materials that would burn,hot at that! Wake up and smell Muslim extremists you shills for terrorism!!!

[edit on 22-7-2006 by Duhh]



Mod Edit: Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 7/23/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


Originally posted by Vushta


So what your point? Too hot, too long?


Well thats what i get from the report, unless you know something else that can burn that hot that long under debris without air.

NASA shows thermal hotspots of up to 1300 degress from 16 to 23 September.


Well Ultima1, are you saying that thermate/thermite burned for that long?

I mean, obviously something did. That is, unless you're saying that the satellite data was faked.

Harte



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Ok, here is the best part about Indiana Jones.The only thing in his career he is supposed to be good at is cold fusion!COLD FUSION!!!Correct! This is his major field of study.He was a bad scientist when it came to showing his work here as well.Ponds and his other side kick got caught lying about their proof,that they made it work.It never worked.Not even closeGuess who was on that crew?????.So Jones jumps from one alchemy idea to another.He is the shill for terror.He is taken P.T .Barnums favorite folks with him.Wake up!



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Duhh
Ok, here is the best part about Indiana Jones.The only thing in his career he is supposed to be good at is cold fusion!COLD FUSION!!!Correct! This is his major field of study.He was a bad scientist when it came to showing his work here as well.Ponds and his other side kick got caught lying about their proof,that they made it work.It never worked.Not even closeGuess who was on that crew?????.So Jones jumps from one alchemy idea to another.He is the shill for terror.He is taken P.T .Barnums favorite folks with him.Wake up!


Sorry, Duhh, but you've mischaracterized Jone's legitimate work.

Jones was not Pons' sidekick. He was not part of the failed cold fusion experiment. He was working on the problem from a different direction and actually eventually achieved cold fusion, technically, though the fusion he achieved is too weak to be used for any power generation.

Truth is, he just used a few tricks he came up with to take a regularly and naturally ocurring kind of cold fusion and kick it up a notch ala Emeril Lagasse.

Jone's real contribution IMO was that he came up with a much, much more sensitive neutron detection scheme. I think it was neutrons - maybe it was some other particle. I got a link around here somewhere. I'm sure you can find the info if you google it though.

Jones and Pons had collaborated somewhat, in that they had agreed to announce their findings simultaneously. But Pons reneged on the deal and went ahead and announced, obviously too early. Jones held off until he could get confirmation, which he did.

His results might someday be used for a neutron (or whatever it was) generating source, in case somebody needs some neutrons. What they would need them for is beyond me, but I'm no particle physicist.

Believe me, I'm the last guy to go to bat for Jones, but fair is fair....

Harte



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 08:03 PM
link   
Heart I hear ya.His theory did not work,however.And unless I am missing something it was because after better examination he was less than truthful on some of that work!He was connected to Jones and Ponds research.Dead end, the direction they worked it.Could be wrong,just do not think so.



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Sorry if I am wrong in that conclusion,tried to find some info onit.I read it a few years ago in the NYT looking now.My point still stands about ,this giving him no clue in structural engineering,which is the real expertise in this field.Sorry Hart,If I am wrong I accept your review!



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta

Well Ultima1, are you saying that thermate/thermite burned for that long?

I mean, obviously something did. That is, unless you're saying that the satellite data was faked.Harte



The NASA data i am talking about is not from a satellite it is from a aircraft with the Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer system.
Source: aviris.jpl.nasa.gov...

If you look at the data you will see images of hotspots that were taken on 16th and 23rd of September.
Source: pubs.usgs.gov...

[edit on 23-7-2006 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 23-7-2006 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
The NASA data i am talking about is not from a satellite it is from a aircraft with the Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer system.

Yeah, my bad. I forgot it was an aircraft. I have the link already, looked at it many times, in fact.

But the principle's the same, satellite or aircraft. The hotspots were there, obviously something was burning. Do you think it was thermite? This is what I asked.

Harte



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join