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.

 

Prof Jones Responds to National Geographic

page: 1
14
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Here is the link!!!

911blogger

This article highlights email exchanges between Prof Jones, David Ray Griffin, Greg Roberts and Robert Erickson. Robert Erickson is the producer of the National Geographic special aired last night. I found these email exchanges with the National Geographic producer a fascinating insight into the MSM bias towards 9/11 topics.


[And here is Prof. Griffin’s 3/30/09 response to Robert Erickson’s note that he had no budget to pursue getting a sample of nanothermite.]

Robert,

Imagine that you did not know that it was possible for someone such as Babe Ruth or Barry Bonds to hit a baseball out of a ballpark.

You are told by some baseball fans (or "fanatics," as you call them) that this is indeed possible.

So you decide to test it.

But you don't have a baseball or a baseball bat, only a wiffle ball and a wiffle bat. And the Babe is dead and you can't get Barry to come over, so you try it yourself.

With camera running, you apologize to the audience for the fact that you don't have quite the right equipment, and that you're not quite as muscular as Barry (you haven't been taking your steroids), but you explain that you must do the best you can with what you've got.

With camera rolling, you show your audience, after repeated attempts to knock the wiffle ball out of the park with the wiffle bat, that the idea that anyone could hit a baseball out of the park is absurd. The fanatics are discredited.

David


Here is another...


[On the same day, 3/30/09, Gregg Roberts of AE911Truth.org wrote the following to the NGC producer. Earlier, Robert Erickson had written:
“ Before shipping anything off to China the WTC materials were combed for personal affects etc. No curious radio transmitters were found.”]

Robert,

It is not transmitters that would have been placed throughout the buildings to set off the charges, but rather receivers. Those could have been made exceedingly small, as well as disguised.

Again, rather than putting all this burden on us to answer detailed speculative questions, a fair approach will focus on the more than 100 blatant contradictions and gaps in the official story, which are extremely well documented by Griffin's books, essays by Kevin Ryan, Dylan Avery's film, and so on. Why should we as citizens put up with having such contradictions and gaps in the very foundation of the War on Terror, the expenditure of more than a trillion in defense spending, and the trampling of the Constitution? Even if all we skeptics had ever done was point to those problems, without suggesting an alternate explanation, it SHOULD mean that the US government has a lot of explaining to do. Instead, for some reason we are constantly being asked to speculate about things that other people KNOW the answers to.

Producing a video with any sort of "History's Mysteries" or "conspiracy debunking" feel to it, as I am starting to get the impression this one will have, will be a grave disservice to the facts of the matter. Ideally it would have more of a 60 Minutes feel to it, and it's the planners (executive branch) and funders (Congress) of the War on Terror who ultimately should be under the hot, bright light, being asked to explain how this and how that -- not us. They're the ones with the resources and responsibility to perform a full-bore, fully funded investigation with subpoena power and [presumably] no conflicts of interest. They're the ones who have failed on four out of four occasions to do perform any such investigation. Instead they have spent thousands of times the money such an investigation would have required, invading and occupying two resource-rich nations, and bullying and buying their way into others.

Hmm, what's an objective person to make of that? How much time would an objective, balanced documentary spend questioning us, as opposed to questioning them?

--Gregg




posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   
Here is another email from Prof Jones...


Robert Erickson, emailed David Ray Griffin on 3/27/09:
"if Jones is surprised that we just placed bags of thermite around the column...what else would Jones have suggested? "

I was informed of the question above and I responded on 3/28/09 as follows:

Robert,

Bags of commercial thermite set against a steel column -- what a pathetic "experiment." Not anywhere close to representing my views, as you must know, from our discussion about the red/gray chips and the crucial distinction between ordinary thermite and super-thermite! What a terrible and unfair straw-man joke you are evidently trying to pull.

Why can't you get a sample of super-thermite? I think you can, if you will actually try. Or are you like NIST which refuses to look?

1. awards.lanl.gov...
[quoting]
Super-Thermite Electric Matches
Applications

The principal application is in the entertainment industry, which uses fireworks displays for a variety of venues, such as sporting events, holiday celebrations, and musical and theatrical gatherings. Secondary applications include

● triggering explosives for the mining, demolition, and defense industries,

2. www.lanl.gov...
"technologies and can be applied to a multitude of related products –anywhere
there is a need for sophisticated and accurate ignition control with lower risk of
misfire at lower cost. "
Development Stage:
Working prototype available for demonstration purposes.
Patent Status:
Patent pending Non-Provisional
Licensing Status:
LANL is seeking partners to help commercialize this product which is available
for exclusive or non-exclusive licensing. Contact:
Michael Erickson, 505-667-8087
michaele@lanl.gov
tmt-2@lanl.gov
Technology Transfer Division

I urge you to contact Mr. Erickson at LANL and request at least three "prototype" samples of super-thermite matches. Since his interest is in "commercializing", I would recommend telling him that you are doing a special which addresses super-thermite and that this will give his product "free advertising", or something like that... I emailed him several months ago, but I lacked an approach that would help with his "commercializing" the product, which was his interest. I think you could succeed if you tried.

Next, if you succeed in getting a few of the "super-thermite matches," I propose to send you the complete paper that we have -- which includes a discussion of these matches along with their potential usage on 9/11. I think that super-thermite "matches" of this type could very well have been used to trigger more conventional explosives such as C4 in the WTC buildings.

Next step would be experiments, well-founded and relevant experiments, such as:

1. Ask two independent laboratories to do SEM/EDS and DSC analyses as described in our paper on the super-thermite material contained in these matches. The results would then be compared carefully with those already obtained on red chips found in the WTC dust.
One of these labs could be BYU/Dr. Farrer if you wish, since he has analyzed the red chips found in the WTC dust and could act very quickly. (BYU requires that he be paid for any 9/11 research now.) Such analyses are worthy of scientific publication in a peer-reviewed journal (unlike placing bags of commercial thermite next to steel columns).

2. A real demonstration would involve a C4 shaped charge applied to a steel column, with the cutter charge ignited by a highly-reliable super-thermite match (in turn triggered using a remote radio signal).

These experiments would test my hypothesis.

Best wishes,
Steven Jones



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 08:11 PM
link   
From Blubonnet


We are in a fascist state. Media control being an aspect

SOVIET CORRESPONDENT BASED FIVE YEARS IN THE U.S. SAID: “I have the greatest admiration for your propaganda. Propaganda in the West is carried out by experts who have the best training in the world-in the field of advertising and have mastered the techniques with exceptional proficiency… Yours are suble and persuasive; ours are crude and obvious… I think that the fundamental difference between our worlds, with respect to propaganda, is quite simple. You tend to believe yours.. and we tend to disbelieve ours.”

JOHN STOCKWELL, FORMER C.I.A. OFFICIAL AND AUTHOR SAID: “It is the function of the CIA to keep the world unstable, and to propagandize and teach the American people to hate, so we will let the Establishment spend any amount of money on arms.”

FORMER C.I.A. DIRECTOR, WILLIAM COLBY SAID: “The central intelligenc agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media.”

B.B.C. WORLD NEWS COMMENTATOR: “One of the Iraq war’s major casualties is the credibility of the American media. Nobody takes it seriously.”

A G.W.BUSH WHITE HOUSE AIDE DAVID WESSEL, WALL STREET JOURNAL SAID: “Why would I lie? Because that’s what I’m supposed to do. Lying to the press doesn’t prick anyone’s conscience.”

THE COMMITTEE TO PROTECT JOUNALISTS INCLUDED THE ASSESSMENT IN ITS “ATTACKS ON THE PRESS” ANNUAL REPORT SAID: “The actions taken by the Bush Administration seemed to embolden repressive governments around the world to crack down on their own domestic media. In Russia, a presidential adviser said President Vladimir Putin planned to study US limitations on reporting about terrorists in order to develop rules to the Russian media.”



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 08:23 PM
link   
Thank you Leo, I was looking for that! Star and Flag for you! The problem with these types of programs is that they are seen by a wide audience and they often are not countered and seen by something that is seen by just as wide an audience, and I wish they would allow such.

good job on the find.



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Complete And Utter Ownage Damn !
Gregg Roberts good going much props to him



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Leo Strauss
 


Thanks for bringing this up. Great quotes on the propaganda machine here in the U.S.

As for the show, I only watched a half hour or so. It was pretty much a waste of time. I'm sure this thread will blow up with those who believe the official lies telling us all how stupid we are, how the show proved the official lie, etc.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 07:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Leo Strauss
 


I don't get it. Why doesn't Jones, Griffin, et al. get a sample of super-nano-thermite, apply it to a steel section and provide and document their own experiment to test their theory. This is basic science.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 07:35 AM
link   
Thats because super-nano thermite is sooper sekrit stuff - only NWO
operatives have the stuff...

Besides you cant have truthers actually go out prove their theories, that
would destroy the basic tenant of truthism



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Thats because super-nano thermite is sooper sekrit stuff - only NWO
operatives have the stuff...

Besides you cant have truthers actually go out prove their theories, that
would destroy the basic tenant of truthism


I stand corrected then.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Go watch the Mythbuster episode 'Exploding pants' to see what kinda stuff the govt has.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   
You know, it pains me to due this but, I just posted this on another thread, yeah, these 911 truethers are right. Heres what I found when I googled super-thermite,

"Super-thermite" - was the staple product used in dylithiam matrix chambers for the production of warp speed. It was later abandoned with the development of "super duper thermite" was created at the Vulcan Science Academy by the young but brilliant Dr. Daystrom (also the Dr. Daystrom that was responsible for duel-o-tronics - which we all know is what makes warp speed possible).

Dr. Daystrom could not be reached for comment. He has since retired and his last known address is somewhere in the Alfa-centauri system.

I am so relieved that I now have a full understanding of "Super-Thermite" I can sleep easier at night....



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Leo Strauss
 


I don't get it. Why doesn't Jones, Griffin, et al. get a sample of super-nano-thermite, apply it to a steel section and provide and document their own experiment to test their theory. This is basic science.


I would like to see NIST take down the next sizable condemned building due for controlled demolition. They can dazzle the world in high def by demolishing a massive structure into a neat pile "WTC 7" style without explosives.. a few fires & gravity is all these super geniuses need.

It will revolutionize the controlled demolition industry.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by GovtFlu

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Leo Strauss
 


I don't get it. Why doesn't Jones, Griffin, et al. get a sample of super-nano-thermite, apply it to a steel section and provide and document their own experiment to test their theory. This is basic science.


I would like to see NIST take down the next sizable condemned building due for controlled demolition. They can dazzle the world in high def by demolishing a massive structure into a neat pile "WTC 7" style without explosives.. a few fires & gravity is all these super geniuses need.

It will revolutionize the controlled demolition industry.


Not really, pretty much everyone knows that if you let a building burn long enought it will come down. I am not sure I would categorize it as "neat" and "a few fires".



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   
Here is a quote from Dylan Avery of Loose Change:


Deliberate attempt to ignore legitimate avenues of research.

I gave a very detailed and explicit breakdown of both Barry Jennings & Norman Mineta on camera. I told Robert if he was serious in any way about investigating September 11th, he would get an interview with Norman Mineta and get his story, on camera, once and for all, and investigate what happened to Barry Jennings.

What did we get? Flying rocket experiments and silence on WTC7.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 08:30 PM
link   
Originally posted by hooper



Not really, pretty much everyone knows that if you let a building burn long enought it will come down. I am not sure I would categorize it as "neat" and "a few fires".


Define building type, and length of time, here we are talking of 102 minutes and steel buildings, a steel building has never collapsed due to fire - ever.

Houses built of straw, wood, bricks and timber, ice, plastic, will collapse.

Madrid Spain......

Fire Event: 12 February 2005
Fire started at the 21st Floor, spreading to all floors above the 2nd Floor. Fire duration: 18 ~ 20 hours.



The aftermath..



Was there anywhere near the intensity of flames and heat at the WTC that compared to the Madrid inferno?, and it survived after 20 hours of being hammered by flames. And you estimate that 102 minutes is long enough to damage 110 storeys, even though a fireman reported that up to 88th storeys in WTC2 the South Tower there were 2 isolated pockets of fire - that can be knocked down with two lines!!!!!!.


Explain how 36 cubic metres of grade A kerosene that reputedly ignited all but a few dregs on impact, managed to weaken 110 storeys - 1 acre of concrete per storey and 90,000 tons of steel, if there was no explosion and all the fuel dispersed evenly it`s 1 cubic metre per 3 storeys, high rise towers have very little if none at all combustible items due to insurance premiums, the only flammable stuff was random office furniture and paper.


Steel towers constructed to withstand fires, hurricanes, planes hitting them, do exactly that, no if`s, no but`s, if they collapse then it`s down to one of two things...

1). None of the above caused the collapse but something else.

2). The Architects and Structural Engineers did not do their jobs probably = Gross negligence contributing to the loss of lives = Criminal offence and results in being arrested.

If no arrests happened it was not 2). Then it is 1).

It`s like a two horse race, if three wins - the rules have been broken, swap horses with planes and wins with towers, catch my drift?.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 





Was there anywhere near the intensity of flames and heat at the WTC that compared to the Madrid inferno?, and it survived after 20 hours of being hammered by flames. And you estimate that 102 minutes is long enough to damage 110 storeys, even though a fireman reported that up to 88th storeys in WTC2 the South Tower there were 2 isolated pockets of fire - that can be knocked down with two lines!!!!!!.

Explain how 36 cubic metres of grade A kerosene that reputedly ignited all but a few dregs on impact, managed to weaken 110 storeys - 1 acre of concrete per storey and 90,000 tons of steel, if there was no explosion and all the fuel dispersed evenly it`s 1 cubic metre per 3 storeys, high rise towers have very little if none at all combustible items due to insurance premiums, the only flammable stuff was random office furniture and paper.


Random Office furniture and paper only flammable stuff ?

Still dishing out misinformation....

Most office equipment/furnishings are combustible. They are also synthetic
aka plastic - everthing from carpets (nylon), cubicle dividers (urethane),
computers and chairs will burn. Plastics are made from petroleum and
contain 50 to 100% more heat energy per unit than organic (wood, paper, cloth) 12,000 -16,000 btu/lb vs 8000 btu/lb

In addition to that have tons and tons of POP (plain old paper) to burn
with evrything else

The jet fuel acted as accelerant in the worlds largest arson fire - it ignited combustible materials on multiple floors starting simultaneous
fires in multiple locations.

Normal fires start in one location and expand outward from that location

Fires at WTC were started in multiple locations

Fuel load at WTC was estimated at 4lb/sq



FEMA's report quotes Culver (1977) stating that typical office-type
occupancies contain fuel loads (described in terms of the equivalent weight
of wood) of 4 to 12 pounds per square foot, with the mean slightly less than 8. However, NIST's reports of June and October 2004 by S. Shyam Sunder state that the typical (WTC) floor contained an average of 4 psf of
combustible materials. We shall also allow for remaining aircraft
combustibles.





The fuel load in the core area was relatively light, with much of this zone
taken up by service shafts. The remaining space between shafts would have contained a limited fuel load, with the great majority of combustible
material such as desks and workstations being outside the core. Let's
suppose there was on average 7 psf or 34.18 kg/m^2 (close to Culver's
geometric mean) outside the core, and 2 psf or 9.765 kg/m^2 within it.





Averaging over the whole floor including core and shafts space, this works
out around 5.4 psf which is still above NIST's 4 psf average for a typical
WTC floor. The NIST figure may well represent the actual weight of
combustibles, and so would be less than the equivalent weight of wood, given that some combustibles have a higher calorific value.


Large amount of plastic materials in WTC



A typical aircraft contains 3,300 to 8,400 kg of combustibles, according to
the FAA (the statement is pre-9/11 and hence more credible). Aluminium is not counted as a combustible.




If we allow an additional 7,000 kg of combustibles distributed over two floors, then these two worst cases have an extra 3.3% combustibles to give a total of 109,516 kg or 120.7 tons per floor.


120 tons of combustibles per floor

Sounds like lot of stuff to burn

Also brought up old truther canard about 2 small fires

1) it was 78 th floor not 88

2) Floor was at lowest point of impact area and struck by one wingtip of jet

3) 78th floor was sky lobby where people changed elevators - floor area
was mostly elevator machinery with tile floors and marble panels on walls

Not a lot of stuff to burn



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 11:59 PM
link   
Simple little office firers were supposed to have brought the WTC down at freefall speed.
I have to laugh at how the OS believer try to justify their false claims that office firers got hot enough to bring two WTC down in one HOUR! Forget about their laughable claims of WTC 7, isn’t Denial great!



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 02:11 AM
link   
Prof. Jones has shown over and over agin that nhe is biased in his research

This guy is not interested in the "truth". His own Words bears this out.
\
What bugs me the most about this traitorous fraud is his claims about how so many of his papers have been peered reviewed.

Theb fact state otherwise my dear twoofers.



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Classified Info
 

Your statements are made without evidence or links to back up your claims.

Amazingly NIST admitted, after spending 20 million dollars and 3 years on the investigation, they did not look for explosives!

In 1993 "terrorists" tried to topple the WTC towers with a truck bomb in the basement. I'm no detective but it seems to me that one of my first duties of investigation would be to test for explosives with evidence at the scene.

Of course NIST did not use their subpoena power to collect evidence such as the steel beams at the point of impact and as we know the steel was quickly and conveniently shipped off as scrap under high security!

I am outraged that no real investigation has ever taken place concerning 9/11.

From LA Times


James Quintiere, a professor of fire protection engineering at the University of Maryland, wondered how the institute was able to definitively rule out explosives.

"They don't have the expertise on explosives, so I don't know how they came to that conclusion," said Quintiere, a frequent critic of the agency, where he formerly worked as chief of the fire science and engineering division.

Quintiere stressed, however, that he had never believed explosives played a role.



History Commons


In answer to the question of “Why was physical evidence not collected immediately following the collapse of the WTC towers,” NIST says, “In the initial days and weeks following the WTC disaster, the emphasis was on rescue and later on recovery, necessitating the removal of steel and disturbing the collapse site.” It adds, “NIST did not receive the legal authority to collect and preserve physical evidence from a disaster/failure site until the National Construction Safety Team Act became law in October 2002.” The decision to rapidly scrap the remaining steel from the WTC was made shortly after 9/11 (see Shortly After September 11, 2001), but the destruction of this steel was strongly protested by some within the engineering and firefighting communities (see December 25, 2001 and January 4, 2002).



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
Simple little office firers were supposed to have brought the WTC down at freefall speed.
I have to laugh at how the OS believer try to justify their false claims that office firers got hot enough to bring two WTC down in one HOUR! Forget about their laughable claims of WTC 7, isn’t Denial great!


Just as a matter of curiosity, what started those "simple little office fires"? Cigarette butt in the garbage can? Faulty wiring on a desk lamp? Candle from a birthday cake? Boeing 757 crashing into the building at 500 MPH?



new topics

top topics



 
14
<<   2 >>

log in

join