So, let's get this straight, shall we?

A conspiracy theorist, who is an art curator, not a member of a scientific team, stuffs away some dust from her apartment several days after the event, based upon a "spiritual feeling".

Years later she claims to send some of that dust to another conspiracy theorist, who isn't even a chemist, and was trying to come up with a way to get people to buy into his pre-determined conclusion that thermite took down the towers.

Then the conspiracy theorist fails to do the most basic of tests on the sample (running the test in the absence of air) and proceeds to proclaim "it's themite!" while other conspiracy theorists jump up and down and give him high 5's while making excuses about the questionable test. Because it's what they all wanted to hear none of them actually question his motives or procedure, but accept it as absolute proof.

And now...

A bunch of conspiracy theorists , many of whom belong to a website that happens to make it's money on keeping the conspiracy theory alive, agree with his findings.

Wow, big surprise.

Cool story.

Ok, I get it.

Who really cares though? I mean its been almost 10 years. We all know the government is crooked and there are alternative agendas.

Let the dead rest and move on people with your lives.

who cares anymore?

Originally posted by turbofan
My thoughts are with you and also in the few threads I have debating the resident "experts".

Nobody will touch Jones' paper because they know they can't deal with the science. If they do, they
will admit by science that 9/11 was an inside job.

Not saying it could not have been an inside job, but a paper that states thermitic material or explosives have been found does not clarify who put them there.

So it turns out the most likely and rational explanation was true after all.

Originally posted by impressme
Just because not very many professionals signed on, it doesn’t prove Jones science is flawed.

It doesn't mean its right either does it?

At best, under the circumstances, he has an interesting theory.

Thats all it is though, a theory. It proves nothing. It may very well be wrong.

Just because some people may think things looked wrong, it doesn't mean that things were wrong. Up until 9/11/2001 no one had flown 767 airliners at 400mph+ deliberately into the Twin Towers.

Remember - 9/11 IS the rule and not the exception to the rule

Originally posted by bsbray11
His resume is huge and stamping him with the label "conspiracy theorist" and brushing everything else he says or does aside based on that is immature and unreasonable.

So, you're a fan of his I take it?

Unreasonable is taking a non scientific sample and sending it to a conspiracy theorist who is trying to prove his pre-determined conclusion, then expect people who aren't conspiracy theorists to accept that.

Nope. Not going to happen.

If you ever want anyone to take this matter seriously then get an independent team of scientists to procure several samples and run the proper tests, then publish their peer-reviewed findings. The fact that no one in the conspiracy theorist world even bothers to push for this is quite telling. To me that is immature, so save your insults.

Otherwise, all it comes out to be is that a bunch of people on the same side of the argument agree with each other. And it is quite a small bunch.

The reason he didn't test in the absence of air could be because he understands a few things about what exactly that would or wouldn't prove, than you do.

Wow, prime example of what I just said above. Until the proper tests are run, there is no proof. Period. No one outside that small circle of conspiracy theorists will ever buy into it no matter how much you try and belittle people and claim they don't understand.

Originally posted by neformore

Originally posted by impressme
Just because not very many professionals signed on, it doesn’t prove Jones science is flawed.

It doesn't mean its right either does it?

No, as a matter of fact it means this whole line of "reasoning" you are using is flawed, and doesn't mean anything.

Why are you implying this "reasoning" in your rhetorical questions?

Originally posted by impressme

How would Janette MacKinlay or a scientist know that na-nothermite was in the WTC dust samples before testing it?

Exactly! But that's what Jones tried to desperately to prove since he had already made that claim years prior :

On September 22, 2005 Jones presented his views on the collapse of the World Trade Center towers and World Trade Center 7 at a BYU seminar attended by about 60 people. Pointing to the speed and symmetry of the collapses, the characteristics of dust jets, eyewitness reports of explosions down low in the buildings, partially vaporized beams, molten metal in the basements which was still red hot weeks after the event, and the notion that no modern high rise had ever collapsed from fire, Jones suggested that the evidence defies the mainstream collapse theory and favors controlled demolition, possibly by the use of thermite or nanothermite.

You are trying your best to twist garbage nonsense into something that’s not true.

You can now feel free to eat those insults, CL.

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by bsbray11
His resume is huge and stamping him with the label "conspiracy theorist" and brushing everything else he says or does aside based on that is immature and unreasonable.

So, you're a fan of his I take it?

Unreasonable is taking a non scientific sample and sending it to a conspiracy theorist who is trying to prove his pre-determined conclusion, then expect people who aren't conspiracy theorists to accept that.

Again with this "conspiracy theorist" label.

I'm going to ask you again, what in the hell is that supposed to mean?

Are you saying since you perceive Jones as a "conspiracy theorist," you're more qualified of a scientist than he is now, even on the subject of chemistry? Jones might not have his PhD in chemistry but do you? And are you a world-renown research scientist in any field? Do you think world-renown physicists don't know anything at all about chemistry? Niels Harrit is a professor of chemistry at the University of Copenhagen, do you think he knows anything about chemistry? He co-authored the same work we are talking about.

If you ever want anyone to take this matter seriously then get an independent team of scientists to procure several samples

This IS an independent team of scientists! What do you want, people from the federal government?! Anyone else is apparently a "conspiracy theorist" to you anyway and automatically stupid. Where does this idea come from that "conspiracy theorists" are some completely different type of human beings that have some secret agenda and can't be trusted? From your own head, my friend, and you are not correct in your thinking.

And they did have more than one sample. I've seen Jones in videos before explaining that they collected dust from several sites around Manhattan and tested them all. If you actually take the time to look you will find everything you are asking for.

The reason he didn't test in the absence of air could be because he understands a few things about what exactly that would or wouldn't prove, than you do.

Wow, prime example of what I just said above. Until the proper tests are run, there is no proof. Period.

So you have nothing to say about the fact that the stuff produced iron spheres, something that combustion can't do? Nothing about the fact that the whole reason removing oxygen would be performed in the first place, is to rule combustion out? Nothing about the fact that this stuff is more energetic than the same size sample of conventional thermite? Do you think simple combustion can melt steel but something more energetic than thermite can't? I guess since I'm also a "conspiracy theorist" in your eyes nothing I say can be trusted either, and so you just have to block your ears and yell really loud to drown all this out.

Originally posted by Mythkiller
Irrefutable evidence as far as I can see, nice post.
I would suggest that the only ones that are debunking this information at this stage are paid agents/stooges, trolls, complete morons, ignorant or just in total denial.

Personaly, I feel they are mostly agents of one sort or another being paid or otherwise to muddy the waters and cause doubt, or try to instill confusion intothe arguement...actually it's not even an arguement any more, it's gone way beyond any reasonable doubt.
Lets see who arrives to do the aforementioned

edit on 28-12-2010 by Mythkiller because: Spelling

edit on 28-12-2010 by Mythkiller because: (no reason given)

only because somebody is really persistent does not necessarily mean they are disinfo agents, although that is not an impossibility. They might simply be here to convince themselves first and foremost over anybody else.