Top Expert comes forth: 9/11 Bldg 7 downed with explosives

Originally posted by XxiTzYoMasterxX


Ever hear the saying "looks like a duck,walks like a duck well then..it must be a duck"?

But all three WTC building collapses look different, and require different, massively stretched, explanations to account for them as demolitions.

Richard Gage runs into this problem often, most notably when describing the collapse of WTC 1 in two different, mutually exclusive ways.

reply to post by Thermo Klein


reply to post by JoshNorton


The towers were brought down by US internal agency because it was on a Phoenix worm hole site.
Also a portion of the pentagon was on another worm hole site.

A Sonic beam was projected from the Titicaca and another leylines convergence points which propagated through earth's ley lines and were amplified in the Bermuda triangle and then through a series of other points focussed on the target .

This is the trumpet seal opening sings mentioned in the bible.The prophecies are being orchestrated in such a way as to make use of natural occuring events to trigger this.

Holographic inserts were introduced so that a plane crash can appear to be the cause and with connivance of the whom the administrator blames for the attack were ready to take the responsibility for the attack.

These explosives and other theories are hoaxes preplanned to divert people from the actual cause of investigation.

reply to post by impressme


I have shown the fallacies in Jones' paper many times over. I have explained it so that the casual reader can understand it.

Jones' agenda is to inflate his ego by being in the public eye and the only way he can do this is to make outrageous pronouncements.

The offensive drivel is all your and Jones'.

reply to post by pteridine

I have shown the fallacies in Jones' paper many times over.

You have showed us nothing but give your opinions and smear Professor Steven Jones, as if you are a scientist and have tested the dust samples.

I have explained it so that the casual reader can understand it.

Yes, your opinions, and nothing else. We are in here to deny ignorance not to promote it.

Jones' agenda is to inflate his ego by being in the public eye and the only way he can do this is to make outrageous pronouncements.

Another one of your negative assumptions without any proof. Looks to me that it is you who is making outrageous pronouncements.

The offensive drivel is all your and Jones'.

Anyone reading this nonsense can see who is inventing all these fallacies against Steven Jones without given us any credible proof, to back your claims. This is not debunking Jones journal, what you are doing is outright slandering. We are all entitled to our opinions, but as we all know opinions, are not facts or getting to the truth.
Perhaps you should write your own peer review Journal showing how Professor Steven Jones is wrong. Sitting on a conspiracy website 24/7 running a smear campaign against someone is not debating.



[edit on 17-7-2010 by impressme]

reply to post by impressme


Perhaps you have missed my explanations of Jones' gross errors in concluding that thermite was present without any scientific proof. Possibly, you have missed the fact that Henryco at www.darksideofgravity.com had samples of the paint chips and saw NO thermitic activity.

There is no evidence for thermite regardless of what your hero wants to believe.

reply to post by pteridine

There is no evidence for thermite regardless of what your hero wants to believe.

Jones is not my hero, perhaps George Bush is your hero.


We all have heard the paint chip conspiracy theories yet not one of these so call debunkers could even prove that. Nice try.
The only evidence you can provide comes from the debunking websites, which are full of nothing but opinions, and rants against the truth.

You have not provided anything but your opinions on the Thermite topic and websites of other people opinions nothing more. Perhaps you should become a scientist and get your own laboratory and do your own dust sample testing and then you can try and disprove Jones science.

reply to post by impressme


I have provided technical analyses that do not rely on any websites other than the paper published on Bentham. Perhaps you do not understand these analyses but your contention that they are invalid is incorrect. You have not ever rebutted any of my criticisms because no one on any of the websites you frequent and defend has ever been able to rebut my criticisms.

The OP claims that a low level technician is a "Top Expert." He isn't. There is no evidence of CD of WTC7.

reply to post by pteridine

I have provided technical analyses that do not rely on any websites other than the paper published on Bentham.

You provided a conspiracy theory, nothing more.

Perhaps you do not understand these analyses but your contention that they are invalid is incorrect.

Perhaps you do not understand that these analyses are only your conspiracy theory and lack real science, in other words no one supports your conspiracy theory. If you really had something here, every government scientist would have been all over it by now.

The OP claims that a low level technician is a "Top Expert." He isn't. There is no evidence of CD of WTC7.

And your evidence that there were no CD at the WTC 7 is??

You are not an "expert" on Na-no Thermite. There is no evidence that your conspiracy theory is correct.

Your behavior on this topic is becoming like:

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by pteridine

 

You provided a conspiracy theory, nothing more.

Perhaps you do not understand that these analyses are only your conspiracy theory and lack real science, in other words no one supports your conspiracy theory. If you really had something here, every government scientist would have been all over it by now.

You are not an "expert" on Na-no Thermite. There is no evidence that your conspiracy theory is correct.

I have shown the many errors in Jones' conspiracy theory. I used more science than Jones because he is substantially lacking in chemistry skills. Government scientists pay no attention to Jones because his paper is not in a legitimate scientific journal.
You do not know what I am an expert in. You can bet I know much more analytical chemistry than Jones and his "team," combined, and will happily continue to disinterestedly critique his work regardless of whether it is bad or good and whether you agree with it or not, or understand it or not.

reply to post by impressme


Oh, thanks for the chuckle...now THIS is funny, since it describes the so-called "truth movement" to a 'T':

Funny, I usually see that image used to describe "creationists" who fail, constantly, to understand science, and instead resort to the attitude displayed in that picture.

When their nonsense is pointed out to them, THAT is the result, usually...can always be counted on regularly, too.....

reply to post by weedwhacker

Oh, thanks for the chuckle...now THIS is funny, since it describes the so-called "truth movement" to a 'T':

No, this describes the OS believers, always plugging their ears from the truth.
It’s funny, I have seen this used before on people who are in denial of the truth and who always argue against common logic and hand wave all the facts.
When it comes to WTC 7 this is what Truthers have to deal with, in discussing the topic at hand.

reply to post by pteridine

I have shown the many errors in Jones' conspiracy theory.

You have not shown us anything, but give your opinions and insulted a bunch of scientists .

I used more science than Jones because he is substantially lacking in chemistry skills.

I disagree, You care to prove that you have better chemistry skills than Jones?

Government scientists pay no attention to Jones

I have to agree with you on that statement, because we all know that parts of our government supports pseudo science, and the truth is the last thing on their criminal agenda.

because his paper is not in a legitimate scientific journal.

You are making a false statement. Your work has never been peer reviewed and never will be, why should anyone believe you? Why do you think you are credible?

You do not know what I am an expert in.

What I do know is, you are not an expert in Na-no Thermite.

You can bet I know much more analytical chemistry than Jones and his "team," combined,

and will happily continue to disinterestedly critique his work regardless of whether it is bad or good and whether you agree with it or not, or understand it or not.

You certainly have entertained us, be my guest, but it does not make you an expert, or an authority on the subject.
We all can be objective into giving our opinions to reports, if they do not fit our belief system, which is something I see demonstrated here every day by some posters. Facts are not important to some don’t you agree?

[edit on 18-7-2010 by impressme]

(conventional demolition) and Building 7. Yes

But twin towers 1 and 2- 110 stories tall??-absolutely positively NO.

Not thermate, not thermite, not carefully placed charges, not weakening metal from fire.

Was it a form of Nano-technology? Absolutely positively YES

GI Joe (SPYGLASS Entertainment) The Eiffel tower :38 second mark.


Except the nano technology we have is more stable and can be programmed.

Of course we all know this technology is considered by all the big brains as being out there in koo koo land. The best way they keep this technology secret is 98% wont believe, don't believe, and still cannot believe it thus it stays secret. The one thing that pisses me off most, is they rub it in your faces, put it right out in the open in plain view more so than the friggin sun is in the afternoon sky.
SPYGLASS Entertainment???

too funny

The ones that are involved in these type operations can be controlled 3 ways from whistle blowing.
1. Financially or Dirt that would hurt them pretty bad.
2. Threat to family members lives
3. If someone did say something they would be laughed at (this one usually works best) Because after all...its koo koo. Right?


Which brings me to a close..

Never in the history of mankind has there been 2 skyscrapers of this magnitude in size been brought down using conventional demolition means.
EVER !!!!!

WHY?

"because it cannot be done, kinda like we cannot rebuild the pyramids of Giza to exact specifications.

especially a perfect collapse like it did on 911"

If I had a trillion dollars on me, I'd build you 2 Twin towers to exact specifications and let you put your best demolition experts on it to re-create the event. I'd even bring old Thermate expert from Bringham Young University Steven Jones in to give it a try. Use as much thermite-thermate as you want..Sad thing is he is a top physicist and would say there is no such technology or that we are 20-50 years away from something like that.

* One thing I could promise is you will not be bringing the buildings down perfectly in their footprints like on 911.

( I love when my PC starts acting up when I post something like this. Says I'm hitting a sweet spot)



[edit on 18-7-2010 by superluminal11]

reply to post by impressme


I agree that facts are not important to you. You do not recognize the errors of the Jones paper even when I explain them. Please go to all your favorite websites and ask the questions about DSC in air and imbalances in energy output. I suspect that the people who frequent such sites are no more competent than the Jones team and might not realize how bad the Bentham paper is, but maybe someone will suggest that they have moved on and that Jones thermite paint is passe.
I have many publications in peer reviewed chemistry and technology journals and regularly review papers for Analytical Chemistry and Catalysis. That is why when I read Jones' paper, I had to tell the non-technical readers of ATS why it didn't prove what it is claimed to have proved. If it had proved the claims, I would have so stated. Jones and other such will not be able to buffalo ATS readers based on their reputations in the CT communities.

reply to post by pteridine


Can you prove Steven Jones wrong?What about all the experts backing him?Do you have thousands of experts to back your claim?Do you have one?

reply to post by pteridine

You can bet I know much more analytical chemistry than Jones and his "team," combined,

I suspect that the people who frequent such sites are no more competent than the Jones team and might not realize how bad the Bentham paper is, but maybe someone will suggest that they have moved on and that Jones thermite paint is passe.

I have many publications in peer reviewed chemistry and technology journals and regularly review papers for Analytical Chemistry and Catalysis.

Fine. Please give us a copy of your bio and a short detailed list of your published articles.





[edit on 19-7-2010 by impressme]

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by pteridine

 

Fine. Please give us a copy of your bio and a short detailed list of your published articles.

Sorry, Impme, you have all the personal info you are going to get. Some of my more narrowminded clients would not be sympathetic to my postings on ATS.

Originally posted by XxiTzYoMasterxX
reply to post by pteridine

 

Can you prove Steven Jones wrong?What about all the experts backing him?Do you have thousands of experts to back your claim?Do you have one?

I have already shown Jones' conclusions to be unjustified and his analytcal protocols to be poor. There are no experts backing Jones that I know of. See www.darksideofgravity.com for some other studies on the red paint chips.
The low-level technician 'expert' who claims WTC7 was downed by explosives provides no evdence for his claim.

reply to post by pteridine

Sorry, Impme, you have all the personal info you are going to get. Some of my more narrowminded clients would not be sympathetic to my postings on ATS.

What a lousy excuse, just as I suspected, you just proved yourself a fraud.



[edit on 19-7-2010 by impressme]

reply to post by impressme


I don't intend to lose work to satisfy your curiousity, impressme.

In this thread we have seen that a low level technician was touted as a "top expert" because his opinion coincided with certain conspiracists. We have seen that the Jones paper, shown to have fatal flaws, is still being cited as proof that thermite was present even though it has been explained many times that thermite will not allow controlled demolition. There seems to be a desperate tone to these threads and no actual proof of demolition has ever been presented.