Jones "Peer - Reviewed" Scientific Journal Found Credible!

reply to post by OptimistPrime

What would a sculptor be doing with nano-thermite? How would a sculptor have access to military grade thermite?
What independent lab would you like to see test these samples? Would these independent labs be investigated to make sure there was absolutely no connection to any parties accused of foul play in 9/11?

1) No one has proven the dust sample contained actual "nano-thermite" . It is my understanding that the alleged components Jones claims to have found , were prominent in the material used in the construction of the towers . Those same materials would have also been prominent in the aging process of the towers over a period of thirty years . And again , those same components would have been displayed throughout the entire debris field . If Jones cannot verify that his dust sample was representative of the majority of the dust at ground zero , he has no case .
In answer to your question , nano-thermite was not proven . The sculptor entertained an art and a proffession that would provide him plenty of encounters with spheres . It would seem highly suspect that Jones would base his entire premise upon dust that was collected from the apartment of a metals-worker/fabricator .

2)

What independent lab would you like to see test these samples?

Doesn't matter to me , I'm not the one advocating Jones' work as credible . Any prominent University would suffice . Jones should have no qualms with this , if in fact he wants his conclusions to be taken seriously by the scientific community .

3)

Would these independent labs be investigated to make sure there was absolutely no connection to any parties accused of foul play in 9/11?

That's a pretty big piece to chew on there , as the TM has accused everyone and their dog of being in on it . Would they also ensure that no truthers were even remotely connected to the new analysis ?

reply to post by okbmd

Let me get this straight, you are advocating that the dust came from the apartment in which a sculptor lived? That these people were not intelligent enough to figure out welding in an apartment building is an unsafe practice? Welding in an apartment filled with art supplies such as paint and wood and surely lots of paper? Lets not forget the disregard for welding in an apt building without proper ventilation.

reply to post by OptimistPrime


No , I am not the one who claims that is where the dust came from . Jones himself asserts this . As for not comprehending what I was saying , what , about the following , did you not understand ?

you WOULD NOT need a welder to produce such spheres , you can produce these spheres with a simple brazier's torch , nothing but a lightweight propane torch that is hand-held and convenient .

You do not need a welder to produce spheres . There is no reason to believe the guy was welding in his apartment . However , he could easily have used a braziers torch that also produces spheres . This wouldn't be the first sculptor in history who has worked out of his home .

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by OptimistPrime

 

No , I am not the one who claims that is where the dust came from . Jones himself asserts this . As for not comprehending what I was saying , what , about the following , did you not understand ?

you WOULD NOT need a welder to produce such spheres , you can produce these spheres with a simple brazier's torch , nothing but a lightweight propane torch that is hand-held and convenient .

You do not need a welder to produce spheres . There is no reason to believe the guy was welding in his apartment . However , he could easily have used a braziers torch that also produces spheres . This wouldn't be the first sculptor in history who has worked out of his home .

Wow, good thinking!

Maybe he even sculpted WITH thermite!

Maybe she liked to flambe her pancakes with thermite!?

I hear it's good for getting grease off dishes and removing unsightly back hair too.

Yep there are a thousands of uses for therrmite around the house and any amount of ways it could have come to be throughout a bucket of WTC dust! LOL.

You have to laugh, or else you'd cry.

reply to post by micpsi

Very interesting post.

I would like to see Jones respond to some of these claims, particularly that about Mr. Urich and possible contamination of the dust samples he used.

I would also like to ask you personally if you view the governments official story with the same skepticism? They are the ones that quarantined all of the samples and had them shipped off and destroyed and then later claimed that their samples showed absolutely that their theory was correct.

To criticize Jones for possibly using contaminated evidence when the entire reason he had to do so was because the government mandated that no people but their own were allowed to look at the evidence is absurd for the government or their backers to do.

Now as a skeptic, I think all possible explanations should be heavily scrutinized in an attempt to get to the truth, and if this is how you feel I applaud you.

But it seems to me that because our government is the group that it charged with our defense, and the fact that they failed means they should have to provide us with an explanation.

What astounds me is how many people will accept the governments explanation (knowing full well that they not only have a history of lying about these things, Gulf of Tonkin, but that the same people in charge of the government suggested flying our own planes into towers in the PNAC documents) despite them refusing to let the public examine the evidence, and turn around and demand to see 100% perfect evidence from people who raise questions about the official explanation.

micpsi well said on the process of jones. He is of false science and you debated it well bravo !!

Originally posted by filosophia
i found it amusing when the debunkers (we know who they are) would claim that Jones' paper was not peer reviewed (since it could not be debunked) and thus it is not science worthy since the government chose not to peer review it. But now that it officially is peer reviewed, I suppose they will have to come out with a half hour long History channel special on how foreign scientists claim ridiculous things to push their pseudo-science.

LoL if it was history channel it would have to be an hour. They need atleast that to debunk any theory. History has had a bunch of shows on about the whole 9-11 coverup and I find it funny they skip the important stuff. They act like WTC building 7 never even existed... Sure alot of debunkers would just rather pretend that building was never there either. That is what got my attention in the first place, this massive structure fell into it's own footprint because of a fire. That no one knows how it started in the first place. The fire was 80 stories up the north and south tower, then it jumped?

reply to post by Malcram

Wow, good thinking!

Maybe he even sculpted WITH thermite!

Maybe she liked to flambe her pancakes with thermite!?

I hear it's good for getting grease off dishes and removing unsightly back hair too.

Yep there are a thousands of uses for therrmite around the house and any amount of ways it could have come to be throughout a bucket of WTC dust! LOL.

You have to laugh, or else you'd cry.

And to think that someone actually starred such an ignorant response .

It is evident from your own post , that you have no clue whatsoever what the composition of thermite is .

reply to post by okbmd


Wasn't Jones able to ignite said spheres, thus showing its explosiveness? I wish you luck in your arguement, but I don't think you will win. I would suggest debunking the peer reviewed case study, and submitting it to a journal.

Originally posted by okbmd

And to think that someone actually starred such an ignorant response .

It is evident from your own post , that you have no clue whatsoever what the composition of thermite is .

You mean it doesn't remove back hair? You don't weld with it? It can't be used to clean dishes or flambe pancakes?

Well then I'm confused. If it doesn't get used around the house then how did this pyrotechnic compound get into the WTC dust?

reply to post by okbmd


Home as in house? House with a garage? Garage with the door wide open? Sculptor as in working with clay? I really do not think that it matters WHAT kind of torch was used in the apt building, just the fact that it is an OPEN flame (not the kind you would find in a candle) inside a dwelling full of flammable materials and all their possessions is what strikes me as odd. Any welding I do, be it brazing or using tungsten, occurs away from combustible materials and something I value too much to risk being burned.

Originally posted by Malcram
Well then I'm confused. If it doesn't get used around the house then how did this pyrotechnic compound get into the WTC dust?

You do realise that the most common form of thermite is just a mixture of rust and aluminum dust? And that the WTC exterior was clad in aluminum?

Originally posted by Myendica
reply to post by okbmd

 

Wasn't Jones able to ignite said spheres, thus showing its explosiveness?

Yes, he was. (Not from the sphere though, from the chips in the dust. The spheres are a "by product")

He got an even more violent explosive reaction from the WTC dust chips than from usual therrmite used in demolitions/by the army, with which he and his colleague compared it.

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Originally posted by Malcram
Well then I'm confused. If it doesn't get used around the house then how did this pyrotechnic compound get into the WTC dust?

You do realise that the most common form of thermite is just a mixture of rust and aluminum dust? And that the WTC exterior was clad in aluminum?

Interesting then that the WTC thermite is not "the most common form" but was found to be more potent.

Or are you arguing that random accidental admixing of rust and aluminium particles created a thermite more powerful and destructive than specially scientifically created thermite? Wow. That building must have been a tinderbox just waiting to explode then. It's a wonder it needed the plane to trigger it.

Maybe the army and demolition teams should just start carefully scraping outsides of buildings to harvest explosive materials?

Originally posted by impressme
It’s time to lay the hard facts on the table! If anyone believes Steven Jones Journal is not peer reviewed as we still see a very few do on ATS, then why would 1,398 “Valid” signers put their name on a list in support of Steven Jones scientific Journal and support it 100%? These are scientists, Architects, Engineers, and professionals.

Perspective.

TheInstitution of Civil Engineers (UK) has 84,350 members

The Institution of Structural Engineers (uk) has over 23,000 members

The American Society of Civil Engineers has over 140,000 members

Working that out, based on the major institutions of two countries, thats 0.5% of engineers.

But not all of the signatories are Engineers, some are architects. The pool of architects from those two countries would dilute the pot even more. (The American Institute of Architects has 83.500+ members)

Surely then, the question is - if the idea is correct - why there aren't more who back it?

Sure, 1398 sounds like a huge figure, but out of how many worldwide?

Originally posted by Malcram
He got an even more violent explosive reaction from the WTC dust chips than from usual therrmite used in demolitions/by the army, with which he and his colleague compared it.

.. which would then suggest that it couldn't be thermite. But since their pet theory depended on it, it was cast aside.

In any case, it's irrelevant as both of the lead authors (Harrit & Jones) have gone back to the theory of conventional explosives being used. Which is of course ignoring the lack of telltale signs of those.

Originally posted by neformore

Sure, 1398 sounds like a huge figure, but out of how many worldwide?

Are you suggesting it's usual for such papers to reviewed by every single member of the particular field worldwide before it can be considered "peer reviewed"? Is that what happens for other peer reviewed papers? Nope.

Only with this subject could a paper receive considerable more peer reviewing and assent than most, yet still be be dismissed.

This is getting silly.

If you are going to honestly compare it then find out how many other papers are considered generally credible and sufficiently peer reviewed and find out how many were involved in the process before it was published as peer-reviewed. Then compare it to the number Jones has.

reply to post by micpsi

I shared the loft with my companion, Jim Lecce. Jim, a renaissance man, had retired from a distinguished career in science, and was now following his dream to be a sculptor. We both indulged in the culture New York had to offer.

www.theneedtoremember.com...

Where does it state in the PDF that Jim is a welder?

It is also important to note, that her boyfriend, Jim Lecce, was a sculptor[color=gold] who possibly worked with metals and welding equipment (see this example from a similarly named sculptor). From the previously linked PDF:

The dust sample is taken from a household of a man, [color=gold]who was possibly using welding gear to make sculptures. Welding gear can create the iron spheres Jones is talking about. Even the possibility of contamination of the dust samples with dust from his clothing hasn't been ruled out, or even addressed. And this sample was the main piece of evidence he built his theory on!!!!!

[color=gold]“Who possibly”? Either Jim Lecce did, or he didn’t use welding equipment, which is it? (assumptions)

Where does it state that Jim Lecce did his sculptures with welding equipment? It does not! It is clear that you made this up. where does it state that Jim use any kind of thermite?

What would a sculptor be doing with nano-thermite? How would a sculptor have access to military grade thermite?

Exactly.

Micpsi, you have dreamed up “every possible excuse” to why you believe the WTC dust was contaminated, yet you can’t prove a thing. Nice try and for some of you who fell for this goes to prove you will believe anything that is told to you without researching the content the rest of your post is your opinion nothing more.

Nice try of planting false idea’s on the ATS readers.

Originally posted by roboe
.. which would then suggest that it couldn't be thermite.

It doesn't suggest it "couldn't be thermite" at all. It suggests it was thermite just a more potent kind. It suggests that it was cutting edge rather than "bog standard". I guess they decided not to cut the costs and go for regular grade thermite seeing as they had so much of the American peoples money in their black budgets to blow them up with.

reply to post by okbmd

I would also like to add that propane torches are very poor for use in brazing cast iron, but great for getting the cast iron preheated to 600 degrees. That being said, those iron spheres would have to be made using heat exceeding the melting point of iron which is 2700 degrees Fahrenheit. Earlier in the thread, it was pointed out that Mr. Lecce was a professional welder, and as professionals go, they like to use the proper tools for the job, such as an acetylene torch with a brazing or cutting tip. Somehow I doubt he was using a $12 handheld propane torch in an apt, unless he was soldering copper pipe.