99% Undeniable Conclusive Evidence That 9/11 Was An Inside Job

reply to post by -PLB-

I demonstrated that the journal has a very questionable reputation,

No you didn't.

I demonstrated that the review process was flawed or non-existent,

If your idea of a "demonstration" used to back up your view of the peer-review process is a blog post, here's another blog post backing up the validity of the Open Chemical Physics Journal's peer-review process.

Here's what you need to know (especially if you are not a scientist): UNLESS AN OBJECTOR ACTUALLY PUBLISHES HIS OR HER OBJECTION IN A PEER-REVIEWED ESTABLISHED JOURNAL (yes that would include Bentham Scientific journals), THEN THE OBJECTION IS NOT CONSIDERED SERIOUS IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD NOT WORRY ABOUT NON-PUBLISHED OBJECTIONS EITHER.

--Steven Jones

You said in an earlier post that all of these organizations officially support the official story: Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Society of Fire Protection Engineers, National Fire Protection Association, American Institute of Steel Construction, Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc., Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, and the Structural Engineers Association of New York.

So why has nobody out of those 7 organizations written a peer-reviewed criticism over Steven Jones paper?
Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers: 58 members

Society of Fire Protection Engineers: Over 5000 members

American Institute of Steel Construction: Over 3500 members

Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc: Over 400 members

on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat: Over 100 members

Structural Engineers Association of New York: Over 500 members

So why did not one out of those 9500+ professionals publish a paper criticizing Steven Jones paper? Out of these 3170+ people, many of which aren't even qualified enough to write a paper let alone get it published in a journal, several papers have been published criticizing Bazants paper that is backed by NIST.

That's how it works in the scientific community, if you disagree with somebodys published work, you don't just talk about it on a blog, you publish your complaints in a scientific journal and show them what they did wrong. That's what the point of many of the papers I posted was, to show the flaws in Bazants paper that is backed by NIST. If they can publish a paper in a scientific journal to voice their opinions on what is wrong with somebodys work, then why can't the people who support the official story and think Steven Jones paper is wrong also do that?

I demonstrated that an actual expert completely pulls the paper to shreds,

If only he did it in the form of a peer-reviewed published paper...

I demonstrated the authors ignore critique and are not willing to do the required experiments,

Did you now?

The peer-review on this paper was grueling, with pages of comments by referees. The tough questions the reviewers raised led to months of further experiments. These studies added much to the paper, including observation and photographs of iron-aluminum rich spheres produced as the material is ignited in a Differential Scanning Calorimeter (see Figures 20, 25 and 26).

From here

yet you still require a peer reviewed paper in order to accept that its junk science. I guess this perfectly illustrated the difference between truthers and the real world. The rest of the world does not require a peer reviewed paper to understand that Jones work is junk. If you throw your bias away and exercise some critical thinking I am sure you can also come to that conclusion.

Yep, just as earlier in the thread you requested a peer reviewed paper to back up my claims that the official explanation of how the towers fell is junk science, and I found not just one but many of them. I don't know what picture you have of truthers in your mind, but we're not a bunch of gullible idiots who live in a fantasy world all day, we're normal people who live in the "real world" just like you intelligent people who do not question the government in a highly questionable event. Also, you can't speak for the rest of the world and what they think about Jones paper.

reply to post by TupacShakur


Putting your fingers in your ears and saying "nanana" isn't going to help. It is not an established journal that scientists take seriously. You can claim it over and over, but real scientists disagree with you, and their opinion counts, yours doesn't. More proof: classic.the-scientist.com... Although I know you will keep denying the facts and keep believing that the journal creditable. You have invested too much in that position to give it up.

reply to post by -PLB-


I added this in my last post a little bit too late:

You said in an earlier post that all of these organizations officially support the official story: Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Society of Fire Protection Engineers, National Fire Protection Association, American Institute of Steel Construction, Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc., Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, and the Structural Engineers Association of New York.

So why has nobody out of those 7 organizations written a peer-reviewed criticism over Steven Jones paper?
Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers: 58 members

Society of Fire Protection Engineers: Over 5000 members

American Institute of Steel Construction: Over 3500 members

Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc: Over 400 members

Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat: Over 100 members

Structural Engineers Association of New York: Over 500 members

So why did not one out of those 9500+ professionals publish a paper criticizing Steven Jones paper? Out of these 3170+ people, many of which aren't even qualified enough to write a paper let alone get it published in a journal, several papers have been published criticizing Bazants paper that is backed by NIST.

Putting your fingers in your ears and saying "nanana" isn't going to help. It is not an established journal that scientists take seriously. You can claim it over and over, but real scientists disagree with you, and their opinion counts, yours doesn't. More proof: classic.the-scientist.com... Although I know you will keep denying the facts and keep believing that the journal creditable. You have invested too much in that position to give it up.

WOW two people resigned because of a hoax paper published in a different journal, The Open Information Science Journal, which isn't The Open Chemical Physics Journal. Sure they're both run by the same company, but they're not the same journal. That's like saying if employees that worked for Mountain Dew quit because of a product recall, then Pibb Xtra is bad since they're both run by the same company, Coca Cola.

Show me some published papers going against Steven Jones paper, because if a hoax paper can slide through then surely one of those almost 10000 people that support the official story can publish something criticizing Steven Jones.

reply to post by TupacShakur


You are really daft. The reason that no scientist writes a papers that rebuts Jones work is because it is not taken seriously outside the truth movement. Do you think that all the scientists in the world actually agree with Jones work but are too afraid to speak out? You may believe that this journal is a really high profile respected journal in the scientific community, but it is not. Scientist shrug when they see Jones work and continue with real science. That is the reality you are not willing to accept.

reply to post by -PLB-


classic.the-scientist.com...

If every article in every journal that had either been hoaxed or had a sister publication hoaxed in this manner was disregarded there would be no science, period.

reply to post by Darkwing01


If everyone believed that any paper in a pay per publish journal did go through all the proper procedures and is therefore creditable and to be taken seriously, there also would be no science. On the faculty on the university I studied they had the rule to only consider the papers from a handful of journals as high quality work, the rest should be read with high skepticism and were questionable to use as reference. In which category do you think the Open Chemical Physics Journal would fall in?

reply to post by -PLB-

You are really daft. The reason that no scientist writes a papers that rebuts Jones work is because it is not taken seriously outside the truth movement. Do you think that all the scientists in the world actually agree with Jones work but are too afraid to speak out? You may believe that this journal is a really high profile respected journal in the scientific community, but it is not.

Yeah I'm sure, his work is just so bad, such a disgrace to the scientific community that not one person will even take the time to show what is wrong with it. That's how bad it is, they can whine about it on a blog, but it's not worth being fully debunked and pulled apart in an actual scientific manner.

Scientist shrug when they see Jones work and continue with real science. That is the reality you are not willing to accept.

I find it funny that you see yourself as qualified to speak for all scientists. What, two guys resigned, and that translates to "Every scientist in America thinks Steven Jones is a phony"?

Originally posted by TupacShakur
Yeah I'm sure, his work is just so bad, such a disgrace to the scientific community that not one person will even take the time to show what is wrong with it. That's how bad it is, they can whine about it on a blog, but it's not worth being fully debunked and pulled apart in an actual scientific manner.

It is indeed not worth to waste time on (from a scientific point of view), because nobody in the scientific community is accepting this paper in the first place. Why would a scientist put effort into convincing truthers? Outside the truth movement the whole 911 conspiracy is not taken seriously at all. But still, actual experts have taken the time to demonstrate what it wrong with it. And Jones and his team did not come with a proper answer, nor did they do any of the tests that were suggested. What explanation can you give that they never did any further testing to silence the critics? I can give you one: because the critics are correct and the tests would prove Jones is wrong. Lets hear your explanation.

I find it funny that you see yourself as qualified to speak for all scientists. What, two guys resigned, and that translates to "Every scientist in America thinks Steven Jones is a phony"?

Don't look at me, look at the scientific community. The paper is completely ignored. That is what I base my position on. Of course the fact that scientists ignore the paper simply becomes part of the conspiracy in your mind. But that isn't rational, its rather delusional.

reply to post by -PLB-

It is indeed not worth to waste time on (from a scientific point of view), because nobody in the scientific community is accepting this paper in the first place. Why would a scientist put effort into convincing truthers?

It's not about convincing "truthers", if you read a published, peer-reviewed paper in a scientific journal and you heavily disagree with it, you don't just ignore it and say "Bah, that's a bunch of bologna", you write a paper in response to it and point out the flaws.

Outside the truth movement the whole 911 conspiracy is not taken seriously at all.

Right, that's why on the last page I linked you to four polls showing that a big chunk of Americans think that 9/11 was an inside job. Then when I asked you to find polls showing that only a teeny-tiny portion of Americans believe that the government was involved in 9/11, you completely ignored that request.

But still, actual experts have taken the time to demonstrate what it wrong with it.

Not in a published, legitimate paper, just some dude talking on a blog.

And the Jones and his team did not come with a proper answer, nor did they do any of the tests that were suggested.

You're lying

The peer-review on this paper was grueling, with pages of comments by referees. The tough questions the reviewers raised led to months of further experiments. These studies added much to the paper, including observation and photographs of iron-aluminum rich spheres produced as the material is ignited in a Differential Scanning Calorimeter (see Figures 20, 25 and 26).

What explanation can you give that they never did any further testing to silence the critics? I can give you one: because the critics are correct and the tests would prove Jones is wrong. Lets hear your explanation.

My explanation is you're wrong, they did further testing because questions were raised during the peer review process, and they performed the requested experimentation.

What explanation can you give that nobody published a paper to counter his, point out the flaws, and show everybody how wrong he was? I can give you one: Because he's not wrong. Let's hear your explanation, oh wait I remember what it was: His published, peer-reviewed paper is so lame that it's not even worth a peer-review.

Do you realize how stupid that sounds? Ignoring a complete failure of a scientific paper and just letting thousands of people read it and think it's legitimate without anything to show them why it's not? If it was filled with holes and flaws like Bazants paper that is backed by NIST, people would not just read it and say "Oh that sucks" and move on, they would show why the paper is wrong, much like those people that published papers in response to Bazants joke of a paper. If anything, that paper shouldn't be taken seriously in the scientific community, it's so flawed and filled with assumptions leaning towards their side of the story that it makes me sick. Plus, in the papers criticizing Bazants, they also used assumptions leaning heavily towards the official story, and after performing the necessary calculations they still concluded that Bazant's analysis was incorrect.

Originally posted by TupacShakur
It's not about convincing "truthers", if you read a published, peer-reviewed paper in a scientific journal and you heavily disagree with it, you don't just ignore it and say "Bah, that's a bunch of bologna", you write a paper in response to it and point out the flaws.

Only if the paper is taken seriously. It isn't.

Right, that's why on the last page I linked you to four polls showing that a big chunk of Americans think that 9/11 was an inside job. Then when I asked you to find polls showing that only a teeny-tiny portion of Americans believe that the government was involved in 9/11, you completely ignored that request.

The American population is in no way representative of the scientific or engineering community concerning things like this. Even among the general population the truther position is not very large.

Not in a published, legitimate paper, just some dude talking on a blog.

Quite a bit more than that. But indeed, no paper, and it will very likely never come either.

You're lying

I am not lying, I am talking about the critique that came after publication.

My explanation is you're wrong, they did further testing because questions were raised during the peer review process, and they performed the requested experimentation.

But not after publication. You already know what I think about the quality of "peer review" of that journal. Why didn't they publish a follow up paper containing the experiments requested by critics who are, unlike Jones and his team, actual experts on the subject?

What explanation can you give that nobody published a paper to counter his, point out the flaws, and show everybody how wrong he was? I can give you one: Because he's not wrong. Let's hear your explanation, oh wait I remember what it was: His published, peer-reviewed paper is so lame that it's not even worth a peer-review.

I already gave you the explanation, nobody takes his work seriously. Why do you think nobody every reproduced his conclusion?

Do you realize how stupid that sounds? Ignoring a complete failure of a scientific paper and just letting thousands of people read it and think it's legitimate without anything to show them why it's not? If it was filled with holes and flaws like Bazants paper that is backed by NIST, people would not just read it and say "Oh that sucks" and move on, they would show why the paper is wrong, much like those people that published papers in response to Bazants joke of a paper. If anything, that paper shouldn't be taken seriously in the scientific community, it's so flawed and filled with assumptions leaning towards their side of the story that it makes me sick. Plus, in the papers criticizing Bazants, they also used assumptions leaning heavily towards the official story, and after performing the necessary calculations they still concluded that Bazant's analysis was incorrect.

You are a bit delusional. I have a proposition. Contact 10 chemistry professors at 10 different universities and ask what they think of that paper. I know you wont, as you will not like the answers.

reply to post by -PLB-

Only if the paper is taken seriously. It isn't.

...And this claim is based on what? The fact that two editors resigned because a hoax paper was published in a different journal? Or the fact that it goes against the official story and many people including you support the official story?

The American population is in no way representative of the scientific or engineering community concerning things like this.

And neither is your opinion.

Even among the general population the truther position is not very large.

The polls I posted beg to differ. The numbers range from 30-90% of Americans who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I'm still waiting on those polls that back up your claim that only a small portion of Americans are "truthers", because I've provided several that show you're wrong.

I am not lying, I am talking about the critique that came after publication.

Oh, so everybody involved in working on that paper should scour the internet for blog posts criticizing their paper? You're saying that it's not the job of the critics to publish work that shows what's wrong with the paper, but instead it's the job of the authors to search the internet for bloq-critiques of their scientific work?

But not after publication. You already know what I think about the quality of "peer review" of that journal. Why didn't they publish a follow up paper containing the experiments requested by critics who are, unlike Jones and his team, actual experts on the subject?

Gee, I don't know, maybe because the requested experiments were requested on an internet blog, and not in a published paper that points out the flaws and brings up solutions to these problems, such as more experimentation. You sure love to appeal to the authority of these "experts", but if they're expertise is unrivaled in the field, why are their expert opinions confined to some blog and not a scientific journal?

I already gave you the explanation, nobody takes his work seriously.

Again, you're basing this claim off of your opinion of his work with no evidence to back it up.

Why do you think nobody every reproduced his conclusion?

I don't know but the reproduction of his conclusion is not as important as the invalidation of his conclusion (Blog posts excluded lol).

You are a bit delusional.

How? Bazants paper that NIST supports is flawed, so people published their own papers pointing out the flaws in his work. If you think that Steven Jones paper is flawed, then why has nobody published their own paper pointing out the flaws in his work? Oh yeah that's right, it's so incredibly terrible that it's only worth a blog post. If the degree of thoroughness of a scientific criticism was based on how bad a paper is, Bazants paper would get a Facebook status at best.

I have a proposition. Contact 10 chemistry professors at 10 different universities and ask what they think of that paper. I know you wont, as you will not like the answers.

That's a great idea, I'll try to do that and let you know what they said. Why don't you also call a few professors and see what they think about Bazants paper?

Originally posted by TupacShakur
maybe because the requested experiments were requested on an internet blog

No, they were directly directed to the authors in a discussion. The authors first said they would resolve the issues, and later decided to ignore the issues. The internet blog is just the place where this discussion was posted. When you reject any source that conflicts with your world view you will not know things like this.

That's a great idea, I'll try to do that and let you know what they said. Why don't you also call a few professors and see what they think about Bazants paper?

I would very much applaud it if you did this. Anything that I say is ignored anyhow. Once you get responses we can continue this conversation.

My opinion , that only matters to me is quite simple.
Follow the money.
Since 9/11 and for years after that the world changed forever. Suddleny "risk assement" and "risk management" have ruled every aspect of every major finincal transaction in North America. Insurance rates , that until then pretty well were determined by your record and your business, since then the rates sere linked to the potential threat and proximity to any type of attack or disaster and somhow justified the 60%plus rate increase we all have seen.
That with the loss of some of the greatest minds and decades of records and research data that could never be retreved.
The major financial institutions needed an excuse to reevaluate business and justify a massive increase in rates and they got it.

reply to post by -PLB-

Once you get responses we can continue this conversation.

OK.

That was not a sample of WTC dust that is ignited. How much research did you actually do aside from watching those idiotic misleading video clips from conspiracy websites?

WTC dust samples were ignited though.

Red/gray chips were subjected to heating using a differential scanning calorimeter (DSC). The data shown in Fig. (19) demonstrate that the red/gray chips from different WTC samples all ignited in the range 415-435 °C.....In the post-DSC residue, charred-porous material and numerous microspheres and spheroids were observed.

"Junk Science" from page 19

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ae947a96a0ed.jpg[/atsimg]

Fig. (20). photomicrographs of residues from red/gray chips ignited in the DSC (differential scanning calorimeter). Notice the shiny-metallic spheres and also the translucent spheres. Each blue scale-marker represents 50 microns.

And then he ignited red/gray chips from the dust sample, and also paint chips to compare the results.

Several paint samples were also tested and in each case, the paint sample was immediately reduced to fragile ashes by the hot flame. This was not the case, however, with any of the red/gray chips from the World Trade Center dust. The first WTC red/gray chip so tested was approximately 1mm 􀀁 1mm. After a few seconds of heating, the high-speed ejection of a hot particle was observed under the hand of the person holding the torch (Fig. 22). The intense light and bright orange color of the particle attest to its high temperature.

Here's a video of the ignition of the chip from the dust sample: journalof911studies.com...

And then he ignited commercial thermite and compared the spheres as well as the chemical composition to the ones formed by the ignition of the chips in the dust: Commercial Thermite:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6ffbf679f06a.jpg[/atsimg]
"Paint Chips":
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d99b58a70300.jpg[/atsimg]
The chemical composition of the spheres match up as well, but for some reason whey I try to paste that image the labels don't show up so you can just check it out for yourself on page 24.

A calculation of the energy by mass was done to compare chips found in the four dust samples to explosives typically used in controlled demolitions. The four explosives, TNT, HMX, TATB, and Al/Fe2O3, averaged about 4.34 kJ/g, while the four dust samples averaged about 4.17 kJ/g. However, chips from dust samples 3 and 4 yielded 7.1 kJ/g and 5.8 kJ/g, much more than any of the explosives, as seen in Figure 30 on page 27.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9651179cbd1c.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by TupacShakur
However, chips from dust samples 3 and 4 yielded 7.1 kJ/g and 5.8 kJ/g, much more than any of the explosives, as seen in Figure 30 on page 27.

Which is just proof it was not thermite or any known explosive. Did you know that the energy density of wood is about 16kJ/g, much more than any known explosive?

reply to post by -PLB-

Which is just proof it was not thermite or any known explosive. Did you know that the energy density of wood is about 16kJ/g, much more than any known explosive?

I didn't know that, that's very interesting. Did you know that the chemical composition of the paint chips recovered from the WTC dust samples matches the chemical composition of thermite? That's a dangerous brand of paint right there.

Could be, could be.....

I'm not trying to be disrespectful..... but I'm wondering what the motivation is - to prove if our government did a false-flag operation or not? Hey, if you don't trust the government.... there's a simple solution.... move out of the country.

I know one thing.... our foreign enemies LOVE to see us bicker about 9/11.... if it was govm'nt-initiated or not. I also believe that if Social-Security and/or Medic-Aid went away, they would be dancing in the streets. That would take the pressure off of other governments. They would just point and say: "look, it didn't work for them", and not have to think about starting it in their country.

Originally posted by TupacShakur
Did you know that the chemical composition of the paint chips recovered from the WTC dust samples matches the chemical composition of thermite?

It does not. It just contains the same elements as thermite.

That's a dangerous brand of paint right there.

Very dangerous, just like for example this paint: www.tradekd.com... (just one I randomly found using google)

It is made up of epoxy resin, micaceous iron-oxide, aluminum powder syrup, anti-rust pigment and filling, flux and solidified agent.

they use it on:

It is widely used for ship, container, bridge, gas pot, wharf machinery, metal part and concretes anti-rust paint.

Crazy world we live in. Or it is just not as dangerous as Jones made you believe. I personally think the latter.

reply to post by -PLB-

Which is just proof it was not thermite or any known explosive. Did you know that the energy density of wood is about 16kJ/g, much more than any known explosive?

Which proves what exactly?

Here is the quote from the table you are most probably looking at from here:
en.wikipedia.org...

This table lists energy densities of systems that require external components, such as oxidisers or a heat sink or source. These figures do not take into account the mass and volume of the required components as they are assumed to be freely available and present in the atmosphere. Such systems cannot be compared with self-contained systems.