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: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 01:57 PM
link   

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



The PDF is a transcript of proceeding conducted less than 6 months after the event.
It contains no comments in response to the allegations of 'not having access to evidence' and such.

Is this really suprising concidering the short amout of time for the events of 911 to the aquiring of information..disseminating it ..and presenting the conclusions at a committee meeting? We're talking less than 6 months.

The politicians were getting an awful lot of crap from all sides at that time and had to respond with ..something.

But how about the information from the people involved in the investigation? Not worried politicians, but the people who understand the process.

How about the head of BAPT for starters?

Heres a pdf of his testimony.

www.house.gov...

Read it and see if you can gain any insight into what actually progressed.



[edit on 21-7-2006 by Vushta]

[edit on 21-7-2006 by Vushta]




posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Vushta... please read and respond to Dr. Jones' new article.

Thanks.



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
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...


The tests? Probably accurate.

The conclusions? Totally bogus without a chain of custody being verified.

Sorry if you don't like this fact..but it is a fact none the less.

Jones got a sample from someone....one of his supporters? I think it would help if he disclosed who he got the sample from so it could be somewhat verified...but then that would still be questionable because the samples could have been changed.

Sorry..it doesn't wash.

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



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
Vushta... please read and respond to Dr. Jones' new article.

Thanks.


If the sample is bogus, even tho the analysis is accurate..the conclusions are invalid.

I'm not reading 172 pages of contextual hogwash.



[edit on 21-7-2006 by Vushta]



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
if you don't want the threat to go off track, then don't discuss the points that you think are invalid.


If someone follows that advise whats the point?

All responses to comments by someone who holds the opposite view is from the basis of thinking the information being responded to is 'invalid'.

The problem with not responding is that the person making the point will most likely take a 'no response' as affirming the point and others may believe the same.

If you mean 'don't respond to subject changes' I agree. If someone asks for evidence of explosives, for instance, and the replies are along the lines of "PNAC....Operation NW....fell too fast..etc." those should be ignored because they are obvious attempts to avoid answering the question or address the point being made.



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
If the sample is bogus, even tho the analysis is accurate..the conclusions are invalid.

I'm not reading 172 pages of contextual hogwash.
[edit on 21-7-2006 by Vushta]


Finally showing your true colors?

He explains the origins of the samples.

FEMA came up with and documented the 1, 3 Diphenylpropane...


I read the NIST report so I could see both sides. I read the 9/11 comission report (mostly)
... Why not look at the opposing point of view? Fear?

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



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 02:45 PM
link   
1,3, Diphenylpropane is a component of styrene, a common building material. 1,3 Diphenylpropane is released when styrene is burned.

Nice try, though.



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts


He explains the origins of the samples.

FEMA came up with and documented the 1, 3 Diphenylpropane...

I read the NIST report so I could see both sides. I read the 9/11 comission report (mostly)
... Why not look at the opposing point of view? Fear?

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



Fear? ..of what?

I live in...well..surrounded by nature. I have a dial up connection. I'm not waiting to download 175 pages of what I'll guess is mostly filler wraped around the same 'ol crap.

PDF's often freeze and I can't get out of them.
Not gonna bother if something is the same 'ol chit.

Can you explain whats new in it?

Not to be repetitive, but "explaining the origins of the samples" is meaningless without a verified chain of custody.. Sorry.



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Its worth reading the part where he takes excerpts from e-mails sent from colleagues warning him he was risking his reputation if he pursued his claims. Apparently he sees this as a vindication of his beliefs rather than as well meaning attempts to prevent him from committing career suicide.

But as a whole it is a rather long and padded out diatribe with a lot of useless fluff.


[edit on 21-7-2006 by HowardRoark]



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Howard Roark

Its worth reading the part where he takes excerpts from e-mails sent from colleagues warning him he was risking his reputation if he pursued his claims. Apparently he sees this as a vindication of his beliefs rather than as WELL MEANING attempts to prevent him from committing career suicide.





From www.physics.byu.edu...



"“The publication of this
article can be stopped…and I
have the contacts to make this
happen if necessary, but I prefer
to give you the opportunity to
consider the consequences…?



You mean to tell us Howard that the person (whoever he/she was) who wrote this had well meaning motivations?



I promise you that the person who wrote this email does not give a rats patootie about Dr. Jones or his reputation.

Apparently the dillusion is more massive than I thought.




[edit on 21-7-2006 by TxSecret]



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta

I live in...well..surrounded by nature. I have a dial up connection. I'm not waiting to download 175 pages of what I'll guess is mostly filler wraped around the same 'ol crap.

PDF's often freeze and I can't get out of them.
Not gonna bother if something is the same 'ol chit.


Vushta,
I hear you. I have the same problem.

I'm right clicking then downloading. That usually works better for me.

The file is about 5.8 megs. My connection right now is only 31.2 bps, so it's gonna take a while (thanks a lot, Netzero!).

Maybe one of us can email the file to you. Interested?

Harte

EDIT - Took slightly more than 30 minutes. I'll read it later. H.

[edit on 7/21/2006 by Harte]



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta

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.


After saying that the presence of this chemical is strong evidence for the use of thermate, Jones cites the article where he got the info.

Guess what the EPA scientist actually said?

One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at levels "that dwarfed all others": 1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never observed it in any sampling we've ever done," Swartz said. He said it was most likely produced by the plastic of tens of thousands of burning computers.



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by Vushta

I live in...well..surrounded by nature. I have a dial up connection. I'm not waiting to download 175 pages of what I'll guess is mostly filler wraped around the same 'ol crap.

PDF's often freeze and I can't get out of them.
Not gonna bother if something is the same 'ol chit.


Vushta,
I hear you. I have the same problem.

I'm right clicking then downloading. That usually works better for me.

The file is about 5.8 megs. My connection right now is only 31.2 bps, so it's gonna take a while (thanks a lot, Netzero!).

Maybe one of us can email the file to you. Interested?

Harte

EDIT - Took slightly more than 30 minutes. I'll read it later. H.

[edit on 7/21/2006 by Harte]


Harte..I'm glad someone feels my pain. lol. dial up sucks for things like reading and responding to long papers. I'll gladly take up the offer to email the file. Thanks!
I hate to respond to something I haven't read but I hate being tied up that long.

Let me know if you need any info.



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by TxSecret

Howard Roark

Its worth reading the part where he takes excerpts from e-mails sent from colleagues warning him he was risking his reputation if he pursued his claims. Apparently he sees this as a vindication of his beliefs rather than as WELL MEANING attempts to prevent him from committing career suicide.





From www.physics.byu.edu...



"“The publication of this
article can be stopped…and I
have the contacts to make this
happen if necessary, but I prefer
to give you the opportunity to
consider the consequences…?



You mean to tell us Howard that the person (whoever he/she was) who wrote this had well meaning motivations?



I promise you that the person who wrote this email does not give a rats patootie about Dr. Jones or his reputation.

Apparently the dillusion is more massive than I thought.




[edit on 21-7-2006 by TxSecret]


Well that one was probably someone f'ing with his head. People do that you know. espcially when they think you are a kook. Do you really think the "Man" would bother to send an e-mail?



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 02:08 AM
link   
Hmmm.. Ok Howard.. First it was "WELL MEANING attempts", then it was "f'ing" with his head. Would you make up your mind already!


Oh but wait.. it has to be ANYTHING but the "man". Heeeyuck.



And some more:




and more:




You seem to like to use those alot so I thought I would wear them out for ya'..


But really


Vushta, why don't you start the pdf downloading while you go do something else. I used to do that all the time back in the day when I still used dialup. It's an interesting read and it's worth your time, especially seeing that you are posting in this thread. (It will help you with a premise) If adobe reader is screwing things up, why don't you try uninstalling it and installing the latest version? (Again, it shouldn't kill you to not be in front of you computer while it's downloading something hideously large, relatively speaking of course)

Something I'd like to focus on is the part that analyzed the molten (orange red) metal streaming out of and down the tower.



From www.physics.byu.edu...


"NIST says molten metal is “consistent with it being molten aluminum". White plume is consistent with aluminum oxide BUT:

Since when does molten aluminum appear yellow in daylight conditions?"


If it was not molten aluminum and it was supposed to be mostly iron, where the heck did it come from?? (I have a pretty good idea)

I find it VERY interesting NIST says it was aluminum when it's obvious it wasn't.


What are your thoughts on this?




[edit on 22-7-2006 by TxSecret]



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 02:41 AM
link   
Damocles,

Good point but I wish you guys would beat something more obvious and self evident to death like why the NIST would say the spewing liquid "metal" coming out of the tower just prior to collapse was aluminum when it's plainly OBVIOUS it couldn't be. Oh but wait.. ALL videos have been altered to make the aluminum glow that color.






[edit on 22-7-2006 by TxSecret]



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 11:29 AM
link   
personally i find many opinions here unfathomable. it seems that theres still quite a few personalities that enjoy being lied to. keep lying to me as long as you can defend that lie with another lie.

all this 'chain of custody' bit is about as lame as squeaky fromme claiming charles manson was jesus.

some of you are just sick in the head. still defending one of the biggest lies in history because we cannot prove this singular facet (thermate) is valid.

look at ALL the red flags! -not that the thermate isnt valid, but c'mon grow a brain already, 911 was NOT carried out by 19 boxcutting saudis, half of which are still alive. WTC7 did not collapse because of fire, wait uh, something (hush hush). etc. etc. etc.

some of you are just sad. where is your patriotism? because the case still has 0.00001 percent deniability, youre willing to defend the biggest coup in history? and all the while waving the banner of "innocent till proven guilty." Its laughable, but i want to puke. Cant we all agree that in a regular court of law that this administration, its black ops muscle, and the official story it still perpatrates would be found guilty guilty GUILTY!

but some of you are stuck on 'political correcto' nonsense.

is it worth it? America has everyday been more increasingly destroyed since that day and some of you nitwits are still standing around with your thumbs in your mouths. Grow some man-units and accept the facts. and my goodness, if you want to be an idiot - dont do it at the expence of the greatest nation in history.



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 12:47 PM
link   

One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at levels "that dwarfed all others": 1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never observed it in any sampling we've ever done," Swartz said. He said it was most likely produced by the plastic of tens of thousands of burning computers.


Jones quote: ""The process of transformation, [since] it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."

Original quote: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.

Using brackets and changing the wording to change the meaning of the quote. So sad.

One claim I've seen before is about the bridge. He (Jones) states that a bridge didn't melt reported by CBS news where there was a large fuel spill. Upon checking the CBS story, this was the update:
"Northbound Traffic Resumes At Site Of Melted Bridge"

Northbound lanes reopened Sunday on a stretch of one of the nation's busiest highways, three days after a fire from a wrecked tanker truck partially melted an overpass.
"It was such an intense heat that it melted the bridge,'' said Wallace Thomas, Bridgeport's deputy fire chief. ``Once it sagged, it made a pool of burning fuel oil.''

Sagging, pooling...claims of melted steel,.... does that not sound familiar??? Every time this guy says something, he just paints hinself closer into a corner.

That may be a good name for his presentation: "SEE-B-S"

[edit on 22-7-2006 by zappafan1]



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Howard, just jabbin' at ya'.. (You always get a rise out of me)

Damocles, I wasn't attacking you either but I do agree with you as far as someone shouldn't be calling anyone sick in the head. Just be politically correct like me and imply that certain people need an "intervention".


Anyways, I do agree somewhat on the chain of custody issue but It's pretty obvious why that's probably never going to be established in this particular instance. (I could be wrong hopefully)

HOWEVER,

This does not invalidate the entire work in question and it raises alot of questions that need to be answered.

Let's pick IT apart and not each other, that's what this forum is for.



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 01:11 PM
link   
zappafan1,

Could you post some backup concerning this "melted bridge"?


Edit:

Found this:

www.urbanplanet.org...

Not really a collapse, just a buckle.. Thoughts?


Anyone trying to compare this to the "collapses" on 911 need to understand that this still does not explain how a localized failure can cause an entire building to collapse. I'm still open to debate on WTC 1 and 2 but not building 7. You guys do know what partial collapse means don't you?




[edit on 22-7-2006 by TxSecret]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join