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.

 

Jones "Peer - Reviewed" Scientific Journal Found Credible!

page: 7
96
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 02:17 AM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


It is in my opinion that any potential POTUS going into office with the right intentions in mind is always turned. Every government, every country, every time. The wicked debaucheries and evil corruptness does not just lay with the USA. It's a terminal cancer which has already seeped into every pore and facet of global political power. Possibly with the exception of a few which have not yet been coerced by the military industrial complex.

I fear it is too late, all or nothing at this point. No turning back or regrouping for the road to enlightenment and freedom has already been traveled. The journey would be longer to complete to begin anew. The corruptness runs wild like a poison in the blood and the only solution is to allow it to run it's course. This poison will ironically kill it's host. Only then can we take advantage of the window of opportunity, and thrust a final blow to an unsuspecting diabolo.




posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 02:50 AM
link   
Disclaimer: I have yet to form a conclusion on the thermite but I do not doubt the academic and scientific methods used.

The interesting thing about some of the comments of the people who are trying to establish doubt in this paper is that they are all unfamiliar with the academic process.

I suggest anybody who wants to learn the processes Google them or start here:

Wikipedia

Wikipedia

It should help solve some of the questions regarding the veracity of this paper and the process.


edit on 29/12/1010 by Krusty the Klown because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 03:19 AM
link   
reply to post by FlySolo
 



Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Had I been POTUS instead of Cheney/Bush, this would have been my thinking:

INSTEAD of making a run at the throne of the earth ie: global geostrategic hegemony, by authorizing the muder of 3000 of my own constituents, in order to wage resource and domination wars as per the PNAC (with a soft c) recommendations, and sacrificing another million innocent souls in the process to a Satanic doctrine..

..I would have looked into the future of the 21st century and noted that the whole world was on the very cusp of entering the technological age, and on the basis that we had a severe CRISIS on our hands, in education and technological innovation, and were about to lose our competitive edge in an increasingly competitive global marketplace, I would have spent that TWO TRILLION dollars on all manner of infrastructure, including a REAL information superhighway in the form of terrabit bandwidth fiber optic cabling to every school and home in the country, as well as various Civil Infrastructure initiatives, including high speed and light commutor rail corridors between all the major urban centers, improving dramatically the speed of exchange of people and goods and services, as well as the continued joy of community living, or a MAJOR national upgrade in other words, on par with JFK's landing on the moon initiative.
Then we could have turnedd our attention to the Education System, recognizing that our HUMAN INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL development, is indeed our greatest national asset and latant potentiality, for securing a vital edge within the larger context of an emerging global civilization / global village.

In other words, I would have tried to discern and do the will of God, instead of Satan, simple as that.

I honestly think there might have been GIVEN the wrong blueprint for success by the wrong people, people like Cheney, Bush Sr. and their ilk. &/or whoever they take their marching orders from..

May there be weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth...


That's what I said on another occasion.


+31 more 
posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 04:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by neformore
 

Now I see why certain Moderators allow debunkers get away with the constant insults and smear campaigns against the truth movement.

FACT: Your “assumption” and assertions have been proven wrong by science.

I cannot believe you are a Moderator? It is my opinion that you are not opened minded.



Whoa nelly. Hold up. You need to step back and take a glass of soda and perspective.

Firstly, I was a member of the site a long time before I was a moderator. As a member of the site, and a person in my own right, I have my own opinion on things - as does everyone else. Being a moderator on ATS does not come with a "must agree with all the members all the time 100%" clause, if it did then we'd all be nothing but sycophant's and the world would be a very boring place indeed.

Secondly, the "constant insults and smear campaigns" you refer to are most definitely a two-way street in the sad, sorry land of what is supposed to be "9/11" truth, and thats the reason that this forum contains the particular additional text in its description about civility, and why ATS had to develop a specific "9/11 madness" warning for use in the forum.

What you deem to be "biased moderation" is in fact what you perceive behind your "9/11 happened MY way, thats it, I'm not listening to anyone else and am not prepared to have a discussion with them, I'll just go straight on the attack" rose tinted blinkers. The ATS staff as a whole receive just as many complaints from what you would deem to be "the other side of the fence".

Before you pulled the "mod card" out here, did you ask me what I actually beleived about the event as a whole?

No. Instead you've taken my comments and tried to make them into something else entirely. Simple fact is that 1,398 people out of hundreds of thousands of industry professionals is not a high figure at all. In fact its incredibly low statistically, and that was my comment.

As for theories - does your man have a theory? Yes. Is NIST a theory? Yes.

And guess what - neither side can be proven until someone rebuilds the towers exactly as they were and then repeats the events, because in the absence of irrefutible evidence to definitely prove something everything is a theory

Its nearly 10 years after the event. 10 years that have been filled with rhetoric, hot air, rambling, insults, propaganda, lies, the same arguments rehashed over and over again and ANYTHING BUT the "truth" because people just want to publish their pet theory and damn anyone else who doesn't believe in it to hell.



I suppose I will be banned by you, just because I confronted you on your nonsense.
“Might be, or maybe,” are not facts are they? The ignorance being posted by some intelligent posters really boggles’ my mind.


No. You won't be banned by me, not only because our staff code of conduct prevents me from moderating in a thread where I am acting as a member, but also because in the world I live in, and that the board staff comes from, someone who may have a different opinion on a subject matter does not deserve outright castigation, attack, labelling and removal from a forum. Instead we simply say thank YOU for your opinion and wish you well with your theory, and ask if you'd maybe like to discuss it some more in case a joint discussion heralds a new - possibly un-thought of - direction for the conversation, and the topic as a whole that might benefit its cause.

And that is a notion that a hell of a lot of people in the 9/11 "truth" movement" need to grow up into, because there will never be 9/11 truth until they do.


edit on 29/12/10 by neformore because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

You might as well just say, "I don't believe him because he's a "truther"


Whatever floats your boat.

Funny how you guys are the exact same way towards any kind of official source, or anyone that goes against your current conspiracy theory.

We have side a vs. side b, neither trusts the other. I don't see why everyone is so afraid of a neutral 3rd party handling the matter in a proper, verifiable way. What if it turns out that Jones is wrong? What would you do then?

But ok, keep preaching to the choir, because that's all that's happening in this thread.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 04:31 AM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


Wow.

One of the best posts I've seen by a mod in quite awhile. Very well said!




posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 06:23 AM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 

Before this escalates any further, please explain what you believe Steven Jones’ theory is.
Perhaps we are talking about two different subjects.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
Before this escalates any further, please explain what you believe Steven Jones’ theory is.
Perhaps we are talking about two different subjects.


Escalates?

What is there to escalate to exactly?



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 08:13 AM
link   
The scientific method:

Here are the facts. What conclusion can we draw from them?

The debunker method:

Here is the conclusion. What facts can we draw from it?


edit on 29-12-2010 by conar because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 08:56 AM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 



I'm willing to bet you can still find it in the dust at ground zero. Just stick your hand in the gigantic hole in the middle of New York and take some dust with you.


And you think that qualifies as "science"? Wow. Why doesn't Jones et al do exactly that? If they go back now and collect samples from the top layers of dust there should be no "nanothermite" in the upper dust layer, at least giving some credibility to the idea that the material tested was possibly unique.

This is as much archeaology as it is chemical science. While they are at it they should consider extracting some samples from below the 9/11 layer as well. That should have no "nanothermite" in it.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 





Before you pulled the "mod card" out here, did you ask me what I actually beleived about the event as a whole?


For some reason this sounds ohhhhhhh so familiar.

But regardless of that, what you BELIEVE (i before e except after c) does not matter, because what truthers are essentially saying is that the evidence to back up the "official conspiracy theory" does not add up to the initial premise.
I do not know what happened that day, but I do know that what we are told happened is NOT what actually happened.




And guess what - neither side can be proven until someone rebuilds the towers exactly as they were and then repeats the events, because in the absence of irrefutible evidence to definitely prove something everything is a theory


I am happy to see that you understand that theories are just that. A theory.
And every single protocol for a crime scene, which is exactly what the entire of WTC was the day of the implosions, was not followed.
It is as if everyone who is in a position to stay cool under fire, you know INVESTIGATORS, all lost their heads and decided to just ship all of the structural metal off to china to be melted down.
That is vital material in an investigation, and the entire area should have been treated as a crime scene by the NYPD and NOT FEMA. The city of New York had original jurisdiction in this case, but the Feds strong armed them into letting FEMA screw everything up as it does so exceptionally well.
And the fact that the NIST absolutely refuses to test their own dust for active thermitic material reeks of confirmation bias (if you don't know what that is then I would suggest you look it up).

You see the difference between what truthers (us) and liars (them) are saying is that the liars think that they know for a fact what happened based upon shoddy evidence (once again confirmation bias)...

And the truthers simply want a new and impartial investigation with civilian oversight.
If you and the NIST are correct, then what is the harm of having a new and impartial investigation with civilian oversight?



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Wow, so let me get this straight. The very same people who have been claiming the thermite paper is for real and "peer-reviewed" despite the fact that it has been proven to not be true at all, and the very same people who among their many claims they claim "pyroclastic clouds were formed on 9/11" want to keep on calling themselves scientists, and they are now corroborating their own claims?....


The very people, I won't call them scientists,(here is a link to the paper in question) who didn't do any proper investigation about "thermite" or "pyroclastic clouds" and whom if they had done their jobs the evidence would have shown them the journal where that paper was published has been caught many times posting other hoaxes, merely to get money.

To repeat what I wrote about this very topic a few months back.


IF you send a paper and pay them $800 U.S.D. they will accept it without review...

The former chief editor of Bentham Science Publishing quit because that thermite paper was accepted without review, and one of her area of research are nano-particles.


Bentham Publishing Exposed For The Fraud's They Are
Submitted by Just dropping by on Thu, 06/11/2009 - 17:48
in

* Daily Paul Liberty Forum

Here's an excerpt

Earlier this year, Davis started receiving unsolicited emails from Bentham Science Publishers, which publishes more than 200 "open-access" journals – which turn the conventional business model of academic publishing on its head by charging publication fees to the authors of research papers, and then making the content available for free

As the emails stacked up, Davis was not only encouraged to submit papers, but was also invited to serve on the editorial board of some of Bentham's journals – for which he was told he would be allowed to publish one free article each year. "I received solicitations for journals for which I had no subject expertise at all," says Davis. "It really painted a picture of vanity publishing."

So Davis teamed up with Kent Anderson, a member of the publishing team at The New England Journal of Medicine, to put Bentham's editorial standards to the test. The pair turned to SCIgen, a program that generates nonsensical computer science papers, and submitted the resulting paper to The Open Information Science Journal, published by Bentham.

Read the rest here. www.newscientist.com...

So as the debunkers were saying months ago, this Bentham journal is pay-for-publish vanity journal and the fact that Stephen Jones got his little thermite paper published in it hold no fact because they were willing to publish a paper that made no sense whatsoever, as long as the $800 publication fee cleared..

www.dailypaul.com...


As the Newscientist article explains Bentham Science Publishers have accepted utter nonsense in the past, and they dont even confirm the identity of the people publishing papers through Bentham Science Publishers...

This publishing company even sends unsolicited emails inviting people to be editors of journals in subject on WHICH THESE PEOPLE HAVE NO EXPERIENCE WHATSOEVER...

This journal accepts papers, without verifying either the authors, or whether the content of such papers is real, JUST TO MAKE MORE MONEY...

Let's read some more about the activities of Bentham Science Publishers shall we?...


After the first flush of enthusiasm, however, researchers began to question Benthams activities, not least because many of the invitations they were receiving seemed decidedly badly targeted. For instance, psychologists were being invited to contribute papers on ornithology, health policy researchers were being invited to submit papers on analytical chemistry and economists were being invited to submit papers on sleep research...

To add insult to injury, some of the invitations researchers were receiving were addressed to a completely different person, or the name field was empty, and addressed simply to "Dear Dr.,"...

By March of this year, senior health care research scientist at the University of Toronto Gunther Eysenbach had had enough. Publicly criticising Bentham's activities on his blog, Eysenbach complained..., "All pleas and begging from my side to stop the spamming, as well as clicking on any 'unsubcribe' links did not stop the spam plague from Bentham."

For others, the experience of being targeted by Bentham proved even more frustrating. When Professor John Furedy, Emeritus Professor of Psychology at the University of Toronto, received an invitation to be editor-in-chief of the Open Behavioral Science Journal he initially accepted. But after doing so he found himself being bombarded with further invitations. And when Bentham failed to reply to the questions he raised about the new role he had taken on he decided the best course of action was to withdraw his acceptance, reluctant to be associated with a company that behaved in this way. Even though he had resigned, however, Furedy was surprised to see that his name had been added to the list of editors on the journal's web site. And despite repeated requests to Bentham to remove it his name remains there to this day.

I too had by now begun receiving copies of Bentham's invitations — not because I was on its mailing list, but because frustrated researchers were forwarding them to me, and asking me to find out what the dickens was going on.

So I emailed various Bentham directors (including Richard Scott and Matthew Honan), all of whom — with the exception of publications director Mahmood Alam — completely ignored my messages. Moreover, while Alam replied, he proved decidedly unwilling to answer my questions, despite repeated promises that he would. He was equally unwilling to put me in contact with anyone else at the company.

www.earlham.edu...

But hey, you seem to be using the same practices of this SCAM Publishing Company... I already demonstrated to your first thread about this research that this company ACCEPTS NONSENSE ARTICLES JUST FOR MONEY...

So that nonsense article about "thermite" found at the WTC is nothing more than crap...

The editor in chief of Bentham, Marie-Paule Pileni, resigned because she says that the "nano-thermite" paper was not reviewed, and that instead it is obvious the paper has political motives.


911 NanoTech Thermite Publisher Accepts Fake Paper, Editors quit

By John R Moffett, Posted by John R Moffett
.....
Previously, the chief editor of the Bentham journal that the Thermite article was published in resigned, and denounced the journal with this statement:I cannot accept that this topic is published in my journal. The article has nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics, and I could well believe that there is a political viewpoint behind its publication. If anyone had asked me, I would say that the article should never have been published in this journal. Period. Despite supposedly being the chief editor, she had not been informed that the thermite article was going to be published in her journal.

The advocates for the nanotech thermite theory of the WTC collapse will never accept the fact that the Bentham Group journals are not actual peer reviewed scientific publications, but scientists all around the world are now convinced of the fact.
...

www.opednews.com...


BTW, do you want to know what Dr. Marie-Paule Pileni credentials, and topics of research are?...


Marie-Paule Pileni

Adjunct Professor

Professor Dr. Marie-Paule Pileni

Director of the Mesoscopic & Nanometric Materials Laboratory

Chair of Institut Universitaire de France

University P & M Curie, Paris VI

Postal Address: Université Pierre et Marie Curie Case 52, 4 Place Jussieu, 75252 Paris cedex 05

Phone: 33 1 44 27 25 16

Fax: 33 1 44 27 25 15

Website: www.sri.jussieu.fr...

E-mail Marie-Paule Pileni
...
Research Interests

Organization of nanomaterials in mesoscopic scale : collective properties
Nanomaterials : synthesis, characterisation and physical properties

Chemical modification of enzymes
Physical chemistry in condensed matter
Colloids sciences
Solar energy
Photophysic and photobiology
Photochemistry in gas phase

www.chemistry.gatech.edu...

Don't you think she would know a thing or two about "nano-thermite"?...

These people, the "9/11 truthers" even have the galls to claim that there were "pyroclastic clouds" from the explosions...and these "supposed architects and scientists" use this claim WHEN IT IS A KNOWN FACT THAT ONLY VOLCANO ERUPTIONS CAN CAUSE PYROCLASTIC CLOUDS/FLOW... Yet these people call themselves architects and scientists?...



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 09:49 AM
link   

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.
....


Wow... irrefutable proof heh? and if you don't agree with it then you are "paid agents/stooges, trolls, complete morons, ignorant or just in total denial."



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 09:52 AM
link   


This video proves a thing or two



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Arguing against the journal does not in any way at all disprove the theory put forth by not only Jones, but several international scientists.

This is a typical strategy in debate and it is a variation of argument ad hominem.
Anyone who has been on ATS for any minute can spot this a mile away.

Your argument is based more upon emotion than reason.
"He who employs emotion is unable to employ reason"
-Cicero

You must remember that the difference between truthers and well...
liars.

Is that the liars claim to know exactly what happened that day and the truthers are saying that the evidence does not back up the premise.
Therefore we are asking for a new and impartial investigation with civilian oversight.

The same type of investigation that should have happened the day of 9/11.

But somehow the Feds knew exactly who supposedly committed the act IMMEDIATELY, but yet they were unable to stop them.
Do any of you who support the NIST have any actual experience in a trial in an actual court of law?
Because this is not simply based upon science, but also crime scene protocol.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by conar


This video proves a thing or two


If you think thermite cut steel vertically in the Towers can you please indicate to me :-

(a) evidence of any steel cut this way ?

(b) where, when and how the thermite was installed in the Towers ?

(c) how the thermite was ignited ?

(d) how it was engineered that the Towers collapsed from the plane impact points ?

Thanks.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 


Ah, so at a time of economic crisis you are asking more millions, if not billions, because you are not going to accept the first report of course, of dollars...

The one basing his opinion on belief is not me, but you, and you are willing to further put us into more debt, even though there have been several reports on 911, not just from NIST.

The nano-thermite paper was only accepted because Jones paid for it to be published. Not only that but the editor of that same journal quit because she said that paper should not have been accepted, and her expertisde incudes the study of nano materials. I made my point...



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme

Steven Jones Tells 9/11 "Debunkers" to Put up or Shut up!

”What you need to know about "Peer-review"

"Useful information for "non-scientists" about the process of peer-reviewed publishing, such as has been the case with Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction, and Environmental Anomalies at the World Trade Center: Evidence for Energetic Materials ." - 911truth.org


Since the days of Sir Isaac Newton, Science has proceeded through the publication of peer-reviewed papers. Peer-review means a thorough reading, commentary and even challenge before publication by "peers", that is, other PhD's and professors. [color=gold]This paper was thoroughly peer-reviewed with several pages of tough comments that required of our team MONTHS of additional experiments and studies. It was the toughest peer-review I've ever had, including THREE papers for which I was first author in NATURE. (Please note that Prof. Harrit is first author on this paper.) We sought an established journal that would allow us a LONG paper (this paper is 25 pages long) with MANY COLOR IMAGES AND GRAPHS. Such a scientific journal is not easy to find. Page charges are common for scientific journals these days, and are typically paid by the University of the first or second author (as is the case with this paper) or by an external grant.

A peer-reviewed journal is also called a "refereed" journal. Peer-reviewers are almost always anonymous for scientific publications like this -- that is standard in the scientific world. While authors commonly recommend potential peer-reviewers, editors choose the referees and usually pick at least one or two reviewers that the authors did NOT mention -- and that is almost certainly the case with this paper (based on commentary we received from the reviewers). In the end, all the reviewers -- who were selected by the editor(s) -- approved publication. Thus, the paper was subjected to peer review by the editor or editors, and it passed the peer-review process.


911debunkers.blogspot.com...

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.

Why would all these professionals risk their careers, their reputations, and their lives to speak out against the government story of 911?

The fact is none of these professionals would take such an insane risk, if there were no supporting science to Steven Jones Journal. Do the debunkers want educated Americans to think all these professionals are stupid, and that Architects, Engineers do not understand science?


Validity of petition signers crucial to AE911Truth's credibility

Ed: The Verification Team is one of the unsung heroes of AE911Truth. Working diligently behind the scenes, this team provides assurance the petition signers are legitimate, and that their credentials are valid.
The Verification Team is a group of volunteers responsible for ensuring that signers of the AE911Truth petition are real and the information is accurate. All petition signers are verified, whether they are architects, engineers or supporters, living in the US or outside of the US.

www.ae911truth.org...


9-11 Truth Movement: Publication in a Peer-reviewed Civil Engineering Journal

With publication in an established civil engineering journal, the discussion has reached a new level – [color=gold]JREF’ers and others may attack, but unless they can also get published in a peer-reviewed journal, those attacks do not carry nearly the weight of a peer-reviewed paper. It may be that debunkers will try to avoid the fourteen issues we raise in the Letter, by attacking the author(s) or even the journal rather than addressing the science – that would not surprise me.
Professor Chomsky wrote to several, who passed it on to me:
“You, or anyone who agrees with you, has a very simple task. Since the evidence is so obvious and compelling, submit an article about it to Science, or Nature, or even Scientific American, or more technical journals, say those in civil engineering, where your article can refute the conclusions of the professional society of civil engineers… To date, no one has been willing to submit an article -- at least, after probably hundreds of inquiries to Truth Movement advocates, no one has been able to mention one...”

mathaba.net...

This is very good read.

Scientists, Scholars, Architects & Engineers respond to NIST

911blogger.com...

There are a few debunkers on ATS who are still claiming that Jones did not discover thermite in the WTC dust. A vey few of these debunkers are making ridiculous claims that Steven Jones only discovered red paint and nothing else. Yet what is missing is the debunkers evidence to support their claims, there are none. Many people including me have asked for evidence in support of the debunkers claims, we have been given nothing but opinions assumptions and parts of Steven Jones Journal being misrepresented in hoping that we are all to stupid to understand the science. If we are here to understand and learn the truth, then why are debunkers deliberately misrepresenting Jones science?
I have been told by these debunkers how Jones Journal did not go through the same peer review as all other scientific papers have gone through in the scientific community. Well after doing some checking, I can say these debunkers wrong. If these debunkers think it is so easy to publish a paper in Bentham Scientific journals then why don’t all these debunkers (objectors) do their own paper and get them peer reviewed and published in Bentham Scientific journals, since they think it is so easy?

If anyone who is skillful enough to debate Jones journal and tells you Jones journal was not peer reviewed that person is lying to you. Until I see a peer review paper published in the appropriate journal of science against Jones paper I will consider the science behind Jones' paper credible.
I can say with confidence none of these debunkers have a leg to stand on against Jones peer reviewed paper, since no scientist has not done any paper refuting Jones paper. it should be accepted that demolition was the most likly cause that brought down all three WTC.
We can argue who, what, when, where and how until the cows come home, but “what” has been proven by science. Many professionals believe other explosives were used and I support that belief as well. Who or when these materials were put in the WTC may never be proven, however we have enough evidence to demand a new investigation into what really happened at the WTC.


2005: USGS Documents Iron-Rich Spheroids
Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust

Spheroids have shape and chemical composition of aluminothermic residues
Miniscule iron-rich spheroids are one of the main products of the reaction of nano-thermites, conventional thermites producing iron-rich condensate in larger forms. Iron spheroids in the dust were documented in a 2005 USGS compilation of data from dust studies, the Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust, which contains photographs and elemental analysis of three such particles. The size, shape, and chemical composition of the particles match those of the ignition products of nano-thermites.

911research.wtc7.net...

Aluminothermic Residues
Form and Composition of Dust Particles Indicates Aluminothermics

911research.wtc7.net...
Not only did Jones and a team of scientists examining the dust sample, find iron rich spheroids, so did the USGS, and it is documented in their report.
So much for proven Jones science a fraud. It is interesting that a part of our own government found the same material that Jones discovered.



Originally posted by an ATS poster

What is settled is that Jones has yet to prove thermite. His experiments are inconclusive as has been pointed out time and again and his theory of the paint chips, as he has extended it, is so untenable as to be disinformation. If that is the case, Jones has effectively kept the rabble roused and on the wrong path. Turbo still doesn't understand any of this and so desperately wants to believe in CD, he couldn't possiby open his mind to the possibility that Jones is wrong. Turbo's explanations and obfuscations are a short course in misinterpretation and misunderstanding. I will say that, if nothing else, all of the Jones supporters are most entertaining, especially when they blather on about "denying ignorance" while drowning in it.
If you still believe Jones baseless theory, I recommend that the two of you celebrate finding your truth by "painting the town red."


The fact is Jones baseless theory is no longer a theory, it is now a proven scientific fact.

The debunkers who are desperately trying to prove Jones Journal is a fraud can only respond back to those of us who dare to question them and the OS with the above nonsense and misinformation. This is apparently all the debunkers have to say since they cannot debunk the given science.



Holmgren ad Hominems
Another important aspect of how disinformation in the 9/11 Truth Movement functions is through the use of attack and vitriol. While all types of people -- professionals, academics and average people -- can resort to nasty or inappropriate personal attacks when defending or promoting theories which conflict, the 9/11 Truth Movement has been packed with such attacks. Not surprisingly, however, most of the individuals who are most vitriolic are attempting to advance the more bizarre ideas such as hologram or no-plane theories. One of the advocates that commercial jets did not hit the WTC towers is Gerard Holmgren. Holmgren recently launched a campaign of attacks against Steven Jones, including a series of articles, real and promised, posted to several Indymedias, LibertyForum, and personal websites. Holmgren's spamming campaign includes public postings of personal email communications between himself and Jones, and an array of Holmgrenesque insults bordering on obscenity. Holmgren has a history of similar personal and vitriolic attacks on researchers who disagree with his positions, so the inclusion of Jones on his list is not surprising. Notably, the news of this posting was spread by "the Webfairy," a similarly hostile Internet persona known for promoting the 'theory' that impact of jetliners into the Twin Towers were simulated using holograms.

911research.wtc7.net...

The above piece is an example of what we deal with in the 911 threads against posters who stand behind real science.

This is an interesting read:


9/11 Debunkers Hide From Slam Dunk Evidence Of Controlled Demolition
Electron microscope analysis of steel spheres from WTC site proves thermate, proves collapse of twin towers was an act of deliberate arson

Professor Steven Jones presented brand new and compelling evidence for the controlled demolition of the twin towers and WTC 7 recently, but the 9/11 debunkers and the corporate media are loathe to tackle it because it represents a slam dunk on proving the collapse of the buildings was a deliberate act of arson.

Debunkers are scared to even get near this information because the science behind it fundamentally contradicts the official story of what happened on 9/11

.
www.deepjournal.com...

I am happy to say, I am glad that most opened minded ATSers do not fall for some of the shameless debunking techniques, opinionated, and yellow journalism, against real science.

To all debunkers: Americans want to see a paper refuting Jones scientific paper, proven with “scientific experiments” from Jones experiments that might prove Jones science is flawed. And for a few of you debunkers your attacks, insults, and opinions are useless against real science.

What are your thoughts?
edit on 28-12-2010 by impressme because: (no reason given)


I thought it was accepted, although not advertised by the government, that Building 7 was brought down due to its instability. It would have posed a threat to all the recovery workers in the area so they demo'ed it. Wasn't there video and sound clips of the B7 explosions? Would this not explain the thermite? (sp?).

I sometimes wonder of the 9/11'ers aren't funded by extremist islamic organizations to divert attention from this horrific 'religion'...



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Josephus23

Arguing against the journal does not in any way at all disprove the theory put forth by not only Jones, but several international scientists.
...


Oh and btw... yeah several "international scientists" who coninue to make dubious claims including the claim about "pyroclastic clouds on 911" when pyroclastic clouds are only caused by some volcanic eruptions...

The 911 truthers, and others like them only like to make such claims because they know their fans would not be smart enough to check on their claims.



new topics

top topics



 
96
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join