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

There is no doubt in my mind that there is a very small group of people on ATS who has fabricated, twisted the truth, insulted, and spun in trying to convince ATS readers that every piece of evidence that includes all science is wrong against the OS. (gov keyboard Ops, disinformation)

They blindly follow anyone that tells them what they want to hear.

We can say the same for this author of this comment.

People who are generally desperate in trying to convince everyone that their lies are true, most of the time, create more lies against their opponent because that is all they can do when their ship starts to sink and no one is buying into their conspiracy theories anymore.

That is the group that you are in.

As demonstrated we can see exactly what I am talking about.

The fact is the OP asked not to debate the science here because no one in here can present any science to back their claims only their opinions.

Only one poster I see in here continues to ask questions about how Jones did his testing and is making a claim that Jones did not do his testing correctly. Jones didn’t do this Jones didn’t do that blah, blah, blah. The link below will correctly paint the true professional picture of Dr. Steven Jones.

www.physics.byu.edu...

Has anyone seen pteridine’s biography? Is he a professor? Is he a physicist? Does he hold a collage degree in any field? He acts as though he is a scientist of some sort but then, without fail, lets us know in his own way what the answer really is.

reply to post by impressme


Great post. Now explain why the so-called super-thermite self-extinguished in the DSC oven. Jones may be able to help you out.

reply to post by pteridine

Great post. Now explain why the so-called super-thermite self-extinguished in the DSC oven. Jones may be able to help you out.

What does “super-thermite self-extinguished in the DSC oven,” have to do with Jones proving thermite?
Please explain by showing your science? And please leave your “opinions” out of this, if you have real science to show us, then lets see your paper?

reply to post by impressme


Read Jones paper. Note the pictures of the super thermite chips that were in the DSC are partially combusted after Jones says they reacted. Jones' paper, Jones pictures, Jones' faulty conclusions.

reply to post by pteridine


Maybe he thinks the huge mass of the steel somehow "quenched" the reaction.

Some amazing stuff that "super-nano paint thermite"! Gets quenched the second it gets near the steel its suppose to melt through!

reply to post by pteridine









www.abovetopsecret.com...

This has been discussed pteridine, your straw man arguments against Jones science prove absolutely nothing. Perhaps in your egotistical thinking, you really believe your opinions outweigh science.


Mod Edit: Quoting – Please Review This Link.

High tech thermite? Many types of high tech thermite! So high tech that they fail to completely ignite, complete the reaction, and melt completely, like your regular, ho-hum made in backyard thermite. Really high tech there. I was not aware that something that fizzles is considered high tech. So high tech it got quenched the second it touched the actual mass. Heat sinked! Thermite got heatsinked! Not just any ol themite, high tech, super, nano-paint on thermite!! It got heat sinked by the very material it was suppose to melt!

Do you have any idea how funny you sound right now, impressme? You mean to tell me, you believe that his high tech super engineered special paint on nano-thermite (that failed to stay lit throughout the reaction when the heat source was removed like normal humdrum thermite, mind you) got fired up, and then on contact with the steel itself, got heat sinked and cold leaving behind the thin layer of unreacted high tech super nano thermite?????
Thats like saying I have a high tech car, with all the wizbang technology placed into it, but if I start it up, it wont run cause its so high tech!

reply to post by impressme

The quotes you posted are telling. If we would analyze them, the bit about quenching seems really idiotic, as Gen Radek has already noted. The stuff is suposed to take down buildings except Jones says that metal beams would be heat sinks and cause it to go out. If Jones statement is true, then the paint-on thermite can't have been used for building demolition. In the DSC oven, there are no steel beams to quench the red material so if it is thermite it shouldn't go out. It should burn and leave only the gray layer. It didn't. What do you think it really is?

Then, you quote the part about the mini-oxy torch. On page 19 Jones says what the gray layer is made of; "The gray layer was found to consist mostly of iron oxide so that it probably does not contribute to the exotherm,
and yet this layer varies greatly in mass from chip to chip." The oxide coat on the structural steel would not burn to ash in the oxy torch; only the red primer coating the steel would burn.

Conclusion: Jones found red paint and the CD folks will have to rethink their theories.

Looks like to me there is a whole lot of effort to ignore 9/11 TRUTH.

Looks like to me there is a whole lot of DISINFORMATION and WORD PLAY

Looks like to me there is a whole bunch of chickens afraid to admit the U.S. committed TREASON

reply to post by pteridine

Conclusion: Jones found red paint and the CD folks will have to rethink their theories.

Your scientific evidence is what again? Perhaps, you should rethink your position and stop spewing rubbish, the very rubbish that you cannot even back up.
You make all these claims Jones didn’t do this, Jones didn’t do that, Jones science is inconclusive, blah, blah… Yet you haven’t been able to back a single claim using real science. All you are doing is asking the same old tired questions with more questions that are unproductive and they have no real barren towards Jones test results.

Who are you trying to convince that Jones paper is flawed, ignorant ATS lurkers?

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by pteridine

 

Conclusion: Jones found red paint and the CD folks will have to rethink their theories.

Your scientific evidence is what again? Perhaps, you should rethink your position and stop spewing rubbish, the very rubbish that you cannot even back up.
You make all these claims Jones didn’t do this, Jones didn’t do that, Jones science is inconclusive, blah, blah… Yet you haven’t been able to back a single claim using real science.

It is unfortunate that you are completely unfamiliar with "real science" and cannot comprehend the written word. I have shown the many inconsistencies in Jones paper and explained the foolishness of his conclusions. I take it from your response that you and all the other Jones supporters are still unable to explain the incomplete combustion of the red chips in the DSC either. This is understandable as Jones has gone to great lengths to show that they are red paint.

reply to post by pteridine

It is unfortunate that you are completely unfamiliar with "real science" and cannot comprehend the written word.

Now you have resorted into making up “fallacies,” when all else fails in your debunking skills, there is nothing left, but to insult your opponent.

I have shown the many inconsistencies in Jones paper and explained the foolishness of his conclusions.

You mean you gave your “opinions” nothing more.

I take it from your response that you and all the other Jones supporters are still unable to explain the incomplete combustion of the red chips in the DSC either.

Not at all, it is completely irrelevant, and does not prove Jones test results are flawed.

This is understandable as Jones has gone to great lengths to show that they are red paint.

That is not true and you know it. You care to prove your allegation by showing your science and your test results? I didn’t think so.

You can make all the claims you want against me, the Truth movement, Steven Jones, and Jones scientific findings, however you cannot back up the your “opinions” and accusation, you spew with any science.

I need to remind myself not to allow you to bring me down to your emotional level.

Jones found thermite in the WTC dust samples. His testing was done and recorded using accepted scientific protocol. No one in the scientific community or elsewhere for that matter has proven Jones wrong.

If and when you can produce reliable and acceptable scientific evidence proving Jones wrong, please post such information including all direct links to your sources.

Originally posted by impressme
Now you have resorted into making up “fallacies,” when all else fails in your debunking skills, there is nothing left, but to insult your opponent.

He isnt trying to insult you impressme, just trying to shake you out of your blind faith in Jones and Griffin (the theologian) and their cult.

You mean you gave your “opinions” nothing more.

How are they opinions?
Fact: thermite will burn to completion upon being ignited.
Fact: thermite will not self extinguish once the flame is removed, failing to fully react. Once ignited, it will react till completion.
Fact: thermite can react with and without external oxygen. In order to prove combustion of organic material, the DSC must be run in oxygen. To prove a thermite reaction, you must ALSO run the DSC in INERT air to neutralize any possible combustion reaction out of the test.
Fact: thermite is not going to get "heat sinked" by the mass of the steel that is targeted for melting/destruction. In fact I have NEVER heard anything as stupid as this. Had Jones' paper been peer-reviewed by respectible scientists that know something about chemistry, metallurgy, and such, this would have been immediately pointed out and fixed. Also, pay to publish does not mean it has been peer-reviewed.
Fact: Having your work "peer-reviewed" by fellow "biased in a certain direction" peers is not considered being peer-reviewed. he wants it peer-reviewed? Send it to American Chemical Society, (161,000 members) or the Royal Society of Chemistry (46,000 members). Send it to American Society for Mass Spectrometry. I'm sure they would all agree with the observations and critiques done by Peteridine and myself on the gross errors in his paper.
Fact: the acclaimed, "highly engineered, super nano-paint-on thermite" sounds as if it so high tech, and so advanced, military grade, that it should be a wonder material that should have brought down the buildings with no problem. However, under close scrutiny, it is a complete fizzle and flop. Since when does something that is so high tech, so super, so nano, military grade, fail to completely react when the flame is removed, and the material self extinuishes? Regular, backyard mixed thermite manages to completely react without leaving tons of unreacted materials around. Also, regular mixed thermite manages to melt through steel materials, without being heat sinked, leaving behind a layer of unreacted material. Why does the alleged "high tech, super duper, nano-paint-on thermite"? Is it so special it is a complete flop? Get real. And Jones' lame explanation of why it is just betrays his failures and his biased agenda from the start

Not at all, it is completely irrelevant, and does not prove Jones test results are flawed.

Oh yes it does. Thermite can react WITH oxygen present, and can react WITHOUT oxygen present. Organic materials will burn in oxygen but not without oxygen. Thermite can do both. had he just done the inert air DSC alone, and got the same reaction, he's have immediately DQ'd any combustion of filler or organic materials requiring oxygen to burn. But to do it under oxygen, only gives an inconclusive end, which gives us nothing, other than, something burned. Woopdedoo. Test flawed

That is not true and you know it. You care to prove your allegation by showing your science and your test results? I didn’t think so.

You can make all the claims you want against me, the Truth movement, Steven Jones, and Jones scientific findings, however you cannot back up the your “opinions” and accusation, you spew with any science.

I need to remind myself not to allow you to bring me down to your emotional level.

Jones found thermite in the WTC dust samples. His testing was done and recorded using accepted scientific protocol. No one in the scientific community or elsewhere for that matter has proven Jones wrong.

If and when you can produce reliable and acceptable scientific evidence proving Jones wrong, please post such information including all direct links to your sources.

edit on 3-3-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)

Well if only Jones would send his work to an actual accredited institution that is not for profit, maybe then someone will give it the appropriate critique and review/ But he hasnt, and from the looks of things, is never going to do so. And his much anticipated second battery of tests hasnt come to fruition yet, so we got nothing. And no, Bentham Science Publishers is NOT a peer-reviewing organization, nor is it a science journal. It's a PAY-TO-PUBLISH journal, where "you got the money? Allrighty, let's publish." That is not how a real science journal operates. I provided a few organizations that are not-for-profit, and would do the proper critique and analysis. But Jones did not send it to them. So, his paper is nothing more than great bathroom literature and a good use as a sanitary item afterward.

Originally posted by impressme

I take it from your response that you and all the other Jones supporters are still unable to explain the incomplete combustion of the red chips in the DSC either.

Not at all, it is completely irrelevant, and does not prove Jones test results are flawed.

It is not irrelevant and goes to the heart of the matter by showing that Jones conclusions are flawed and not justified by any series of experiments.

Impressme, you have impressed me once again...this time with your patience. I love the way these two are trying so hard to bait you into a crapslingin' contest, but you left that to the monkeys. Well done, here here, cheers, and all that jazz. The guy < snip > has never shown me anything that makes me believe he is as technically savvy as he claims to be. Turbofan absolutely murdered him in a debate, mainly due to the fact that he refuses to debate, only to lob insults first at Dr. Jones and then at whomever is debating him. The other guy, well if its another guy, is just there to help derail...its become so obvious.

The bottom line is, Dr. Jones is a respected physicist and has put his work out there to be scrutinized. Funny thing is, not one scientist has challenged his findings by trying to PROVE him wrong. Only screen-names on damn fool conspiracy sites seem to have that kind of expertise and gumption.

The whole reason for this thread is to tell you fellas to PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS and stake your professional credibility to your claims...as Dr. Jones so admirably did. Cowards!

Mod note: Courtesy is mandatory.

Originally posted by budaruskie

The bottom line is, Dr. Jones is a respected physicist and has put his work out there to be scrutinized. Funny thing is, not one scientist has challenged his findings by trying to PROVE him wrong. Only screen-names on damn fool conspiracy sites seem to have that kind of expertise and gumption.

The whole reason for this thread is to tell you fellas to PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS and stake your professional credibility to your claims...as Dr. Jones so admirably did. Cowards!

The bottom line is, Dr. Jones is NOT a respected physicist and has put his work out there to be scrutinized BY HIS MATES.

How can a scientist that claims Jesus visited America have any credibility PLEASE tell me

Originally posted by wmd_2008

The bottom line is, Dr. Jones is NOT a respected physicist and has put his work out there to be scrutinized BY HIS MATES.

How can a scientist that claims Jesus visited America have any credibility PLEASE tell me

I see no proof whatsoever of any phycisists claiming Dr. Jones is not respected, only "armchair scientists" like yourself and the guy who dines on peters. Show me where I'm wrong.

His work is in the public realm and so far has not been scientifically disproven by anyone, his mates or yours. Show me one peer-reviewed claim to the contrary.

His belief that Jesus came to America is probably due to his Mormon faith, which isn't science, its faith and doesn't matter anyway. Why is it any less believable than believing Jesus visited Jerusalem? The exact same number of historical references cite both, and I'm very skeptical of both. So, why would he be any less credible than those who believe Jesus visited Jerusalem since niether can be proven?

Oh so many questions, here is a few:

How can a man who can't pronounce the word NUCLEAR be the ultimate authority over NUCLEAR weapons?
How can NIST claim there was no explosives used in NY on 9/11 WITHOUT EVEN LOOKING FOR ANY PROOF?
How can some actor on the street figure out what the official story would be within minutes of the events and manage to appear on TV to tell the world?
How can the BBC report WTC 7 fell before it actually happened, with the building still visible behind the reporter no less?
How can WTC 7 implode as it did, without historical precedence or science to support it?
How can the 9/11 Commission Report fail to even mention WTC 7?
How can a plane be visible to the naked eye in D.C., but invisible to the camera eye?
How can a plane made of metal, plastic, and composite materials virtually vaporize yet leave enough DNA evidence to identify all passengers on board?
How does someone with NO EXPERIENCE flying passenger jets fly AA 77 with greater precision than those pilots who HAVE ACTUALLY FLOWN AA 77?
Most importantly, how can a person with any critical thinking ability at all buy the official story and defend it so vigorously without an alterior motive?

reply to post by budaruskie


You forgot a few rhetorical questions in your last post.
"How can a super thermite extinguish itself before burning completely? Can a physicist pretending to be an analytical chemist expect his botched experiments to be taken seriously? Can a physics professor complete a career without understanding the scientific method?"

reply to post by pteridine


Well, since I'm not a scientist and currently lack the ability to answer your question, why should I attempt to answer your question?

In all honesty, if you have the technical aptitude to prove Dr. Jones conclusions wrong, why not do your own experiments and publish your findings? Or has ATS become the leading scientific medium to do so? Also, why isn't anyone else doing so just to officially destroy his credibility? Rhetorical indeed.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
The bottom line is, Dr. Jones is a respected physicist and has put his work out there to be scrutinized. Funny thing is, not one scientist has challenged his findings by trying to PROVE him wrong. Only screen-names on damn fool conspiracy sites seem to have that kind of expertise and gumption.

The bottom line is, Dr. Jones is NOT a respected physicist and has put his work out there to be scrutinized BY HIS MATES.

Are there any respected physicists anymore?

Do you need to be a physicist to know that skyscrapers must have more steel toward the bottom?

So where have any physicists asked about accurate information on the distributions of steel and concrete in the towers? Are physicists supposed to know anything about the conservation of momentum? How can that be applied to a supposed collapse without accurate distribution of mass information?

Yeah, 9/11 should ultimately force a reevaluation of the the whole PEER REVIEW concept. Is it just a method of enforcing GROUP THINK?

Has any engineering school built a physical model that can collapse completely? What engineering school has built a physical model?

www.youtube.com...

psik