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.

 

Examination of WTC Steel - Steven Jones

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 02:29 PM
link   
Sorry, can't find this in search, but this is NOT the original "dr. Jones" paper. In this paper they do:

X-ray Flouresence
and
Electron Microporbing

of WTC steel samples... then they explain what the results mean.

The sample evaluation starts on page 71.

www.physics.byu.edu...




posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 06:20 PM
link   
That link doesn't work.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 02:01 PM
link   
The powerpoint presentation with the results have been taken down... I have a copy if someone can host it but it was taken down because it will be published next month in the Journal of 9/11 studies.

I think the good doctor is using one of the NISTs favorite tricks... post it, see what the objections are and then make sure the final paper addresses thos objections... the only difference is, when the NIST "addresses" something it is not with fact but with dodginess and vagueness.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Slap Nuts,

Could you please let us know when the good doctor's paper comes out? Thanks.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 04:42 PM
link   
But I thought all the steel was "sent to Asia and melted down before anyone had a chance to examine it"?

Time for Loose Change v3.0 I guess.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 07:53 PM
link   


But I thought all the steel was "sent to Asia and melted down before anyone had a chance to examine it"?


Ssssh...dont point out the inconsistancies of the 9-11 "truth" movement. Some want it both ways. All the steel went to China (which is patently false) and then somehow, this gentleman came up with samples of the WTC steel. Yeah right...

Im pretty sure that if Steven Jones offered to sell a bridge, people would line up to buy it.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 11:03 PM
link   
This isn't a black-and-white issue where everyone that believes it was a conspiracy thinks the exact same things, guys (or, in this case, not everyone is clear on the information at hand). The same is true for the "other side", as well. I've read some idiotic things from people trying to debunk this and that.

In fact, if you want to use attacks like that, I could point to whole government reports that contradict each other explicitly (ie, 9/11 Commission Report vs. the NIST Report, or the FEMA Report, etc.). And I could even point you to a horde of structural engineers that came out after 9/11 saying the massive steel columns must have just melted from the fire.

So which is it? Can't even get your story straight lolz0rs sarcastic face sarcastic face


[edit on 5-9-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 11:10 PM
link   
My post was ridiculous.

[edit on 9/5/2006 by Masisoar]



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 11:16 PM
link   
I agree BsBray....it goes both ways. I have an idea....those of us that are kinda in the middle (but believe more of the conspiracy side) and those of us who are also in the middle (but believe more of the official side) work together instead of opposing forces to actually find the truth. We have 85% of the people who debate on these forums that are basically in middle ground. It doesn't matter what we believe individually but together we could find the truth instead of sitting here and arguing about every little tidbit. So what if you believe if there was explosives or so what if you believe they only lied to cover their arse....let's get together and find the true answers...only then can we as a WHOLE find the real truth.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
This isn't a black-and-white issue where everyone that believes it was a conspiracy thinks the exact same things, guys (or, in this case, not everyone is clear on the information at hand). The same is true for the "other side", as well. I've read some idiotic things from people trying to debunk this and that.


I hear you. This just amuses me because Steven Jones himself sat on a panel (aired on C-Span) and made the comment about how nobody got to study anything worthwhile because the "evidence was destroyed before investigation". Yet now he's got a study of the steel? I wonder if it sat in a bucket of water in some lady's back yard for two years, like his "thermate".


In fact, if you want to use attacks like that, I could point to whole government reports that contradict each other explicitly (ie, 9/11 Commission Report vs. the NIST Report, or the FEMA Report, etc.). And I could even point you to a horde of structural engineers that came out after 9/11 saying the massive steel columns must have just melted from the fire.


I didn't say the gubbament was right, my man. Just pointing out an obvious smack to Jones' credibility.




posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astygia
I hear you. This just amuses me because Steven Jones himself sat on a panel (aired on C-Span) and made the comment about how nobody got to study anything worthwhile because the "evidence was destroyed before investigation". Yet now he's got a study of the steel? I wonder if it sat in a bucket of water in some lady's back yard for two years, like his "thermate".


well, i'm curious where you think he got his sample from? have you looked into it?

i think it was sent to him by someone who had access to some of the scrap. steel that was to be used for a memorial art piece.

the chain of custody is not clear, but when people are being murdered for coming to close to the truth, it is wise to keep your head down until you see the whites of their eyes, no?

i always wonder why such vitriol comes from seemingly 'concerned citizens'.

stephen jones put his career on the line for what he percieves as truth. is it wrong to pursue what you percieve as truth? is it wrong to do experiments, study, datamine, share, discuss, analyse, etc?
should we just be happy with the wheel, and lose the microchip?



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 02:12 AM
link   
During the 9/11 Truth conference, which was televised on C-Span, there were 4 people in attendance in front of a medium-sized crowd. One was Steven Jones, one was Fetzer, one was some guy running for senator that basically promised to look into things if he got into office, and one other professor, who had as little to say as the guy running for office. Obviously I don't remember these guys' names). Jones and Fetzer dominated this interview. (I'm looking for the video right now, can't remember if it came from archive.org or prisonplanet). At the end of the interview, the guys that made Loose Change stand up and have a few things to say, and Alex Jones tries to get them to hurry because they don't have much time left for the presentation.

Anyway, Alex Jones gives a 5-10 minute opening speech, introduces the 4 speakers, and the presentation begins with Steven Jones, who gives some background on who he is and how he came to his conclusion. A woman who he does not name sent him the samples he found the thermate in. He says the woman had taken a sponge to some nearby rubble (I guess as her way of dealing with what happened, not judging her) and left the sponge unwashed in a bucket. When she heard that Steven Jones was looking for steel to analyze, she told him of this bucket, its history, and so on. Jones says all this during the presentation.

Regarding the rest of youre post, billybob, I have nothing against someone pursuing the truth. That's why I am here, incidentally. But these guys can't even keep their own theories from crossing each other, which doesn't do their credibility any good.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 09:14 PM
link   
She took a sponge to some rubble and then kept it in a bucket? Yep thats a valid sample for scientific method.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 10:13 PM
link   
Maybe you can get him a sample yourself, Swampfox. I hear it's really easy. Professor Jones seems to have had such a tough time getting a better sample, I guess he might as well have just not looked at any steel samples at all. That sort of independent investigation isn't needed anyway, right? But either way, it's definitely Jones' fault and you should attack him on it, not the government, in their strict control of where the thousands of tons of debris went after 9/11.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astygia

Regarding the rest of youre post, billybob, I have nothing against someone pursuing the truth. That's why I am here, incidentally. But these guys can't even keep their own theories from crossing each other, which doesn't do their credibility any good.


well, it's pretty sad when 25000 tons of steel can fit in a bucket, if you catch my drift.
that's the smell of a vast cover-up. there was no reason to get rid of the steel, and every reason to study it.
afterall, the whole alleged purpose of nist was to determine where the design 'flaw' was, and recommend new standards for building strength and fire resistance(despite the fact that these are the only 3 steel towers EVER to collapse from fire).
and more importantly, it was a crime scene. the scene of the biggest crime in american history.

as far as crossing theories, that is actually how MIND works. we have yes/no/maybe 'process boxes' in our brains, where any data can be either yes, no, or maybe at output, and we process an input through a parallel chain of these boxes to come out with a crisp output.

towers fell: yes
towers hit by planes: maybe/probably
towers on fire: yes
towers fire hot enough to compromise steel: no

etc....

when there is conflicting data, a temporary 'choice' must be made to follow through to the next logical step in the chain. sometimes, it branches into two opposite chains(the 'maybe'), if there is no crisp yes/no. to fault people for having different data sets in a near data vacuum(COVER-UP!), is rather unfair, i feel.

the truth WILL out, eventually, IF people do not stop pursuing it with HONESTY, INTEGRITY, and TRANSPARENCY. at least the truth seekers can stand in the same room and not hate each other, unlike a government apologist vs. a conspiracy researcher.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
well, it's pretty sad when 25000 tons of steel can fit in a bucket, if you catch my drift.
that's the smell of a vast cover-up. there was no reason to get rid of the steel, and every reason to study it.


Dude, he's analyzing specks of something he claims a woman sent to him, which she claims spent two years stuck to a sponge in a bucket. I don't think you can even use the term "chain of custody" in the same sentance as this situation. If the roles were reversed and the official story was based on this same "evidence", you would have a coniption fit. And so would I, because it's hilariously unfunny.


afterall, the whole alleged purpose of nist was to determine where the design 'flaw' was, and recommend new standards for building strength and fire resistance(despite the fact that these are the only 3 steel towers EVER to collapse from fire).
and more importantly, it was a crime scene. the scene of the biggest crime in american history.


And they did, my friend. They did. Just because you don't agree with their analysis, doesn't mean they didn't check it out.


as far as crossing theories, that is actually how MIND works. we have yes/no/maybe 'process boxes' in our brains, where any data can be either yes, no, or maybe at output, and we process an input through a parallel chain of these boxes to come out with a crisp output.


I'm down with that, but where's the common sense here? First they said all the steel was gone and melted before anyone could touch it, now they're using advanced and highly technical methods to analyze the steel. Pick a story.


towers hit by planes: maybe/probably
towers on fire: yes
towers fire hot enough to compromise steel: no

The little men that run the nuclear reactor inside my brain had to shut 'er down when I read this. "MAYBE/PROBABLY?" It sure wasn't a picnic basket and a pepsi that hit the WTCs. Please, not the hologram theory...?

And, once again, "hot enough to compromise steel" does not equal "melting point of steel". Heat weakens steel, especially after getting hit by a plane at 500+mph.


when there is conflicting data, a temporary 'choice' must be made to follow through to the next logical step in the chain. sometimes, it branches into two opposite chains(the 'maybe'), if there is no crisp yes/no. to fault people for having different data sets in a near data vacuum(COVER-UP!), is rather unfair, i feel.

the truth WILL out, eventually, IF people do not stop pursuing it with HONESTY, INTEGRITY, and TRANSPARENCY. at least the truth seekers can stand in the same room and not hate each other, unlike a government apologist vs. a conspiracy researcher.



Am I to imply that you are calling me a government apologist, thus you hate me? I'm no government apologist, but I'm not anti-government apologist, either. I simply cannot ignore obvious holes in someone's credibility when they are asking me to believe something spectacular, which is why I don't ride with everything from the gov't camp OR the CT camp. I am blunt, but I don't wanna be rude, so don't take it personal if I shred your post. By all means, shred my reply, just base it on fact.

Onward, the most important part of the scientific method is common sense. Without common sense, you're not pursuing the truth, you're pursuing someone else's convincing perception of the truth, along with their misunderstandings and/or biase along with it. If you watch a documentary which claims to have the TRUTH about about something, and ten minutes into it they've already been mistaken, contradicted themselves or said something you know to be an outright lie, this is a pretty good indicator that you should keep your BS cap on.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 02:40 AM
link   
i'm not going around the hamster wheel another turn(i mean, i'm tired of reposting links to all the relevent, and by now, FAMOUS quotes and info, but,)
a. holograms are not science fiction
b. 'blue screen' feeds to broadcast are more likely (see,'nico haupt')
c. i did not call you an apologist
d. you didn't shred my post, as it was a general statement of general truths,and had no strong stance.
e. HOW MUCH metal dr. jones has, and whether it was on a sponge in a bucket for two years is not so relevant compared to whether it actually came from the towers, and what it looks like under microscopes and whatnot.
f. i have checked 'them' out, and 'they' are evil.

later, dude.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 03:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
i'm not going around the hamster wheel another turn(i mean, i'm tired of reposting links to all the relevent, and by now, FAMOUS quotes and info, but,)
a. holograms are not science fiction
b. 'blue screen' feeds to broadcast are more likely (see,'nico haupt')


So, all the people standing outside that WATCHED the plane hit were really seeing a hologram, which was perfectly timed with a blue-screen image broadcast throughout all media networks and apparently all private cameras, given the amount of private footage. So the entire media and several hundred to several thousand unknown people are in on this, in other words.

You should check my post in skunkworks; that's about the only way I could see this happening.



HOW MUCH metal dr. jones has, and whether it was on a sponge in a bucket for two years is not so relevant compared to whether it actually came from the towers, and what it looks like under microscopes and whatnot.


You're missing the point. There is absolutely nothing but his word as to what his specimen is and where it came from. For all we know, it came outta his belly button. And if an anonymous lady really sent it to him, there's no telling where she really got it from. And even supposing this is all somehow true, it was attached to a sponge in a bucket of rinsewater for two years. That's called "compromised evidence" and "inadmissable" in court.

It's like you're grasping at straws to believe anything, as long as it's not close to the official story.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astygia
You're missing the point. There is absolutely nothing but his word as to what his specimen is and where it came from.



EVERY single thing you have posted regarding where the sampleS came from is unequovically WRONG. Gove me a place to host the PDF. HE explains briefly where THEY came from. I am 100% certain that the final report will include a COMPLETE chain iof custody for the third and following samples as this is the only objection the official line towers can come up with.

NONE of the samples were taken with a sponge as far as I have read.

One was from ground zero.

One was from a monument and was a "large quantitiy" not a "sponge wiping".

This is probably why the response is no longer available until next months Journal of 9/11 studies.

It is pretty sad that the official storys credibility now rests on the chain of custody for these samples. Talk about a house of cards.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astygia
But I thought all the steel was "sent to Asia and melted down before anyone had a chance to examine it"?


No one here has ever said ALL of it.

The issue is with how much was sent and the speed at which this occured.

Stop putting words into the mouths of others.

Th gov't messed up putting up all of those monuments because they are actively being used against them.

You will see next month here:

www.journalof911studies.com...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join