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.

 

Hypothesis: The Professor Stephen E. Jones Story.

page: 3
55
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


The red chips haven't been proved to be thermite. This material has all the characteristics of red paint. Jones' protocols were flawed and his conclusions are not valid.
Jones is not a hero, he is a charlatan. He makes outlandish statements to get attention. His piece on Jesus walking North America provided him with some attention from some folks, but he got much more from the 911 conspiracy. That is where he is now and where he will stay until he finds a bigger stage.




posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Reply to post by GunzCoty
 


Haha... silly truthers. It`s obvious the airliner got scared right before impact and tucked its wings in! That`s why you didn`t see the wings on the lawn of the Pentagon. Yep, tucked em right in just like an F-14 Tomcat from the movie TOP GUN. I mean, C`mon, that movie was from the 80`s and they had planes back then that could fold their wings... you don`t think that, by now, that kind of feature is STANDARD on every jet? Think about it... lol...Gawd I would be the perfect disinfo agent! Almost...TOO perfect.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



The red chips haven't been proved to be thermite.


Jones did prove what part was the paint and what part was thermite and you know that.
Pretending thermite doesn’t exist in Jones report is your imagination. This is a classic case of denial if I ever have seen it.


This material has all the characteristics of red paint. Jones' protocols were flawed and his conclusions are not valid.


Some does, but not all of it as you would like everyone to believe.
As far as Jones science being flawed that is “your” opinion. Until you can bring scientific, credible evidence, to the table and not your “opinions” then, no one is going to take you seriously.


Jones is not a hero, he is a charlatan.


I do not believe ATS is a place for you to spread your propaganda and smear campaign against someone you do not know. You have never been able to prove Professor Jones is a liar, never. People who like to take Jones science and twist the facts is what I call a charlatan.


He makes outlandish statements to get attention.


That is completely untrue; however there are a few “debunkers” in here who have made “outlandish statements to get attention.”


That is where he is now and where he will stay until he finds a bigger stage.


Perhaps it is you that wants a bigger stage, not Jones.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


Wasn`t this the same Professor Stephen Jones who managed to find himself involved in the Pons and Fleischmann Cold Fusion debacle ?



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by TV_Nation
 


You need to re-read his post because saying
"Where is the cord connecting your TV set to your "remote" control?"

Would not lead one to believe he was talking about the "mechanisms that set off the explosives" he never even hints at it.

And yes i called him kid as i would with you but only because i call everyone kid. Older or younger don't matter it's like when someone says "ok dude" or "Ok bro"

And no one in there right mind would use remote wireless explosives to pull of this kind of work. Everything would of been exposed if anything went wrong and the PSC cant afford that (not right now).



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by AllIsOne
 


Yes i can see that now lol
And no one said a thing about what i said about the planes. Why not?



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by UmbraSumus
 


Actually, I think his work was on Muon-catalyzed fusion (μCF), so yes sort of but only for the Dept. of Energy and until 1991. Apparently, he was made aware of Cold Fusion because of his position at DoE and since it was similar to his own research, he decided to release his paper at the same time as Pons and Fleischmann released theirs.


A New York Times article says that while peer reviewers were quite critical of Pons and Fleishchmann's research they did not apply such criticism to Jones' much more modest, theoretically supported findings. Although critics insisted that his results likely stemmed from experimental error,[9] most of the reviewing physicists indicated that he was a careful scientist. Later research and experiments supported the metallic cold fusion reports by Jones.[10]
Source: en.wikipedia.org...



--airspoon



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by GunzCoty
You need to re-read his post because saying
"Where is the cord connecting your TV set to your "remote" control?"

Would not lead one to believe he was talking about the "mechanisms that set off the explosives" he never even hints at it.


Wow.

I was in fact suggesting the detonation mechanisms.

You were suggesting they were all wired using cables. Of COURSE that is what I was responding to. If my post was really that incomprehensible, how come this other guy understood what I meant?



And no one in there right mind would use remote wireless explosives to pull of this kind of work. Everything would of been exposed if anything went wrong and the PSC cant afford that (not right now).


How would everything been exposed using wireless, as opposed to using cables?

Maybe it's time for some basic electronics lessons.

[edit on 27-8-2010 by VirginiaRisesYetAgain]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by UmbraSumus
Wasn`t this the same Professor Stephen Jones who managed to find himself involved in the Pons and Fleischmann Cold Fusion debacle ?


No. Jones discovered naturally-occurring cold fusion that worked by a different mechanism and has never been refuted. It's accepted science and has been reproduced many times by now. The problem is there is no known way to harness it as the amount of energy is minimal.


Some of the new experiments also sought to reproduce the less contentious findings on cold fusion reported independently by Dr. Steven E. Jones and his colleagues at Brigham Young University in Utah. Dr. Jones, who used a device similar to the one in the Pons-Fleischmann experiment, did not claim that any useful energy was produced. But he did report that slightly more neutrons were detected while the cell was operating than could be expected from normal sources. The result suggests at least the possibility of fusion, he said, although it is not likely to be useful as an energy source.

Physicists who have investigated Dr. Jones's report have been fairly restrained in their criticism, acknowledging that Dr. Jones is a careful scientist. But from the outset they have expressed profound skepticism of claims by Dr. Fleischmann and Dr. Pons.


partners.nytimes.com...

That article is from 1989.

And yes, Dr. Jones was considered a very careful and very well respected scientist by all parties until he initiated the fury of the pseudo-skeptics by being the first credible scientist to come out so publicly against the official story. He has also received numerous academic awards throughout his 30+ year career and has worked on leading nuclear research projects all over the world.

If you have any more questions about it, before asking me, do a Google search.

[edit on 27-8-2010 by VirginiaRisesYetAgain]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
 


It would seem you need to re-read my post because i was not suggesting they were all wired using cables. Or anything like that in fact i was saying that the people that think they used explosives are met with "were is all the det.cort" and that they are not asking the right questions.

As for "How would everything been exposed using wireless, as opposed to using cables? " As i said if any thing went wrong ya see and trying to use wireless explosives is just asking for it.

It would be cheaper then det.cord and take less time right? So why is it the demolition companys stay far from it why do they spend more time and money?

What are the chances that some random single could set them off?
Now if they used them in the WTC and they went off (when placing or befor the plan hit like 40 secs)

What do you think the paper headlines would be?


Oh and about your "basic electronics principles" thats the problem there basic. This was not basic and it was not cheap.

And i would like to hear what you think about the questions about the planes.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by GunzCoty
As for "How would everything been exposed using wireless, as opposed to using cables? " As i said if any thing went wrong ya see and trying to use wireless explosives is just asking for it.

It would be cheaper then det.cord and take less time right?


Show me your sources for saying it's cheaper than using det cord. Not that cost would matter in this case, but you are talking about what commercial companies do and why.


What are the chances that some random single could set them off?


You mean signal?

It depends on the design. If it was nothing but a conducting plate waiting for ANY current, then a lightning flash could set it off. If it were the same level of technology as the remote control to your TV, using actual data transmissions, then it would no more be set off by a random signal than a good quality remote control would start randomly flipping channels or turning your TV off or messing with the volume.

The military depends on wireless satellite technology for combat operations every single day, where lives depend on it. If it were really so easily influenced do you think this would be the case?

Do you know what an encrypted signal is? Do you know what an IP address is? Do you know anything about binary or analog data transmissions?


Oh and about your "basic electronics principles" thats the problem there basic. This was not basic and it was not cheap.


Exactly. And you would have to make a receiver in an extremely haphazard manner in order for it to go off from stray signals. Like I said, it would have to be the equivalent of just a conducting plate waiting to receive a current or voltage to go off as easily as you're imagining. You could EASILY require it to receive a specific analog or digital signal with a simple computer chip before triggering the next phase of the circuit, and those signals could be as long as you like. You could also insulate it against both heat and stray EM radiation by using the correct materials and circuit design.


And i would like to hear what you think about the questions about the planes.


Which questions about the planes?



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 01:13 AM
link   
reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
 


Ty for the typo correction an as far as "The military depends on wireless satellite technology"

My brother said "lol yeah tell that guy it is unreliable as hell" He is a USMC veteran still on inactive duty he was in Somalia and the golf he was a USMC electronics engineer (or something with electronics not that it matters) . Just to let you know what he said about "military wireless satellite technology"

And im not saying they could not of used it only that the risk was to great and it is not as reliable as det.cord.

However this is still off topic of what i said and makes everything you said (if you meant your post in the way of wireless technology ) pointless to what i said in my 1st post.

And i have never seen or heard of any signal that did not suffer from interference be it a lot or little be it a TV remote or satellite technology.

The planes was from my 1st post sorry about that. here is what i said as to what people don't ask (im sure some must have)

"And why did the planes that hit the towers no go out the other end? (intact)

I mean 1 punched a hole in about 8 walls at the pentagon and thats steel reinforced concrete. So why not at the WTC?

The FACT is you can't have both so pick 1

A: The planes are made of armor (if so where are the 2 that hit the WTC)
B: A plane did not hit the pentagon

A plane is not a tank its not a bunker-buster it would have left its wings on the lawn it would not have made it that far. "


I did not wish to go into great detail of what was wrong with the plane that hit the pentagon. Just a overall on it.


And as i have yet to ever comment on what i think happened that day. I would like to know what you think did(if you have time)



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 08:45 AM
link   
[edit on 28-8-2010 by UmbraSumus]



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Only two questions really need to be asked -

1. Exactly what has the government been "right" about? Wasn't right about the economy in April 2008 - present implying it wasn't right about it before then either; health care bill isn't going to save money; that there is no water on the moon, that the stimulus bill would keep unemployment under 8%, that all of those census jobs would translate to real job growth, that the BP oil spill was only 5k bpd, that Iraq had an active wmd program, that the body scanners at the airport can't store (or send) pictures, that NAFTA was good for the US economy... just off the top of my head - and to keep this short.

The sum of all evidence absolutely supports questioning everything the government says - and scrutinizing it carefully before reaching the conclusion what it says should be believed. The US Government has such a consistent habit of getting its facts so wrong - that we are practically forced to believe that its objective is to lie.

Question 2 - I would start with WTC 7... but forget that, we saw what happened there; but to expect anyone to believe that ANYTHING could hit the Pentagon --- UNLESS IT WANTED TO BE HIT - is laughable. For all of the security, military might, technology, and everything else - the Pentagon still can't show us the video.

So, the only conclusion, given the US Government's track record is to dismiss virtually everything it has to say about anything as complete and total BS.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by USXpat
 



...but to expect anyone to believe that ANYTHING could hit the Pentagon --- UNLESS IT WANTED TO BE HIT - is laughable. For all of the security, military might, technology, and everything else - the Pentagon still can't show us the video.


You seem to have a very over-inflated impression of the Pentagon's importance, and so-called "defensive" capabilities.

Ummm....take a look at Google Maps, and note the proximity of the Pentagon to Washington National Airport.

Airplanes fly within "stiking distance" (less than a mile) of the Pentagon routinely, every day (and at night, too).

AND...this much-ballyhooed "video surveillance"??

Your typical grocery store probably is better covered (to prevent theft)!!



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Ummm....take a look at Google Maps, and note the proximity of the Pentagon to Washington National Airport.

Airplanes fly within "stiking distance" (less than a mile) of the Pentagon routinely, every day (and at night, too).



Once again, weedwhacker/Tommy demonstrates his lack of knowledge of aviation.

Tommy, look up Class Bravo airspace, FAR Part 121, and IFR Flight Plans.

Pre-911 -
Most aircraft going into DCA are well known of their intentions before they even depart their origin airport for DCA.

The rest need clearance and be talking to a controller more than 30 miles from DCA.

Those that don't, that's your target.

Those who claim the Pentagon cannot have surface to air defense because it may inadvertently shoot down a plane on approach to DCA, have no clue how the National Airspace System works.

weedwacker/Tommy, SAM's stationed at the Pentagon are not going to shoot down planes on the ILS to DCA or the River visual when squawking mode C and have established two-way radio communication for miles prior.

Go pick up a Washington Terminal Chart and learn something.

[edit on 28-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 01:55 AM
link   
OK. I hope I can convey some perspective I have gained through technical reasearch on controlled demolitions, nuclear weapons miniturazation/ efficiency trends and human nature..

Nuke bombs have come a LONG WAY, BABY!

1945 Hiroshima bomb: 15KT tnt equivalent blast yield from 9000lbs wt.
it took em four years to invent and make go BOOM!

But Only 12 yrs later:

1957 Mk-9 Atomic Demoliton pkg: 15KT tnt equiv. blast yield- 200lbs wt.
(not 2000lbs... uh-uh... two HUNDRED lbs)


Pause a minute and see if you can imagine what a ton of tnt looks like... Hint: I can probably get about a ton-and-a-half underneath your kitchen table but your chairs have to go out on the porch for awhile.

Now visuallize a 100 TONS of tnt: I saw a picture of that... it was about 13ft high and 20ft to a side...

but wait !Hiroshima was 15 THOUSAND TONS TNT EQUIVALENT


AND this demolition charge was also 15 THOUSAND TONS TNT EQUIV.
(see above Mk-9 atomic demolition charge.)



ARE YOU STILL WITH ME HERE? THIS IS A BIG DEAL BRUHTHAS & SISTAHS.

this is the classic QUANTUM LEAP type of gain. 200lb demolition package yields explosive power equivalent of 300 MILLION pounds of tnt (150 kilo tons)

do the math! THAT WAS 50 YEARS AGO chillin's!


There have been high explosives developed since then that are measured as much as 2x the power of tnt but thats essentially it as far as public domain.

What do you think they've done since then? hmmmmm?

'Nother example: a verrrry expensive cruise missile can carry a 300 lb warhead that is either 600lbs (tnt equivalent) high explosive or a 300lb nuke warhead that is 10x (ten times) the blast that Hiroshima was... BTW a cruise-missile is, bare-bones a cool Half-million USD. can you say 'BANG for BUCK!" not very effective for the money spent on a 6,000lb cruise missile, wouldn't ya say?

Rockets and artillery are also limited by thier size to a payload / range tradeoff. IE: for a given size: EITHER I can SEND farther OR I can HIT harder on arrival! with conventional chemical explosives I can have one or t'other, BUT NOT BOTH.

Atomic / thermonuclear technology is/ WAS a TOTAL GAME CHANGER!

Right away, back then in the 50's they started wondering what else they could do with it....
craters, trenches, underground caverns / reservoirs....

.....DEMOLISH SKYSCRAPERS!!!???

OH, you say, but I'd recognize the mushroom cloud? etc, etc, etc?

Except that the mushroom cloud films you are familiar with were taken when most of us (over 40's) were little kids and TV's and computers were running off VACUME TUBES instead of TRANSISTORS...

Like I said: 'We've come a long way, baby!"

They say variety is the 'spice of life'

guess what? A thermonuclear weapons designer now has a total of 7 diferrent fuel elements to choose from and can combine them into 6 different recipes for disaster.... It aint yer daddy's Oldsmobile girly!

Uranium, Plutonum, Lithium, Dueterium, Tritium, He3, He4... I think that's right... if I remember what I read, that is....

And rememberr these building s were pulverised to DUST and they only recovered what 200 bodies, not chairs, not cell phones, not big, flat acre sized slabs of concrete/metal pan/truss flooring.

Eye witnesses said the DUST was 2-3 inches thick, river to river..... at two inchess thats 7,ooo cubic feet of DUST per acre!! an acre is about 208' x 208'.... hmm thats about the size of each of the 110 floors in each of WTC 1 or 2... what a coincidence....


AIRPLANE FIRE!

LMAO.... well actually no, I am not laughing.

thanks for your attention, may you live to tell your grandchildren about it.
overnout







[edit on 30-8-2010 by AntiShyster]



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Once again, "Tiffany"......taking out of context, and twisting. It's what you excel at, both here, and at your vanity website.


Once again, weedwhacker/Tommy demonstrates his lack of knowledge of aviation.


Au contraire, lady. YOU can try, but will not succeed at "spinning" this, not again.

I don't need the condescension....AND your tactic only works for your sycophants in the audience...the ones apparentlty who drop by to star your posts?

The FACT that airplanes arriving DCA aren't a "surprise" isn't a surprise...and it was NOT my point!!!

But, the usual trend in this poster's strategy IS to take anything "she" can, and then flipit around, twisting the original intent and meaning, JUST to play the childish games and try to look like "she" has the last word....


Apparently, your total lack of understanding, and your continued strategy of "deflect and use deceit" at every turn is the issue.

Seems you are TOTALLY unaware of the controversy that surrounded the re-opening of DCA, post 9/11?? How can this be...a person who claims to "know" so much about aviation, and airplanes --- excuse me, miss Flight Attendant, "aircraft"....(busy Googling, still I see, huh?)

Are you still, in your "search for truth" totally ignorant of the special procedures that were instituted for security measures, as a compromise system for the re-opening of DCA?? (It applied to ALL air traffic arriving into the Washington TRACON's airspace...if the destination airport was DCA)

The policy is no longer in existence...so I will discuss it. (Other techniques are in use, today).

We had a "code word" to use, one that changed each day. Yeah, it was sorta silly, because ANYONE with a scanner could have heard the radio chatter, and figured it out. We got our "word" from the dispatcher...just rang him/her up, and were given the info verbally. THEN, the "word" had to be used in just the right place, on the INITIAL call to Washington Approach...if it wasn't done properly, they diverted you to IAD.

It DID happen to a few airliners, during the time this procedure was in effect -- I imagine it was very embarrassing for those guys.

So much for what You "know", huh? (In a word....ZIP)


Now, more of the lies and distortions:


Those who claim the Pentagon cannot have surface to air defense because it may inadvertently shoot down a plane on approach to DCA, have no clue how the National Airspace System works.


Point out where I made any such ridiculous claim.

It is what YOU read into it, and you fell for it hook, line and sinker. Yet, it continues...at least, you continue to be entertaining, and endless source of amusement:


weedwacker/Tommy, SAM's stationed at the Pentagon are not going to shoot down planes on the ILS to DCA or the River visual when squawking mode C and have established two-way radio communication for miles prior.



Man....such a silly, childish condescending attitude, little girl.....


Go pick up a Washington Terminal Chart and learn something.


How much flight time does your boyfriend have, again? I hope HE isn't doing all this writing, under your name...because if he is, he's making a donkey out of himself. (He talks/writes exactly like someone who merely READS, or Googles, this stuff....like it's all from "school learning", with no practical experieince...)



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by AntiShyster
 


There is no evidence for any demolitions, nuclear or conventional. The collapses started where the planes impacted, not in the basements. While things have been miniaturized, the principles of operation remain the same. Radiation throughout the spectrum would have been released and it would have been noisy. Building parts were not scattered far. The dust was generated from the collapse.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 04:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by UmbraSumus
reply to post by airspoon
 


Wasn`t this the same Professor Stephen Jones who managed to find himself involved in the Pons and Fleischmann Cold Fusion debacle ?


and what makes you think it was a debacle?


Physicists who have investigated Dr. Jones's report have been fairly restrained in their criticism, acknowledging that Dr. Jones is a careful scientist. But from the outset they have expressed profound skepticism of claims by Dr. Fleischmann and Dr. Pons.


partners.nytimes.com...


what about the breakthroughs by the navy scientists....


Researchers at a US Navy laboratory have unveiled what they say is "significant" evidence of cold fusion, a potential energy source that has many skeptics in the scientific community.


www.google.com...




new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join