Jones "Peer - Reviewed" Scientific Journal Found Credible!

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


I am not trying to make a point because I cannot speculate beyond the data and you simply refuse to see that, or you are purposely ignoring it, and not one place did I mention that Jones and his mates were rock solid.
I do not speculate beyond the data.

However, in science the hallmark of any theory is that of repeatability.
And not one person from the NIST has taken the time to repeat any of the initial tests or even test their own dust samples for active thermitic material.

Money should not matter when we are discussing the premier event of our lives.

I do not know what happened that day and that is the main difference between you and I.

And the whole money issue is a straw man argument.
If you want to continue with your diversionary debate tactics, believe me, I know them and I will call you out on them.

If we have enough money to invest in X-Ray scanners to be placed in airports for domestic flights based upon shoddy evidence from the NIST's initial BS report, then we most definitely have enough money to sink into a new and impartial investigation with civilian oversight.
(BTW... I am going to repeat that over, and over, and over, and over and I suggest that anyone who is with me do the EXACT same. I mean, it worked for Rudy Giuliani and 9/11... Right?)

You seem to be satisfied with partial explanations based upon evidence where the entire chain of command was broken.
You seem to be okay with the fact the the Pentagon somehow "lost" 2 million of our tax dollars and the plane that hit the Pentagon somehow just happened to hit the side that contained all of the evidence of where the money went.
You also seem to be okay with the fact that building 7 housed the SEC investigation unit that was heading up the ENRON debacle. (heard anything about ENRON lately? That is what I thought)

Your "proof" is nothing but half-truths and falsities based upon computer models and speculation.
I could make a computer model that shows that the earth was created in 6000 years.
Computers are no different than the people who by into the BS that is the OS...
They do what they are told.

And to end this thought, I could care less about pyroclastic clouds. I am stating that the entire official conspiracy theory is based upon shoddy, purposefully manipulated, and completely biased information.

Originally posted by conar
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?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/df0a39aeefc2.gif[/atsimg]

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

I wholeheartedly agree. That fits the people trying to debunk the OS perfectly. They came up with the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job, and quote mine (ie "Pull It), use strawman arguments (ie Fire can't melt steel), misleading comparisons (ie 9/11 vs office fires), and ignore facts that don't agree with their theory (ie The penthouse collapsing first, or the time it took 7 to collapse in comparison to the time it took the other two, the tower collapsing at the impact points). Also, Truthers like to say the Official Story is a Conspiracy Theory as well, just like Creationists like to say that Science is a religion as well.

Wow the anger in this thread is Rediculous...I mean does it really matter that there are people out in the world who do not believe what we have been told by the OS.
My god I have been dismayed by the reactions of people by the opinions that get put out...Remember these are opinions....as for was the dust contaminated....hell of course it was contaminated it came from contaminated dust just by where is was collected...out in the open air....but does that matter...no...because most of the contaminates could be scientifically accounted for...What suprises me the most is people are jeprodizing their careers...their proffessions and their livelyhoods in order to seek out the truth and getting bashed for it by people who would not ever even pick up a sign in protest if there was an injustice against them.
Many come on here and rip people apart for their beliefs for some unknown reason and actually get angry when logic is thrown back at them...and frankly most of the anger comes from the Debunkers or trusters or whatever label seems to be laid upon people.
It is a paper that professionals have looked at and gave their opinions on...no big deal...so what if someone does not agree with it...no reason to call others names if they do agree...
I have been called stupid and an Idiot for some of the information that i post about 9/11 yet when i asked for some honest and intelligent rebuttle on what i have presented it does not come it just comes in the form of anger and misdirected info.
Then they ask what the hell i could know on the subject matter and you tell them your professional background and then they go So what or doesn't mean you know anything on it.
Like when i was told by a Pilot on here all about how i did not know about the actions of the aircraft i then wrote an Email to Robert balismo of pilots for the truth personally and that was not good enough...but the fact that i am an structural engineer made me at least go and seek the answer from other professionals on a matter i might be blurry on and gave him verbatim the emailed reply ....so he called Robet names....Just cause what his response to the man was that i must be talking to a 12yr old.
So back on topic here...the OP laid out many valid points...and no....there is not irrefutable proof of anything or this all might be solved...but the paper that jones did has been reviewed by many professionals .....and yes many agree...but many don't....so does this move us any further ahead...not really.
Now i am sure that there is all kinds of remaining dust out there from the event....but at this point no matter what....people will say it is all contaminated.
heck your common sparkler contains thermite....
all we can do is keep proving these far fetched OS propaganda agendas wrong like the video by Jon Cole has done...the Nat Geo program was absolutely a farce when it came to debunking...and the hearst owned PM magazine story was absolutely rubbish and has been thoroughly debunked.
Just as the bazant and Zhou progressive collapse paper has been completely shown for the farce it is.
The sad part is that people will not listen to the things that are logically presented because they are being duped by the same people who have perpetrated and orchastrated the whole event..
www.abovetopsecret.com...
just look behind the scenes...so truthers we have an uphill battle here but never give up...and try to stop arguing semantics with people whomjust will never change their minds.....the truth will come out.

reply to post by plube


Excellent observations mate.

Most of the anger in any of the 9/11 threads comes from the people who by into the drivel known as the NIST's official storyline.
Anyone who actually engages in science (my specialty is research psychology) knows that so many breaches of protocol were made the day of 9/11.


I applaud those of you, such as yourself... engineers, who have the cajones to put their entire career and life's work on the line to step up and do what is the most patriotic thing someone can do for their country.
And that is the action of dissent.

We who are known as "truthers" are not kooks.
The only people who get face time on the MSM networks are usually the guys from "Loose Change", Charlie Sheen, Alex Jones, Jesse Ventura, etc...
While I do applaud Ventura, his persona and history as a professional wrestler greatly diminishes his credibility.

The guys from loose change are extremely suspect in my opinion because their vitriolic tirades are no different than Alex Jones.
And Charlie Sheen will never be taken seriously.

Richard Gage, who heads the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth movement, is the only person that gets MSM face time and he literally freaks people out when he speaks, because he comes from a place of true authority.
Dr. Jones is the exact same. He is constantly attacked personally when he presents evidence. PERSONALLY.

He lost his tenure to BYU over his stance on this. How in the world can he benefit one iota from that?

Your post was direct and to the point. It made perfect sense and really put this debacle into perspective.

We who seek the truth face a tumultuous uphill battle. We have just about everything holding us back except what matters the most...

And that is the TRUTH.

Cheers mate.

Here is Gage freaking out news reporters with the TRUTH. Notice that he does not speculate beyond the data.

reply to post by Josephus23


And here is Richard Gage and his cardboard boxes :-

www.youtube.com...

Anybody else you can put up ?

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by Josephus23

 

And here is Richard Gage and his cardboard boxes :-

www.youtube.com...

Anybody else you can put up ?

I am not sure if you are trying to insult Gage or show that he is presenting a very basic demonstration that proves that the incidents concerning 9/11 were not possible according to the official NIST report.

What I find most interesting about this debate is that the debunkers who continually attack those of us who seek the truth by means of a a new impartial investigation with civilian oversight conveniently forget to focus on the known facts.
The best that any of the debunkers can do is attack people personally in order to diminish their credibility.

Riddle me this batman....

If the NIST report is so "rock solid" then explain to me how the TOP of each of the two towers that were struck had enough converted kinetic energy to pulverize themselves.
If things had worked according to the way that the NIST describes then the potential energy would have been converted to kinetic energy that would have been dispersed with each successive collapse.

By the time the top reached the bottom all of the energy would have been dispersed leaving the tops of the buildings in tact because the only force that supposedly brought them down was GRAVITY.

I don't expect you to actually be able to refute this...
Well, mainly because you can't. It violates every known law of physics.
I expect you to either throw in some more personal attacks or simply ignore the question.

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.

NIST, FEMA and any other government ageny will ignore that paper until the cows come home.

End of story.

I'm still willing to put up $1000.00 to anyone that can debate the authors of that paper and win
a scientific debate. The loser gives me $1000.00.

I guess both images are only possible in the US of A.




A-m-a-z-i-n-g.....Are both theories patented by anyone?!
And does it mean...i earned $2000,00

reply to post by FemaF4Fotoshop


I am confused at your reply.

Could you elaborate on exactly what you were trying to say?

Originally posted by Alfie1

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

(a) evidence of any steel cut this way ?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a53dfb8ade12.jpg[/atsimg]
Themate cutting steel

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

Possibly the weekend of 9/8 9/9

Scott Forbes: In my office on the 97th floor in WTC 2 (South Tower), as usual except that myself and a lot of my colleagues were also working the weekend of 9/8 and 9/9.

KT: Why were you working the weekend before 9/11?

SF: Because of a "power down" notified by the Port Authority. Power was being switched off for a 36hr period in the top half of tower and as I work for a Financial Institution and Bank in the Technology Group I was working on the shutdown and eventually the startup of all our systems.

KT: How many floors did this power down effect?

SF: I can't give you the absolute numbers, but I know it was the 'top half ' of WTC 2, so I'd say from floor 50 or so.

Source

Now let me come back to this misconception that you would need an extraordinarily large number of players. If you look at controlled demolition for these large buildings, the towers, it would take only about 4,000 pounds. That sounds like a lot: two tons. But ten trips by ten men, 40 pounds each, and you’ve got the explosives that you need.

source

(c) how the thermite was ignited ?

Consequently, it cannot be smothered and may ignite in any environment, given sufficient initial heat. It will burn well while wet and cannot be easily extinguished with water, although enough water will remove heat and stop the reaction.

I think an exploding plane might do the trick, followed by radio waves from a remote detonator to charges left in a elevator shaft. Nothing our current technology couldn't manage.
source

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

I'll leave this last point for you to ponder on after reflecting on the above answers. Followed by a little investigation on sub-basement explosions.

reply to post by FlySolo


Excellent post FlySolo.

It never ceases to amaze me that the ones who stick to science and fact are the truthers but the ones who continue the personal attacks are the people who are blinded by the government propaganda concerning this issue.

Cheers.

Originally posted by Josephus23
By the time the top reached the bottom all of the energy would have been dispersed leaving the tops of the buildings in tact because the only force that supposedly brought them down was GRAVITY.

Every Action has an equal and opposite Reaction

When the upper floors hit the rubble pile, the resulting reaction caused them to break up. Just because the ground does not appear to visibly move does not mean the action/reaction process does not occur. They had been accelerated by gravity downwards at 9.81m/s/s

That is very very basic physics, and frankly, I'm suprised you don't understand it, especially if you are commenting on 9/11 threads.

Originally posted by FlySolo

Originally posted by Alfie1

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

(a) evidence of any steel cut this way ?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a53dfb8ade12.jpg[/atsimg]
Themate cutting steel

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

Possibly the weekend of 9/8 9/9

Scott Forbes: In my office on the 97th floor in WTC 2 (South Tower), as usual except that myself and a lot of my colleagues were also working the weekend of 9/8 and 9/9.

KT: Why were you working the weekend before 9/11?

SF: Because of a "power down" notified by the Port Authority. Power was being switched off for a 36hr period in the top half of tower and as I work for a Financial Institution and Bank in the Technology Group I was working on the shutdown and eventually the startup of all our systems.

KT: How many floors did this power down effect?

SF: I can't give you the absolute numbers, but I know it was the 'top half ' of WTC 2, so I'd say from floor 50 or so.

Source

Now let me come back to this misconception that you would need an extraordinarily large number of players. If you look at controlled demolition for these large buildings, the towers, it would take only about 4,000 pounds. That sounds like a lot: two tons. But ten trips by ten men, 40 pounds each, and you’ve got the explosives that you need.

source

(c) how the thermite was ignited ?

Consequently, it cannot be smothered and may ignite in any environment, given sufficient initial heat. It will burn well while wet and cannot be easily extinguished with water, although enough water will remove heat and stop the reaction.

I think an exploding plane might do the trick, followed by radio waves from a remote detonator to charges left in a elevator shaft. Nothing our current technology couldn't manage.
source

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

I'll leave this last point for you to ponder on after reflecting on the above answers. Followed by a little investigation on sub-basement explosions.

I am sorry but you fail on the very first point. This has been long debunked; the diagonal cuts to upright steel were made during the clean-up :-

www.debunking911.com...

Originally posted by Josephus23
reply to post by FemaF4Fotoshop

 

I am confused at your reply.

Could you elaborate on exactly what you were trying to say?

Seen so much theories, and I know this is of topic, sorry for that.

Seen photoshopped photos from FEMA.
And this one released by FEMA is a laugh.
So why is FEMA fooling around, like we are a bunch of retards!
They are the same as the Warrencommission......no more no less!

reply to post by Alfie1


Simple-minded people need simple-minded demonstrations, after logic and science fail. Trusters act like children, so maybe the next step is for Richard Gage to dress up like Elmo and have guest musicians sing a song to try to get them to learn. Maybe some candy would help as well.

Originally posted by neformore

When the upper floors hit the rubble pile, the resulting reaction caused them to break up. Just because the ground does not appear to visibly move does not mean the action/reaction process does not occur. They had been accelerated by gravity downwards at 9.81m/s/s

That is very very basic physics, and frankly, I'm suprised you don't understand it, especially if you are commenting on 9/11 threads.

The four horizontal beams (secondary structure) carrying the floor panels transmit average about 200 tons (50 tons each) of weight to an inner column at every floor and 50 tons of weight to a wall column. You evidently have to adjust the load for different spans of beams, floor areas, unusual static loads, etc.

It means that the total load transmitted to the ground by each inner column is on average 9 400 tons. A wall column transmits one quarter that load to ground or 2 350 tons. Again the real values have to be adjusted for actual values of loads transmitted to the columns from the beams.

Source

Those beams have a 30% yield for conditions designed just for this. Throw that in the mix and we can throw your basic physics out the window. Why do we keep running round and round? Just be honest with yourself and ask the question.

reply to post by OnTheFelt


I see.

So, because I'm a moderator that means I'm supposed to agree with every post thats put on the board, right? I'm also supposed to agree with every piece of information that someone puts in front of me as well - is that it?

And if I don't, that gives you the right to do what..exactly? Make some kind of implied threat?

Really - do you know how ridiculous that reads?

You are a shining poster child for my argument earlier about why there will never be 9/11 truth. Thank you for so wonderfully making my point for me.

Originally posted by OnTheFelt
reply to post by neformore

 

As another poster has already stated, you sir, ARE A JOKE AS A MODERATOR!

Why? Because you are clearly commenting in a thread on a scientific journal that you have obviously not read....because if you had, you would undeniably know that the destruction of these towers completely violates the law of conservation.

Wow, and I used to wonder why some of these professional disinfo artists and shills get away with such disgusting and degrading remarks.

Remember, big guy, karma is a motherfuc$#er!

Ain't science a bitch on 911.....4 planes seems to fool around with; gravity, holes, implosions, explosions,
photos, witnesses, cellphonecalls, 480ft landposts at the Pentagon and so on and so on.

Originally posted by Alfie1

I am sorry but you fail on the very first point. This has been long debunked; the diagonal cuts to upright steel were made during the clean-up :-

www.debunking911.com...

Actually, it's you that fails.

First you switch issues and then you wrongly reference debunking9/11 as if that page proves the column in question was cut by clean up crew when it does no such thing. Further the page makes false claims regarding thermite, as we'll see.

You asked:

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

(a) evidence of any steel cut this way ?"

You were provided a picture which shows "steel cut this way", "vertically" which the poster "thinks thermite cut".

You got what you asked for, evidence of steel cut vertically. But, as with peer-reviewed evidence of thermite, which "trusters" like you insist is vital - until you get it and then suddenly you claim that's not good enough - you also dishonestly switch issues when you get what you ask for in this case (which shows your requests were disingenuous in the first place, and that NO AMOUNT of evidence will ever satisfy you).

You were given a picture of steel "cut that way" which the poster and others believe may have been cut with therrmite. The page you linked to does NOT "debunk" this possibility, it simply offers another possibility WHICH IT CANNOT PROVE was definitely what occurred with the beam in question.

So it doesn't "debunk" this theory, it simply offers another possible theory. And, as the OP shows, there is abundant evidence for the use of thermite in the destruction of the WTC - such as the abundant iron spheres and unignited thermite particles, found in multiple dust samples, so that it is entirely reasonable to consider that thermite may have been used to cut those beams, such as the one pictured.

The site you linked to also claims thermite cannot be used to cut steel colums reasonably cleanly as shown in the picture saying - "It doesn't make clean cuts" - which is FALSE. It can be used to make clean cuts.

Let's debunks that claim - again. Go to 8:20 in the following video:



The site you linked to was wrong about thermite being unsuitable for cutting beams. Further, it's other references to certain effects of thermite such as that is "makes an ugly hole with molten metal drips/blobs." explains the strange distortions in WTC metal such as that shown near the start of the video above and other anomalies which cannot be adequately explained without thermite.

In short, your "debunking" has been debunked.

Originally posted by Alfie1

I am sorry but you fail on the very first point. This has been long debunked; the diagonal cuts to upright steel were made during the clean-up :-

www.debunking911.com...

If I failed so miserably on my first point, then I'm sure you can refute all my subsequent points as well? Regardless, the anomalies and testimony still stands as fact. But don't touch on those. Don't touch the fact the Cole presented a great case with thermate cutting steel. Ignore that too while you're at it. A slippery slope for the debunkers, desperate straw man arguments to derail from a plethora of factual evidence, anomalies, and witnesses. Ignore it all and you are guilty of association.