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.

 

Yep, It's Thermite! So Much for the "Oxygen" Excuse

page: 23
172
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 

There were multiple samples, one take within 10 minutes, several taken september 11th, some september 12th. Some taken by residents some taken by scientists. ALL have the same debris, the debris is consistent in all samples.


What is still unverified is the source material. It was said WTC debris was donated. Do we know for sure what has been tested came from these, nothing has been added, and that they are representative?


Greg Swayze USGS - Obtained sample and notid it was highly toxic, sent to EPA
Inspector General EPA - Claimed NCS altered EPA reports warning that the dust was toxic. (co-incidentally lost job)

The chain of custody is intact and can be requested on all 4 samples of the Jones paper.

Other scientists independent of the Jones Study have samples with chain of custody that also mirror the findings of Jones' work.




posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   
The exact same thing happened when he "discovered" cold fusion. If you research it, seems that his peers also did not agree with many of his conclusions as well as the lab he used for his experimentation.

Please take a read and see that this is not the first time that he has 'submitted' something that the rest of the scientific community thought was bunk.

Link

Again, I have not heard a word after attempting to contact Steven Jones. Maybe he is following these threads....Mr Jones, are you out there?



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Please take a read and see that this is not the first time that he has 'submitted' something that the rest of the scientific community thought was bunk.


Yes, and I guess Gallileo was incorrect when he stated that the earth revolved around the sun because all his peers said so?

Oh wait, it wasn't until copernicus' uncle became a Bishop of the catholic church that he was proven correct. Go figure, scientists could be wrong.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter
I guess Gallileo was incorrect when he stated that the earth revolved around the sun because all his peers said so?

Oh wait, it wasn't until copernicus' uncle became a Bishop of the catholic church that he was proven correct. Go figure, scientists could be wrong.


Gallileo is not Steven Jones and this is the 20th Century.

But if you want examples of Dr Jones supporting fallacious assumptions, leaving the already discussed Cold Fusion aside.

According to Wikipedia, as a professor at Brigham Young University, Jones, a self-proclaimed 'devout Mormon" has attempted to introduce scientific validation of the belief that America was Christianized 2000 years ago, and that Israelites were a basis for the indigenous population of the continent.


en.wikipedia.org...

"he has sought radiocarbon dating evidence of the existence of pre-Columbian horses in the Americas, and has interpreted archaeological evidence from the ancient Mayans as supporting his faith's belief that Jesus Christ visited America."


There has been no scientific evidence of these claims, which conflict with all archeological and anthropological knowledge. This has not prevented three and a half million followers of the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints from believing them to be true.


Mike



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by mmiichael
 

There were multiple samples, one take within 10 minutes, several taken september 11th, some september 12th. Some taken by residents some taken by scientists. ALL have the same debris, the debris is consistent in all samples.


What is still unverified is the source material. It was said WTC debris was donated. Do we know for sure what has been tested came from these, nothing has been added, and that they are representative?


Greg Swayze USGS - Obtained sample and notid it was highly toxic, sent to EPA
Inspector General EPA - Claimed NCS altered EPA reports warning that the dust was toxic. (co-incidentally lost job)

The chain of custody is intact and can be requested on all 4 samples of the Jones paper.

Other scientists independent of the Jones Study have samples with chain of custody that also mirror the findings of Jones' work.







that is a bold faced lie



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


First of all, Dr. Jones is not the one who started the whole "Jesus was on North America" claim.

BTW, are you Christian? Has there been ANY scientific evidence of Jesus' existence at all?

If you believe in him, then you are a hypocrit for what you just wrote.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
Gallileo is not Steven Jones and this is the 20th Century.


Are you saying that telescopes and mathematics weren't around in Gallileo's day? Just curious.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by conrad x
 


Nice addition to the thread. Care to back up your statements?



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter
reply to post by conrad x
 


Nice addition to the thread. Care to back up your statements?




Please dont expect me to prove a negative.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by conrad x
 


Thanks for the real substenance to the thread.


Here's mine.

What you have written is a bold faced lie. There. That's as much evidence you have to support your claim.




[edit on 26-6-2009 by Nutter]



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter
reply to post by mmiichael
 


First of all, Dr. Jones is not the one who started the whole "Jesus was on North America" claim.

BTW, are you Christian? Has there been ANY scientific evidence of Jesus' existence at all?

If you believe in him, then you are a hypocrit for what you just wrote.



This start to get foolish. Whether Jesus Christ is historical is not a concern for me.

I excerpted a sentence from Jones' Wikipedia entry.

He has attempted to scientifically validated tenets of the Mormon faith using modern scientific techniques. To wit, the existence of a Christian society in the Americas thousands of years ago.

I have no problem with the Mormon faith or their beliefs.

The point made was there is no scientific evidence from thousands of scientific investigations in the fields of archeology and anthropology that concur.

Yet millions accept the American Christian as pre-history.

Mike



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


I'm a bit confused as to what you mean by "the exact same thing happened" as you have posted no evidence presented by his peers that he is incorrect this time around.

Using your logic it can be concluded that anyone who was proven once wrong is always wrong. That is unless you can back it up.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 11:06 PM
link   

But if you want examples of Dr Jones supporting fallacious assumptions, leaving the already discussed Cold Fusion aside.

According to Wikipedia, as a professor at Brigham Young University, Jones, a self-proclaimed 'devout Mormon" has attempted to introduce scientific validation of the belief that America was Christianized 2000 years ago, and that Israelites were a basis for the indigenous population of the continent.

en.wikipedia.org...

"he has sought radiocarbon dating evidence of the existence of pre-Columbian horses in the Americas, and has interpreted archaeological evidence from the ancient Mayans as supporting his faith's belief that Jesus Christ visited America."


There has been no scientific evidence of these claims, which conflict with all archeological and anthropological knowledge. This has not prevented three and a half million followers of the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints from believing them to be true.


Mike


According to legitimate science, a theory may not be considered invalid because of its originators beliefs.

Post evidence or concede, and save some face.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

According to legitimate science, a theory may not be considered invalid because of its originators beliefs.

Post evidence or concede, and save some face.



That's a real mangling of something I said.

A theory is only a theory until proven.

I never claimed anything is valid or invalid based on belief.

For the last time, Jones has a history of trying to scientifically prove things unsuccessfully.

But if it makes everybody happy, he's a genius, a true scientific pioneer who has shown the WTC buildings were blown up after those planes hit them.

The Galileo of his generation. His name will live on in the annals of science.

No more responses please. Put me on ignore. Having to explain the most fundamental things over and over gets tiresome.


Mike



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 11:54 PM
link   

A theory is only a theory until proven.


What part of "it's thermate" is theory exactly?



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

A theory is only a theory until proven.


What part of "it's thermate" is theory exactly?


Last post.

Your previous message was unclear. Thought you were talking about the other Jones investigations.

While here. As the validity of Jones' conclusions, protocol and methods have not been independently confirmed, it is just a claim at this point. (and confirmation means not among his cronies)

If there were any motivation 20 bored scientists could do tests on WTC debris and claim no evidence of thermate.

Would you accept that?

Well that's what you're asking.

$1000 to anyone successfully proving my bored scientists wrong. I decide if you are successful.

Really out of here this time


Mike



[edit on 27-6-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 12:15 AM
link   

While here. As the validity of Jones' conclusions, protocol and methods have not been independently confirmed, it is just a claim at this point. (and confirmation means not among his cronies)

they've already passed that point in the process, and once they did the publisher came under scrutiny as the main form of "debunking".



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

While here. As the validity of Jones' conclusions, protocol and methods have not been independently confirmed, it is just a claim at this point. (and confirmation means not among his cronies)

they've already passed that point in the process, and once they did the publisher came under scrutiny as the main form of "debunking".



Peer review journal publishers aren't debunkers. That's conspiracy talk.

Anyway, the act of debunking is what what makes science dynamically self-correcting. Getting rid of more "bunk"

Science is about proving without question and results being reproducible. Ignored by his gushing fans, this is a forensic study, which has special parameters.

On this thread the critic of Jones is the villain with him the hero.
So he wins the neighbourhood popularity contest.


Let's see how he fares in the world of cold hard science.

Mike









[edit on 27-6-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by jprophet420

While here. As the validity of Jones' conclusions, protocol and methods have not been independently confirmed, it is just a claim at this point. (and confirmation means not among his cronies)

they've already passed that point in the process, and once they did the publisher came under scrutiny as the main form of "debunking".



Peer review journal publishers aren't debunkers. That's conspiracy talk.

Anyway, the act of debunking is what what makes science dynamically self-correcting. Getting rid of more "bunk"

Science is about proving without question and results being reproducible. Ignored by his gushing fans, this is a forensic study, which has special parameters.

On this thread the critic of Jones is the villain with him the hero.
So he wins the neighbourhood popularity contest.


Let's see how he fares in the world of cold hard science.

Mike









[edit on 27-6-2009 by mmiichael]



Jones maintained that the paper was peer-reviewed prior to publication within a book "9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out" by D.R. Griffin[32] The paper was published in the online peer-reviewed, "Journal of 9/11 Studies", a journal co-founded and co-edited by Jones for the purpose of "covering the whole of research related to 9/11/2001." The paper also appeared in Global Outlook,[33] a magazine "seeking to reveal the truth About 9/11"[34] and in a volume of essays edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott.[35]

In April 2008, Jones, along with four other authors, published a letter in The Bentham Open Civil Engineering Journal, titled, 'Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction'[36]. In August 2008, Jones, along with Kevin Ryan and James Gourley, published a peer-reviewed article in The Environmentalist, titled, 'Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: Evidence for energetic materials'.[37] And in April 2009, Jones, along with Niels H. Harrit and 7 other authors published a paper in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, titled, 'Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe'.[38]


as I said, we already passed that process. I wasn't referring to peer review as debunking, I was referring to scrutinizing the Bentham Press as a method of 'debunking', which it clearly is not.



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


You asked "What part of "it's thermate" is theory exactly?"

The answer is "All of it." Thermate has components in in other than iron oxides and aluminum, such as elemental sulfur and barium nitrate. Neither of these were found, so thermate is ruled out, immediately. So much for thermate.
Thermite, as a thin layer, would be difficult to ignite on a steel beam, which would act as a heat sink, and difficult to keep ignited for the same reason. A thin layer of thermitic compound wouldn't do much of anything with respect to demolitions, anyway. You would need big charges, not paint. I believe that this sinks the Jones' thermite ship that many have climbed aboard, but Jones says he will soon publish another paper that will supposedly address the failings of the first. Bentham will publish it and the world will be shocked and awed, according to some delusionaries.



new topics

top topics



 
172
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join