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.

 

9/11: Science and Society. Dr. Steven Jones' presentation and challenge to all scientists.

page: 3
15
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Jones didn't explain it.


Yes he did.


He tried to explain it but


This is where you are making up your assumptions again.


He did this when he was told that paint


Told? By whom? You are assuming, speculating, guessing again.


He actually overlooked quite a bit in his paper because he had a conclusion in mind before he started.


Fact is, your speculating, assuming, and guessing to what you think Jones thinks.


This, by the way, is contrary to the way real science is done.


Why don’t you explain how real science is done, in this particular case?


While many on ATS still believe in CD of the towers, Jones seems to be losing credibility because there are too many holes in his paper and little rationale for the use of the paint-on nanothermitic material that he claims.


Care to prove your accusation? Please prove that all experts, Architects, Engineers and scientist, from around the world all reject Jones peer review Journal?

Besides your opinions please show us how all of these experts have proven that there are too many holes and little rationale for the use of the paint-on na-nothermite material that Jones discovered?

What did you just prove in all your post to me? Not a single thing except you proved you are very good at assuming, and to what you think Jones thinks.

If you can’t answer my questions of your “claims” of assumptions, opinions then we (readers of ATS) are to assume you’re the only one making up garbage against Jones and his science with nothing to back your assumptions.
edit on 24-2-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Provide Jones explanation for why the chips did not burn and we can discuss his claims.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by impressme
 


Provide Jones explanation for why the chips did not burn and we can discuss his claims.


I did not see that in the OP thread nor did I see that in the Videos provided.....You are asking for something that is totally not there nor here.
Nice of you to de-rail things here.

To keep things on the real deal I must say after watching the videos and reading a lot of text (most of which I am familiar with) I can't fathom the ignorance of some posters here.

Show them a bible, and they want you to show them how the paper was made and what day it was when it was written.......:-)

S&F to the OP.
Regards, Iwinder



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



Care to prove your accusation? Please prove that all experts, Architects, Engineers and scientist, from around the world all reject Jones peer review Journal?

Besides your opinions please show us how all of these experts have proven that there are too many holes and little rationale for the use of the paint-on na-nothermite material that Jones discovered?

What did you just prove in all your post to me? Not a single thing except you proved you are very good at assuming, and to what you think Jones thinks.

If you can’t answer my questions of your “claims” of assumptions, opinions then we (readers of ATS) are to assume you’re the only one making up garbage against Jones and his science with nothing to back your assumptions


Excuse me; I am having a conversation with you, not a “brick wall.”
How about answering my questions first?


If you cannot answer the given questions then this conversation is over between you and me, because you’re wasting my time and everyone else as well.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
Excuse me; I am having a conversation with you, not a “brick wall.”
How about answering my questions first?


If you cannot answer the given questions then this conversation is over between you and me, because you’re wasting my time and everyone else as well.


When I first said that Jones didn't explain why the super-thermite self extinguished you replied:

"That is completely untrue! Now you are making up garbage, anyone who has read Jones peer review report can see he did. The fact is you have been exposed repeatedly of making up fallacies against Jones and Jones’ scientific findings."

I challenged you to show where he did try to explain it in his paper and then I said that we would discuss it. Then, you set off on one of your usual attack rants trying to obfuscate because you can't back up your claim. Now, true to form, you demand that I answer your questions first. It appears that you are looking for an excuse to avoid discussion because you have no argument.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



Care to prove your accusation? Please prove that all experts, Architects, Engineers and scientist, from around the world all reject Jones peer review Journal?

Besides your opinions please show us how all of these experts have proven that there are too many holes and little rationale for the use of the paint-on na-nothermite material that Jones discovered?

What did you just prove in all your post to me? Not a single thing except you proved you are very good at assuming, and to what you think Jones thinks.

If you can’t answer my questions of your “claims” of assumptions, opinions then we (readers of ATS) are to assume you’re the only one making up garbage against Jones and his science with nothing to back your assumptions

Excuse me; I am having a conversation with you, not a “brick wall.”
How about answering my questions first?


If you cannot answer the given questions then this conversation is over between you and me, because you’re wasting my time and everyone else as well.


Apparently you flat out refuse to answer any of my last set of questions that I asked of you, and when I asked again, you go on some hunting expedition, desperately trying to find fault with my past post and went as far as to make false allegations against me personally. You cannot answer simple questions, and the fact is what you accuse me of doing is what you are doing. Does this make any sense to you?

Bones made it clear on his OP if you want to debunk Jones science, then I suggest you take it up with some real scientist who can critique and debunk your work, it shouldn’t be to hard to submitted a fraudulent Journal as you claim Jones did. This should be so easy for you, since you obviously believe that it is easy to get a paper peer reviewed and printed in any major scientific journal and accepted by the scientific community. Instead of sitting on a conspiracy board 24/7 doing character assignation against credible scientist and creating false assumption about their science without backing up any of your ridiculous claims, only proves you can’t handle the truth.
edit on 24-2-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Based on your answer, you can't support your claim that Jones explained in his paper why the thermite didn't completely burn in the DSC. As usual, your tactics are completely predictable and transparent.

Will you continue to cheer for Jones in spite of all the failures of his paper? By the way, I don't sit on this board 24/7 or do "character assignations." Your malapropisms are especially entertaining.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



Based on your answer, you can't support your claim that Jones explained in his paper why the thermite didn't completely burn in the DSC. As usual, your tactics are completely predictable and transparent.


The fact is your question was completely irrelevant to Jones testing in proving the thermite. As far as my tactics that are “completely predictable and transparent,” your right, telling the truth is predictable and transparent.
Your questions were address by me in this thread.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Will you continue to cheer for Jones in spite of all the failures of his paper?


Yes I will, until someone can properly prove otherwise by a peer review process. You and other scientists have yet to disprove his science or his methods of testing. If anyone has failed to prove anything it is the few debunkers on ATS who spew opinions and character assignations against Steven Jones, and his Journal.


By the way, I don't sit on this board 24/7 or do "character assignations."


That is completely false. Your digging a deep hole for yourself pretty soon you will not get out.


Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by impressme


It is unfortunate that you have absolutely no knowledge of chemistry and thermodynamics and insist on arguing based on cut and paste from the someclownsfortruth sites. It is getting tedious explaining the same things to you again and again.

This may be compelling to people who have no idea how to do chemical analyses, such as Steven Jones. He erroneously assumes a thermite reaction when he has oxygen and organic binder present. The DSC proves only that carbon burns. Apparently, Jones has not yet discovered fire. His science lags a little; maybe you can help him out and explain fire to him.


The fact is the copying and pasting that I did come straight from Jones Journal the “Bentham paper” to prove you were making up garbage and in retaliation you called Jones’ science “someclownsfortruth sites.”


Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by impressme
 


[color=gold]The paper was not peer reviewed by anyone with knowledge of analytical chemistry. I can see how this misguided piece of work was claimed to be peer reviewed only if the peers were fellow charlatans and crazed divinity professors.
Those who understand logic and reason have written "Ol' Paint" Jones off as either an incompetent or a charlatan. Only the diehard few that are lacking in reason and desperate for "evidence" of any conspiracy continue to accept his paper.
It will languish in the humor section until it is brought out in an undergrad chem class as the best bad example of an Analytical Chem paper. If I ever do have strangers sending me sweaty handfuls of dust with paint chips in them, I will certainly put new batteries in my multimeter before I make any measurements.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by turbofan
 


What is in Jones paper is just not conclusive regardless of how he dances around and wishes it to be.



www.abovetopsecret.com...

If there was no credibility to my answers you wouldn’t be spending so much time “trying” to debunk them by nothing more than your opinions, and a continuing going back and forth repeating the same old tired nonsense.

I rest my case.
edit on 25-2-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by pteridine
 



Based on your answer, you can't support your claim that Jones explained in his paper why the thermite didn't completely burn in the DSC. As usual, your tactics are completely predictable and transparent.


The fact is your question was completely irrelevant to Jones testing in proving the thermite. As far as my tactics that are “completely predictable and transparent,” your right, telling the truth is predictable and transparent.
Your questions were address by me in this thread.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


By the way, I don't sit on this board 24/7 or do "character assignations."


That is completely false. Your digging a deep hole for yourself pretty soon you will not get out.



You claim that it is irrelevant that the super thermite doesn't completely burn in the DSC. You also claim that you answered such in a previous thread. Perhaps you could explain these a little further.

Then you said that I sit on this board 24/7. You are wrong and cannot prove this. Finally, you claimed that I do "character assignations." You absolutely can't prove this one.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



You claim that it is irrelevant that the super thermite doesn't completely burn in the DSC. You also claim that you answered such in a previous thread. Perhaps you could explain these a little further.


There’s nothing to discuss, you and I already covered this:


Thermite Proven! Jones Science Proves Red Thematic Material not just Red Paint Chips

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Then you said that I sit on this board 24/7. You are wrong and cannot prove this.


Another fallacy, anyone can look at your response time in your posting habits furthermore I have been on ATS day and night for the last two days and you have responded to my post none stop, or are you going to deny this to?


Finally, you claimed that I do "character assignations." You absolutely can't prove this one.


I already have, you obviously didn’t read my last post to you. See, you just got caught ignoring my previous post. Will be waiting for next post denying everything as you just demonstrated.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


We may have covered it but you couldn't explain it. Now prove I am on ATS 24/7 and that I do "character assignations" as you claimed previously.

You are really amusing.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



We may have covered it but you couldn't explain it. Now prove I am on ATS 24/7 and that I do "character assignations" as you claimed previously.

You are really amusing.


No, what is amusing is you ignoring and rejecting the evidence of your "character assignations" against Jones in my previous posts and you sitting on ATS 24/7 countering my post. As far as me explaining anything, I have several times with you, and that’s what I find amusing.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


You might want to look up "assignation" before you use it again. After you stop laughing, you can actually address the issue and explain why the super thermite self extinguished.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


You might want to look up “spin” before you post again.


After you stop laughing, you can actually address the issue and explain why the super thermite self extinguished.


Already did.


Thermite Proven! Jones Science Proves Red Thematic Material not just Red Paint Chips

www.abovetopsecret.com...


There are those that post here in the 9/11 forum that assert themselves as armchair scientists. I would suggest that if you're going to "debunk" what Dr. Jones presents, you should write your own paper and submit it to Dr. Jones with supporting evidence.


You can't accept or respond to Dr. Jones' challenge by posting here on this forum. I would suggest writing a formal response and sending it to the Journal of 9/11 Studies for review and allow him to respond to your response.


Pteridine, you need to take your “opinions” up with Steven Jones, or do you believe that you are “above science as well?”



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by pteridine
 


Already did.


Thermite Proven! Jones Science Proves Red Thematic Material not just Red Paint Chips

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Pteridine, you need to take your “opinions” up with Steven Jones, or do you believe that you are “above science as well?”


I have concluded that Jones is merely emotionally arrested and needs attention so he can feel important. This is why he has abandoned the scientific method and misinterpreted his results.

In all that cut and paste thread you referenced, you didn't explain why red chips self-extinguish and it is apparent that it is beyond your ability to do so.
Keep on believing, impressme, and I will go back to my "character assignations" that you claim I do so well.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



I have concluded that Jones is merely emotionally arrested and needs attention so he can feel important. This is why he has abandoned the scientific method and misinterpreted his results.


The fact is the only person that was caught misinterpreting science was you.


In all that cut and paste thread you referenced, you didn't explain why red chips self-extinguish and it is apparent that it is beyond your ability to do so.


Oh, are you referring to the “Bentham paper” that I did all my cut and paste to prove that you were making up fallacies and twisting Jones science? Red chips were explained go back and read the thread.


Keep on believing, impressme, and I will go back to my "character assignations" that you claim I do so well.


I am amused, you thought I wouldn’t catch you twisting Jones science and “trying” your best to deceive me and everyone else on ATS, do you really believe that everyone on ATS that understands Bentham paper are complete idiots?
The fact is anyone who has an “opinion” on Jones science is “always” dismissed by you. You act as if only you are the expert on this particular science (Bentham paper) and everyone else are not educated enough to understand this simply explained science, and you’re rudeness of talking down to “everyone” speaks for itself. Yet, you want everyone to take you seriously. Yeah, right.



edit on 26-2-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
"...do you really believe that everyone on ATS that understands Bentham paper are complete idiots?"


No, I do not. Your statement makes no sense. There are not many who can read the paper and see its technical errors without someone pointing them out. I have done that and you don't like it.
A few posters that need a conspiracy will grasp at anything, however farfetched, that supports their wishes and reject anything that does not. They do not recognize logic and reason nor do they understand the technical details. They blindly follow anyone that tells them what they want to hear. That is the group that you are in.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 12:49 AM
link   
I just finished watching this series of videos for the first time and I'd like to share my personal thoughts, because I can. Although it was pretty dry, no special effects, it was very interesting and involved minimal tangent wonderings of thought and/or conjecture. Dr. Jones basically discussed the journals he published his findings in, scientific methodogy, his findings and its similarities and differences with NIST's, some relevant facts surrounding 9/11 especially regarding Dick Cheney, and about his experiences since publishing these findings. When he speaks of his own research, he appears to be absolutely scrupulous and confident that his work was done with the same professionalism he practiced throughout his distinguished career and he makes it clear that he expects the same level of scientific scrutiny to be applied to his 9/11 related research. This is absolutely contrary to the picture painted by so many "armchair scientists" who routinely post derogatory statements about him which frequently attack his character, intelligence, motives, and methods.

If a person were to rely on just what they read in these forums, it would not be very easy to acertain just how credible Dr. Jones is, and that could even convince some people to disregard him and his work. I venture to say that the vast majority of members who read these posts are not professional scientists (I'm not) and do so simply for the pleasure gleaned from learning something new. However, its become increasingly clear that some of the membership has drawn a line in the sand in regards to Dr. Jones, claiming their own superiority to both his intellect and methodology. What has also become absolutely crystal clear is the inability and unwillingness of these same members to prove or even genuinely discuss their own claims. I have read through many threads on these forums and always its the same thing; a certain group of people relentlessly defend the official story while others hypothesize about conspiracies and an even smaller group simply raises honest questions in order to decide which side of the fence they are on. What is extremely rare is when someone actually "debunks" the official story or supports it with actual proof.

Before I first joined ATS I had never really questioned any of the official story, had no idea if there was any real reason to, but was immediately intrigued by the claims I saw made here on both sides. After a few years of leisurely study (which is far more than anyone else I know personally) I have only an opinion that cannot be proven and far more questions than will probably ever be answered. The two that stand out above all others to me are:

Why does the official explanation of events always defy my own common sense?
How come the "truthers" always have their credibility scrutinized far more than their claims, especially considering the fact that the integrity of those who created and sold the official story is in almost every case remarkably less reliable?
edit on 2/28/2011 by budaruskie because: Why not



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by budaruskie When he speaks of his own research, he appears to be absolutely scrupulous and confident that his work was done with the same professionalism he practiced throughout his distinguished career and he makes it clear that he expects the same level of scientific scrutiny to be applied to his 9/11 related research. This is absolutely contrary to the picture painted by so many "armchair scientists" who routinely post derogatory statements about him which frequently attack his character, intelligence, motives, and methods.

If a person were to rely on just what they read in these forums, it would not be very easy to acertain just how credible Dr. Jones is, and that could even convince some people to disregard him and his work. I venture to say that the vast majority of members who read these posts are not professional scientists (I'm not) and do so simply for the pleasure gleaned from learning something new. However, its become increasingly clear that some of the membership has drawn a line in the sand in regards to Dr. Jones, claiming their own superiority to both his intellect and methodology.


The war between the 9/11 Religion and the 9/11 Psychosis has degenerated into psychological bullsh!t. It is mostly mind games trying to influence people's thinking or actually their emotionalism rather than do any rational science.

But I have not seen Jone's try to do a good job of explaining why an airliner could NOT have destroyed the towers. What does it take to understand that skyscrapers must hold themselves up?

Supposed we had the north tower intact. Think of it as seven 15-story sections. That would leave 5 extra stories. So imagine the top 15 stories floating over a 5 story gap with the six 15-story sections below that. That 5 story gap would be 60 feet. Obviously each of those six 15-story sections would have to be strong enough to hold all of the weight above. So the designers had to figure out how much steel to put where.

So of course that top 15-story section would fall. It would take almost 2 seconds to impact and the velocity would be 44 mph.

So what information would be necessary to analyze what would happen? This thought experiment eliminates the plane and eliminates the fire. But I think everyone would have to agree that completely removing five stories is more damage than the plane and fire could have done. So if a good computer simulation of dropping 15 stories on 90 stories at a velocity of 44 mph doesn't completely crush the 90 stories then the Official Conspiracy Theory has some serious problems.

So why can't every engineering school in the world do that simulation?

When has Steven Jones discussed the distribution of steel in the towers?

psik



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Maybe he isn't trying to explain how an airliner couldn't have destroyed the towers because its obvious that wasn't the case since they did not fall after impact, the gov't doesn't use that as an "official" excuse, and building 7 was never even struck by a plane yet it fell too. In the videos referenced in this thread he does actually do some explaining as to why its impossible for the buildings to collapse at the speed at which they did by natural means do to the conservation of momentum and/or Newton's 3rd law.

The very first thing that caused me think something wasn't right in NY was the fact that the buildings fell so quickly and symmetrically. For a long time I just assumed that the OS actually supported the use of explosives in the building, since it was said over and over and over again on the news, and frankly I was appalled and stunned that they claim they weren't used now. Even more shocking is that they claim explosives weren't used, yet they simultaneously say they never looked for any proof of explosives! This is an absolutely insane logical fallacy. Beyond that, they admit they cannot explain the collapses, use computer models as evidence that they refuse to share with any outside scientists, and most unbelievably of all will not actually share physical evidence with recognized and renowned scientists who are asking for it.

This is exactly the same mentality that guided the Warren Commission to reach an equally ignorant and ridiculous conclusion that Oswald was a lone gunman with magic bullets! They too didn't start out with the goal that everyone assumes they did, to answer the question: how was the president assassinated and by whom? Instead, they were instructed from the very beginning by those at the very top to prove the conclusion that Oswald acted alone. Now, the 9/11 Commission was charged with proving OBL and al qaeda were the culprits instead of finding the truth. Not only does this type of thinking defy logic but its also dangerous, disrespectful, and completely unpatriotic.

In my opinion, the most convincing evidence of all that 9/11 was an inside job is the actions of our gov't itself after that day. So many of us bicker and argue about the details surrounding the events of the day, but there is no arguing the fact that our gov't did not, is not, and will not allow you to pursue the truth.


edit on 2/28/2011 by budaruskie because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
15
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join