Journal of 9/11 studies

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by jthomas
How many times do you wish it to be debunked before you'll accept it?

Not debunked. Just links full of attacks, opinions, and theories. Just like the NIST report. Thanks for stopping by.

No, thank YOU for walking right into it.

In other words, just attack the structural engineers, forensic scientists, firemen, police, rescuers, thousands of witnesses, evidence, testimony - and never have to show any evidence to the contrary.

Thanks for confirming the history of 911 "Truth" - never making it out of the starting gate.

"In other words, just attack the structural engineers, forensic scientists, firemen, police, rescuers, thousands of witnesses, evidence, testimony - and never have to show any evidence to the contrary."

Speaking of showing evidence, can you please direct me to the official signed statements of the thousands of witnesses and first responders you mentioned? After all, this was a massive investigation which left no stone unturned and all of these witness interviews were documented, as is the case with all criminal investigations? Right?

Since you seem to be familiar with this evidence, can you help me out and tell me where I can locate it? For the life of me, I can't seem to locate any of these official witness statements. Any information you have to as to where they can be located would be greatly appreciated.

[edit on 13-6-2010 by SphinxMontreal]

thanks for the link, I have been reading this theory since 911. Dont think we will ever find out the truth. but it sure has changed our world

reply to post by woodywood143

Hello,

Thank you for your interest. If you have any links to share, I'll be watching for them.

Originally posted by loveguy

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by loveguy

 

The problem with a journal devoted to '911 studies' is that the name of the journal generally dictates the conclusions of the papers.

I'm just- WOW.

"The problem with a journal devoted to '911 studies' is that the name of the journal generally dictates the conclusions of the papers."

What would you name a journal which studies the mechanics of what went down that day, and all the evidence kept from public scrutiny to uncover?

How far can we look into this issue of 9/11? We gotta go against what was handed-down to us to get to the facts regarding the matter of said event.

I appreciate the wanting to help me discover what happened that morning. I don't appreciate the discouraging me of the same...

For what it's worth, thanks for stopping by.

I am so happy that you are "just-WOW." The Journals that would discuss the events of 911 should be mainstream journals in science and engineering. This will allow readers with proper expertise to view the evidence in each area. A special journal speaks to a closed community with minimal expertise.

I hope that you are not discouraged in your discovery process. If you follow the evidence, it may well lead you to "what was handed-down to us" and you should be willing to accept such a conclusion.

Originally posted by loveguy
I was cruising the web and found this...Anyone familiar with page?

www.journalof911studies.com...

JONES (allegedly named after Steven Jones himself) has a history of being somewhat biased. Gregory Urich tried to have a paper accepted, but was told that the journal had served its purpose and would be shut down, and thus his paper could not be accepted.

A few months later however, JONES printed a new paper from a 9/11 CT promoter.

Make up your own mind.

reply to post by loveguy

I was cruising the web and found this...Anyone familiar with page?

Just cruising the web?? So lets see, there are what a couple of billion websites on the internet and you just happened to run into this one and then just happened to post a link to it here?

You sound like another poster who just happened to be looking at photos of plane wreckage at the Pentagon when the designer of said plane parts happened to walk by his office and declare the photos bogus.

Sorry, not buying it. Just say that you have an agenda and your agenda is to spread conspiracy webs.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by loveguy

 

I was cruising the web and found this...Anyone familiar with page?

Just cruising the web?? So lets see, there are what a couple of billion websites on the internet and you just happened to run into this one and then just happened to post a link to it here?



Sorry, not buying it. Just say that you have an agenda and your agenda is to spread conspiracy webs.

Hello,

Dang-it! You almost got me! Yes. I do have an agenda. Except you have it wrong friend. My agenda is to untangle the conspiracy webs, to unearth the facts. Why are they buried in so much rubble that was so hastily misplaced out of public scrutiny? Oh, I get it. For "National Security." National Security failed in-case you haven't noticed.

reply to post by loveguy


Well, maybe the first place to start is to get away from conspiracy websites. The facts of 9/11 are pretty clear and simple. They are muddied by conspiracist who engage in the purposeful disemination of half truths and unrelated and disparate facts.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by jthomas
How many times do you wish it to be debunked before you'll accept it?

Not debunked. Just links full of attacks, opinions, and theories. Just like the NIST report. Thanks for stopping by.

It's almost impossible to debunk anyone about anything in regards to 9/11. I don't know what happened. I believe the buildings could have collapsed from some sort of demolition. I also believe the buildings could have collapsed from airplanes and fire.

I can present a whole bunch of evidence that supports the airplane fire theory in the twin towers. It won't debunk BoneZ and his demolition via explosive theories. It will just be evidence that supports an alternate theory not anything that would debunk BoneZ.

I can present evidence that refutes some of the evidence that BoneZ uses to support his theories. It is not debunking bonez. Just refuting pieces of evidence that support the explosive demolition theories.

I don't know why I'm inviting myself and "possible" friends any wedges between us...

www.youtube.com...

It is a crazy thing that happened that day. And, things like what's entailed within video link; This is where our national security advisers (DOD) belong. I'd feel much safer.

What's great about these internet nobody's popping their heads out to trash-talk the authors of these papers, without even addressing the papers themselves, is that the people they are trash-talking invariably have much, much more experience, expertise, technical understanding and other credentials than the ones slinging all the mud.

Steven Jones alone has worked with a number of different countries researching nuclear physics for decades, being awarded several distinguished awards and having a reputation among peers as a very careful scientist, albeit one that is not afraid of controversy when the data calls for it. None of the trolls on this forum could produce a single person to vouch for them in such a way simply because they aren't involved in any technical research fields to begin with.


With that out of the way, and focusing on people instead of data aside...

How many of these people lobbing all the insults have actually read through these papers and checked out the claims? I would be surprised if there was a single one of them. More like they have their minds made up already, and if they read any of the literature, automatically assume everything is false to begin with and never bother to check up on any of it.

Believing 9/11 was exactly like the gub'mnt and mass media told you is helpless stupidity and borderline addictive disease. How many times have they been caught in lies already, and it doesn't phase the rock-brains? The EPA said the air was safe to breathe. Chalk that up as the first federal victim of the "truth movement," because that didn't take long to thoroughly debunk when people started coughing up blood, losing hair and dying. NIST initially said WTC7 didn't free-fall because the total collapse time took too long. It took several months for them to finally admit the acceleration measurements did in fact prove that the building accelerated at the rate of free-fall, as if the entire structure below gave out instantly and it was allowed to fall unresisted.

Let's see... what else. Structural engineers initially interviewed after 9/11 were saying the fires *must* have been so intense, they melted the steel and caused collapse (even the BBC reported this as if it were credible and didn't fly in the face of science -- which it did and always has). Then FEMA said no, no, it was a "pancake collapse" even though previously those only happen in certain types of concrete structures and never in steel framed structures. Then NIST finally says, no, no, not that either, it was the trusses pulling the perimeter columns inward, and the trusses never sheared and "pancaked," or at least if they did, NIST never analyzed the global collapse anyway and pancake theory happened to contradict their final hypothesis as stated above.


Someone explain to me how the people who are SUPPOSED to investigate 9/11, and wasted OUR TAX MONEY in the process, can come up with such a disorganized and contradictory story and people still eat it up without ever bothering to try to actually understand it? And can someone explain to me how when a million citizens asking for better investigations, become the brunt of so much stupidity and vitriol from low-lives who need a better hobby, in the face of everything I've mentioned?

reply to post by AquariusDescending


Steven Jones does not have a reputation as a careful worker. If he was a careful worker, he would be able to publish in mainstream journals and not have to resort to making his own captive "journal." He is obviously not a competent chemist, nor is anyone else on his team.
The journal is garbage. I read the papers.

reply to post by pteridine


You have volunteered yourself as an excellent example of someone who has nowhere near the credentials of Dr. Steven Jones, attacking him personally and simultaneously not providing any technical critiques of his actual work from professionals with credentials comparable to Jones'.

Originally posted by AquariusDescending
reply to post by pteridine

 

You have volunteered yourself as an excellent example of someone who has nowhere near the credentials of Dr. Steven Jones, attacking him personally and simultaneously not providing any technical critiques of his actual work from professionals with credentials comparable to Jones'.

You have no idea what my credentials are. I have provided technical critiques of his shoddy experimental protocol, blatant ignorance, and unjustified conclusions throughout several threads and many posts.

Jones has volunteered himself as an excellent example of a self-serving ex-professor who uses showmanship to con the good-intentioned but technically untrained readers of ATS.
I merely provide technical explanations and criticisms for those readers and do not limit those activities to Jones, per se.

Originally posted by AquariusDescending
You have volunteered yourself as an excellent example of someone who has nowhere near the credentials of Dr. Steven Jones, attacking him personally and simultaneously not providing any technical critiques of his actual work from professionals with credentials comparable to Jones'.

Be it known that Steven Jones' expertise is in fusion physics. He has zero credientials in explosives and pyrotechnics, he has zero credentials in chemistry and chemical analysis, he has zero credentials in materials engineering, and he has zero credientials in architectural engineering. I daresay that except for one or two possibilities, EVERYONE on this board has the exact same "comparable credentials" as Jones. Including me. Including you.

Let's be honest, here- the only reason you accept his report is becuase you want to believe the buildings came down from sabotage, rather than from any respect for his credentials.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Some seventy one years ago,

"President Roosevelt convened the Evian conference July 6-15 1938, to deal with the Jewish refugee problem. The Jewish Agency delegation headed by Golda Meir (Meirson) ignored a German offer to allow Jews to emigrate to other countries for $250 a head, and the Zionists made no effort to influence the United States and the 32 other countries attending the conference to allow immigration of German and Austrian Jews... in 1941 and again in 1942, the German Gestapo offered all European Jews transit to Spain, if they would relinquish all their property in Germany and Occupied France; on condition that:

a) none of the deportees travel from Spain to Palestine; and
b) all the deportees be transported from Spain to the USA or British colonies, and there to remain; with entry visas to be arranged by the Jews living there; and
c) $1000.00 ransom for each family to be furnished by the Agency, payable upon the arrival of the family at the Spanish border at the rate of 1000 families daily."

According to the zionists, if not allowed to immigrate to Palestine, there would be no deal. "One cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews in Poland...If I am asked, "Could you give from the UJA moneys to rescue Jews, ‘I say, NO! and I say again NO!"Izaak Greenbaum -- head of Jewish Agency Rescue Committee
February 18, 1943

The point is zionism will sacrifice even their own to accomplish their political ends. Zionists are dangerous to anyone that gets in their way.

It is becoming quite clear zionists not Jews played an important and pivotal role in planning, execution and 911’s current cover-up.

If the truth remains hidden and the guilty are not hounded down, arrested and put to the rope for their crimes, nobody is safe.

www.jewsagainstzionism.com...
www.fantompowa.net...

Why are you so obsessed with "the rope"?

There are other forms of capital punishment.

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by jthomas
How many times do you wish it to be debunked before you'll accept it?

Not debunked. Just links full of attacks, opinions, and theories. Just like the NIST report. Thanks for stopping by.

No, thank YOU for walking right into it.

In other words, just attack the structural engineers, forensic scientists, firemen, police, rescuers, thousands of witnesses, evidence, testimony - and never have to show any evidence to the contrary.

Thanks for confirming the history of 911 "Truth" - never making it out of the starting gate.

Every single one of those groups has what you call "truthers" asking for a new investigation. All of them have evidence contrary to the information released by the United States Government via the Media. I have to say it like that because you don't believe there is an official story, and like to point it out as soon as someone mentions it. So there you have it, you don't live up to your own standard.

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by AquariusDescending
You have volunteered yourself as an excellent example of someone who has nowhere near the credentials of Dr. Steven Jones, attacking him personally and simultaneously not providing any technical critiques of his actual work from professionals with credentials comparable to Jones'.

You have no idea what my credentials are.

I know by reading your posts, and by the fact that you don't bother to mention being a relevant professional, that you're not. And don't even act like your credentials would even begin to compare to Jones'. Get back to me when there is a Wikipedia page that (accurately) lists you as having done nuclear research internationally, let alone any of the other things Jones has done.

I have provided technical critiques of his shoddy experimental protocol, blatant ignorance, and unjustified conclusions throughout several threads and many posts.

A fool could do the same, with the same credentials.


My post still stands, "someone who has nowhere near the credentials of Dr. Steven Jones, attacking him personally and simultaneously not providing any technical critiques of his actual work from professionals with credentials comparable to Jones'." (ie, not you)