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.

 

Dr. Jones' MUST READ new article.

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 07:26 AM
link   
"Slap Nuts",

I address a number of these questions in this new article:

www.physics.byu.edu...

You may wish to note it on this site. And specifically, the metals content in the solidified metal is addressed.

I prefer to answer such questions via papers and articles (I am very pressed for time, and working on another paper and analyses), rather than on forums, but your help is much appreciated.

Steven J


In response to:

On 7/20/06, "Slap Nuts" < xxx@xxx.com> wrote:

I do not know if you have time, but your paper is being "debunked" on a web site that Dr. Fetzer has also been participating in. Here is the link. Please help respond to this guy if you have time… or maybe one of your students. I try, but I am not that great at it.

The thread "debunking" your paper, peer review and you in general:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Dr. Fetzer's Q and A session on the same site:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thank you for your time.

"Slap Nuts"


[edit on 21-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]

[edit on 21-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]




posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 07:41 AM
link   
Hmm, the BYU server seems to be down this morning.



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Hmm, the BYU server seems to be down this morning.



It is letting me download it, but when I try to open it I get a file corrupt error.

I sent him another message to let him know, but I do not like to bother him too much.

Just so you know, the paper is not a direct response to you, it just addresses some of the points you raise by coincidence.

[edit on 21-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 07:52 AM
link   
As far as the metal goes, if theres no clear chain of custody there is no credibility to the tests. This is just common sense.



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
As far as the metal goes, if theres no clear chain of custody there is no credibility to the tests. This is just common sense.


You have not even read the paper yet...

You know a "clear chain of custody" is impossible. Even if it was on video from T+1 you would claim the video to be doctored.

NONE OF THE GOV'T 'EVIDENCE' HAS A CLEAR CHAIN OF CUSTODY as they CONTROLLED IT and DID AS THEY PLEASED.

Double standard and as usual your point is MOOT.

When will the mods on this board just dump this guy?

No debate... Off topic... Double standards... circular logic... Same old crap, different thread.

[edit on 21-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by Vushta
As far as the metal goes, if theres no clear chain of custody there is no credibility to the tests. This is just common sense.


You have not even read the paper yet...

You know a "clear chain of custody" is impossible. Even if it was on video from T+1 you would claim the video to be doctored.

NONE OF THE GOV'T 'EVIDENCE' HAS A CLEAR CHAIN OF CUSTODY as they CONTROLLED IT and DID AS THEY PLEASED.

Double standard and as usual your point is MOOT.

When will the mods on this board just dump this guy?

No debate... Off topic... Double standards... circular logic... Same old crap, different thread.

[edit on 21-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]


The validity of the samples is very much 'in context' and 'on topic' whether you think so or not.

Whats the double standard? The evidence was very much cataloged and documented in the official process.

Circular logic?



Sorry if you don't like the facts, but in the real world if there is no clear chain of custody ...forget it.

Your other point is bogus, in fact in other posts the CTs bitch about not being able to access evidence because of the security surrounding the movement of materials..but CTs would call that 'cover-up".



[edit on 21-7-2006 by Vushta]



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
The validity of the samples is very much 'in context' and 'on topic' whether you think so or not.

Whats the double standard? The evidence was very much cataloged and documented in the official process.


There is no proof to the people that the government maintained a proper chain of custody. If they had, they would have allowed observers UNFETTERED access, which they did not.


Originally posted by Vushta
Sorry if you don't like the facts, but in the real world if there is no clear chain of custody ...forget it.


Sorry if you implicitly trust the governemt "officials" when they claim to be 100% above board... then take everyones cameras, ship off the evidence and refue to release even photos/videos of the crime scene. This wa done on PURPOSE to support the very argument you are making RIGHT NOW.


Originally posted by Vushta
Your other point is bogus, in fact in other posts the CTs bitch about not being able to access evidence because of the security surrounding the movement of materials..but CTs would call that 'cover-up".


The investigation should have been TRANSPARENT. Media and even the average Joe should have been allowed to watch, photo and video ANYTHING in the area and KEEP their equipment and film. This was not allowed to happen... and why? To support the very argument you are making RIGHT NOW... "There is no chain of custody... You have no evidence."

I claim the SAME argument against the NIST and 9/11 Comission 'evidence'. No third party observers were allowed to follow the chain of custody making their evidence inadmissable, unuseable and suspect.

[edit on 21-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
You know a "clear chain of custody" is impossible. Even if it was on video from T+1 you would claim the video to be doctored.

NONE OF THE GOV'T 'EVIDENCE' HAS A CLEAR CHAIN OF CUSTODY as they CONTROLLED IT and DID AS THEY PLEASED.


If none of the gov't evidence has a chain of custody, then how could any of it be trusted? Not to sound cynical or overly skeptical; I'm honestly curious--I know in any criminal proceedings, the defense would tear up the prosecution if the evidence against their client couldn't be accounted for from the moment it was recovered until the moment it was brought into the court room. Why should this be taken any differently?



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by MCory1
If none of the gov't evidence has a chain of custody, then how could any of it be trusted?


It can't be.

They have 'papers cataloging' the evidence and to Vushta this is a 100% valid and undeniable proof of chain of custody.

This is faulty logic especially given the fact that the government made the crime scene and investigation as OPAQUE as possible to the public and any third part observers... heck they even gave FEMA a hard time accesing the site...

I see no valid chain of custody for any of the governments evidence and there is evidence to show that the purposely made validation impossible.

Finally, is it your claim Vushta that Dr. Jones MANUFACTURED THIS EVIDENCE? (This is a YES or NO question.)



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 08:46 AM
link   


There is no proof to the people that the government maintained a proper chain of custody. If they had, they would have allowed observers UNFETTERED access, which they did not.


You're basing this conclusion on ...what?

unfettered access? You must be kidding.




Sorry if you implicitly trust the governemt "officials" when they claim to be 100% above board... then take everyones cameras, ship off the evidence and refue to release even photos/videos of the crime scene. This wa done on PURPOSE to support the very argument you are making RIGHT NOW.


I never claimed that I trust the gubment.
"take everyones cameras".."ship off evidence".."refuse to release photos of the crime scene"???




The investigation should have been TRANSPARENT. Media and even the average Joe should have been allowed to watch, photo and video ANYTHING in the area and KEEP their equipment and film. This was not allowed to happen... and why? To support the very argument you are making RIGHT NOW... "There is no chain of custody... You have no evidence."


Transparent to who's standards? The never satisfied CT's? Your "media/average Joe/ comment just shows a lack of understanding the process of a VALID investigation and the scale of 911.



I claim the SAME argument against the NIST and 9/11 Comission 'evidence'. No third party observers were allowed to follow the chain of custody making their evidence inadmissable, unuseable and suspect.


You claim it, but can you back it with evidence?



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 09:01 AM
link   
So by YOUR standards, Jones results are invalidated?---unless you're using the 'double standards' you accuse me of showing.



They have 'papers cataloging' the evidence and to Vushta this is a 100% valid and undeniable proof of chain of custody.


Correct.
A process was used to validate a chain of custody. Thats how it works.
How would your system work? (don't expect an answer to this.)



This is faulty logic especially given the fact that the government made the crime scene and investigation as OPAQUE as possible to the public and any third part observers... heck they even gave FEMA a hard time accesing the site...


Its only faulty logic when viewed through your paranoia.



I see no valid chain of custody for any of the governments evidence and there is evidence to show that the purposely made validation impossible.


YOU see no chain of custody so therefore it doesn't exist. Didn't you just accuse me of circular logic?

Where did you look?

What is this 'evidence' that shows the gubment purposely made validation impossible? Let me guess...because they didn't let every Joe mess with the crime scene while an investigation was in process?


Finally, is it your claim Vushta that Dr. Jones MANUFACTURED THIS EVIDENCE? (This is a YES or NO question.)



Obviously No.

Where did you get the idea that I thought he was manufacturing evidence.

I pointed out in a previous post using the anology of a religious zealot that he probably actually believes he's being honest and impartial because of his need to support his bias and beliefs.



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta

You're basing this conclusion on ...what?

unfettered access? You must be kidding.


USe the search function. MAny major media outlets reported that the scene was restricted by armed guards, etc. not even allowing photos from a distance... much less at the site. I am not here to educate you on the way the crime scene was controled. The media has already given you that opportunity.


Originally posted by Vushta
"take everyones cameras".."ship off evidence".."refuse to release photos of the crime scene"???


Yes, yes, and yes. Search google or here. I am not here to do your leg work or reprovide evidence for you.


Originally posted by Vushta
Transparent to who's standards? The never satisfied CT's? Your "media/average Joe/ comment just shows a lack of understanding the process of a VALID investigation and the scale of 911.


Transparent enough to allow photos and videos to be taken from a fair distance and RETAINED by the owners. Third party observers should also have been involved.


Originally posted by Vushta
You claim it, but can you back it with evidence?


The burden of proof lies on them and since the scene was controlled military style I think that is all the evidence it taks.

Vushta... You are getting a little better at your job here, but you still blow at it.



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
So by YOUR standards, Jones results are invalidated?---unless you're using the 'double standards' you accuse me of showing.


If you agree the NIST and 9/11 Comission reports are invalid, then sure. Alll I want is the evidence so a new, valid, observed, transparent investigation can occur.


Originally posted by Vushta
Correct.
A process was used to validate a chain of custody. Thats how it works.
How would your system work? (don't expect an answer to this.)


Just because a process exists does not make it valid.

The process should have involved FREEDOM/ACCESS OF PRESS, TRANSPARENCY and THIRD PART OBSERVERS.


Originally posted by Vushta
Its only faulty logic when viewed through your paranoia.


I am not paranoid. You are ignorant of human motives and history.


Originally posted by Vushta
YOU see no chain of custody so therefore it doesn't exist. Didn't you just accuse me of circular logic?


I see no chain of evidence because it was not sealed, maintained or validated by any non-governmental agency.


Originally posted by Vushta
What is this 'evidence' that shows the gubment purposely made validation impossible? Let me guess...because they didn't let every Joe mess with the crime scene while an investigation was in process?


1. Shipping off the evidence.
2. Not allowing photos from a fair distance.
3. Taking film from those who did record.
4. Not releasing the cache of NIST held photos and videos.
5. Not releasing any physical evidence for examination.
6. Refusal to answer questions.


Originally posted by Vushta
Obviously No.

Where did you get the idea that I thought he was manufacturing evidence.

I pointed out in a previous post using the anology of a religious zealot that he probably actually believes he's being honest and impartial because of his need to support his bias and beliefs.


So, he has tricked himself into believeing that fake evidence is real?

What you say here makes no sense. You are contradicting yourself.

Arguing with you is useless... proving negatives...

HERE IS WHERE THE GOVERNEMTN ADMITS TO DESTROYING THE STEEL PRIOR TO THIRD PARTIES OR OTHER GOVT AGENCIES EVALUATING IT:


Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center ... same obstacles the BPAT team encountered: an inability to examine the steel, ...
www.house.gov/science/wtc/charter.htm - 79k - Cached - Similar pages


source, THE GOVERNMENT


WHERE IS YOUR PRECIOUS AND VALID CHAIN OF CUSTODY EVIDENCED IN THE ABOVE ARTICLE?

[edit on 21-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 12:24 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...



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 12:26 PM
link   
I don't see too many people discussing the PDF in question.



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
I don't see too many people discussing the PDF in question.


I know. Vushta already "invalidated" the whole thing by saying the evidence cannot be verified so the whol thing is worthless.

I apologize, he baited me in and it worked... as usual.



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 01:00 PM
link   
Indeed, thats why everyone says 'don't feed the trolls'. I don't see that anyone is being a troll here, but if you don't want the threat to go off track, then don't discuss the points that you think are invalid.

HR, have you been able to peruse the document yet? THe link works for me.



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 01:06 PM
link   
All I can say is WOW!

What a powerful document.

1,3 Diphenylpropane, flourine, manganese, AL, S... Lack of Chromium.

No "thermal lances using thermite for cleanup"...

I do not EVEN KNOW WHERE TO START!

What a compelling document.



We (3 physicists and a geologist) have conducted
Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (EDS), also X-ray
Fluorescence (XRF) and Electron Microprobe analyses
on residue samples from the scene.
• We identify predominately iron, with very little
chromium, along with uncommon chemical elements
in abundance such as fluorine and manganese.
Aluminum and sulfur are present (expected from
thermate reactions).
• 1,3 Diphenylpropane was observed in dust, and
interesting bit of possibly corroborative evidence.
• The results, coupled with visual evidence at the scene
such as the flowing yellow-hot liquid metal, provide
compelling evidence that thermite reaction
compounds (aluminothermics) were used, meaning
thermite was deliberately placed in both WTC Towers
and WTC 7.


[edit on 21-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by Vushta
Correct.
A process was used to validate a chain of custody. Thats how it works.
How would your system work? (don't expect an answer to this.)


The process should have involved FREEDOM/ACCESS OF PRESS, TRANSPARENCY and THIRD PART OBSERVERS.

No "chain of custody" process in this country has ever involved any of the above. At least not until any subsequent trial is made public record.

Are we then to release all criminals that were convicted due to evidence that was subject to these 'chain of custody" requirements that you maintain are too lax to be dependable?


Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by Vushta
YOU see no chain of custody so therefore it doesn't exist. Didn't you just accuse me of circular logic?

I see no chain of evidence because it was not sealed, maintained or validated by any non-governmental agency.


What chain of custody process has ever been "validated by any non-governmental agency?"


Originally posted by Slap Nuts
HERE IS WHERE THE GOVERNEMTN ADMITS TO DESTROYING THE STEEL PRIOR TO THIRD PARTIES OR OTHER GOVT AGENCIES EVALUATING IT:


Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center ... same obstacles the BPAT team encountered: an inability to examine the steel, ...
www.house.gov/science/wtc/charter.htm - 79k - Cached - Similar pages


source, THE GOVERNMENT

WHERE IS YOUR PRECIOUS AND VALID CHAIN OF CUSTODY EVIDENCED IN THE ABOVE ARTICLE?


That's cute. Here you have linked us to the Charter of a proposed hearing of the Committee on Science of the U.S. House of Representatives. Funny how you do this yet do not link us to any of the information that came out of that particular hearing. I mean, your link can tell us when the hearing will be held, the agenda for the hearing, how the agenda was arrived at, why they consider the hearing to be necessary, who some of the witnesses are, etc. But it doesn't tell us what this Committee learned from the testimony given. Let me guess, could it be that what was testified to in that hearing doesn't match well with your particular view of what it should have revealed?

Well, I guess we'll never know,... Oh, wait! That's right! I just happen to have here a link to and quote from some of the testimony given in that very hearing!

Let's see...


Thanks to cooperation of the HSNE recycling plant, I have been able to study the steel from the WTC before recycling. I have identified and saved some components of the structures that appear to have been subjected to intense fire or impact of fast moving objects. Figures 1 through 4 show examples of inspected structures. These critical pieces are saved as perishable data and can be used in future research.

(EDIT - RED means a question from a Committee member - H) Please describe the impediments that you encountered during the investigation of the collapse of the WTC buildings, such as the loss of material from the WTC site and any effects of such impediments on your work.

I wish I had more time to inspect steel structure and save more pieces before the steel was recycled. However, given the fact that other teams such as NIST, SEAONY and FEMA-BPAT have also done inspection and have collected the perishable data, it seems to me that collectively we may have been able to collect sufficient data. The main impediments to my work were and still are:
Not having a copy of the engineering drawings and design and construction documents.
Not having copies of the photographs and videotapes that various agencies might have taken during and immediately after the collapse.

Source - Testimony of Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of California, Berkeley

Odd, isn't it, that despite being asked to "describe the impediments he encountered," Professor Astaneh-Asl's short list of the main impediments did not include not having access to the site, or not getting his hands on enough of the steel samples. In fact, he actually stated that it "seemed to him" that sufficient data may have been collected.

Also, in the article at your link, the reasons for the quick removal of a portion (only a tiny portion) of the materials there had to do with search and rescue operations.

In the wake of the collapses, search and rescue workers launched an around-the-clock recovery effort to find and recover survivors and victims who perished. To make way, literally tons of twisted steel and fractured concrete were removed from the rubble pile and loaded onto convoys of bulldozers and flatbed trucks to be carried away to recycling plants and landfills.

Apparently, to you, it would be better to let the steel sit there while people die under it.

The Committee Page you linked us to also says flat out on that page that it took FEMA a month to get BPAT teams to the site:


The BPAT team deployed to the WTC site was assembled by the American Society of Civil Engineers...
On September 11th, ASCE, in partnership with a number of other professional organizations, commenced the formation of an independent team of experts to conduct a building performance assessment study at the WTC site as part of ASCE’s Disaster Response Procedure. In late September, this team, the ASCE Disaster Response team, was officially appointed as the BPAT team and was funded by FEMA to assess the performance of the buildings and report its findings. The BPAT team received $600,000 in FEMA funding in addition to approximately $500,000 in ASCE in-kind contributions.

The 23-member BPAT team conducted an analysis of the wreckage on-site, at Fresh Kills Landfill and at the recycling yard from October 7-12, 2001, during which the team extracted samples from the scrap materials and subjected them to laboratory analysis...
Since November, members of the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY) have volunteered to work on the BPAT team’s behalf and are visiting recycling yards and landfills two to three times a week to watch for pieces of scrap that may provide important clues with regard to the behavior of the buildings.

In the month that lapsed between the terrorist attacks and the deployment of the BPAT team, a significant amount of steel debris – including most of the steel from the upper floors – was removed from the rubble pile, cut into smaller sections, and either melted at the recycling plant or shipped out of the U.S. Some of the critical pieces of steel – including the suspension trusses from the top of the towers and the internal support columns – were gone before the first BPAT team member ever reached the site. Fortunately, an NSF-funded independent researcher, recognizing that valuable evidence was being destroyed, attempted to intervene with the City of New York to save the valuable artifacts, but the city was unwilling to suspend the recycling contract. Ultimately, the researcher appealed directly to the recycling plant, which agreed to provide the researcher, and ultimately the ASCE team and the SEAoNY volunteers, access to the remaining steel and a storage area where they could temporarily store important artifacts for additional analysis. Despite this agreement, however, many pieces of steel still managed to escape inspection.


Note that the above was composed prior to the hearing and testimony that the above paper announced.

Harte



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Hatre,

Read the PRELIMINARY paper.

www.physics.byu.edu...

Get ready to start explaining away things like...

1,3 Diphenylpropane


I am going to guess it came from the gypsum wallboard, the UPSs in the Datacenter or the A/C system.


I take no joy in this... but I told you all this was coming in this thread...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 21-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join