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.
And yet all the lies they spread are approximately 450 times more accurate and plausible than the story you get paid to spread!!!
originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: ParasuvO
originally posted by: DerekJR321
People seem to forget a simple thing called Newtons 3rd Law. The structure above the impact zone simply did not have enough energy to destroy 70+ floors of the towers. This is simple physics.
Explain to me how human remains ended up on top of the Deutsche Bank roof?
1. Truthers said that United 93 landed at Cleveland Airport.
Fact: Truthers confused Detla 1989, a B-767, as United 93, a B-757. At no time die radar track United 93 to Cleveland Airport nor did ACARS indicate that United 93 landed at Cleveland
3. Thermite was used to demolish the WTC Towers
Fact: Thermite is not capable of bringing down the WTC Towers. Steven Jones and Richard Gage were both caught lying as well.
6. Truthers said that the 9/11 airliners were switched.
Fact: It would have been impossible to switch aircraft and not attract a lot of attention from ground controllers and the sounding of alarms in ATC.
7. Truthers said that ACARS depicted the 9/11 aircraft airborne after their crash times.
Fact: ACARS depicted no such thing, a fact that radar continued to track the 9/11 aircraft to their crash sites.
8. Truthers said that molten steel was seen flowing from the corner of WTC 2 before it collapsed.
Fact: I recognized the molten metal as aluminum, not steel, which is evident by the silvery droplets as they cooled.
9. Truthers said that explosives were used to demolish the WTC buildings.
Fact: There is no video, audio nor hardware evidence that explosives were used to bring down the WTC buildings
10. Truthers said that the WTC buildings fell at free fall speed
Fact: The WTC buildings did not fall at free fall speed, which is evident by the fact that dust plumes and debris outpaced the collapse of the WTC buildings.
originally posted by: Informer1958
Steven Jones did not have to make up lies to do a peer Review paper. In the end of his paper Jones said we are talking "military" science. Stop making up lies
however WTC 7 fell 2 seconds faster than free fall
How about you stop making up lies? The Jones paper was NOT peer reviewed, it was published in a "pay to publish" Journal, and the editor of that journal resigned as they did not know about it!
originally posted by: Informer1958
Untrue. Science already proves they fell at free fall, however WTC fell 2 seconds faster than free fall and NIST was "force" to make that correction in their final paper from Architectures & Engineers for 911 Truth.
It was a Peer Reviewed paper and has been excepted by Mainstream Scholars, scientist and Architectures and Engineers world wide It doesn't matter where it was published.
Brigham Young University doesn't want anything to do with Jone's paper.
A few department chairmen at Jones' university have issued critical statements, though none of these has yet addressed any of the points which Jones made in his paper and at his presentation at BYU. Chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Dr. Miller, is on record stating in an e-mail, "I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims".
The BYU physics department has also issued a statement: "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones' hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones' department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." The College of Engineering and Technology department has also added, "The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."
--------------------------
Letter to the Editor
April 09, 2006
Dear Editor,
After reading in the Daily Herald the presentations made by Professor Steven E. Jones (BYU Physics) to students at UVSC and BYU, I feel obligated to reply to his "Conspiracy Theory" relating to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (9/11/01).
I have studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft. I have also read Professor Jones' (referred to) 42 page unpublished report. In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.
The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube. When the aircraft impacted the towers at speeds of about 500 plus mph, many steel columns were immediately severed and others rendered weak by the following fires. The fires critically damaged the floors systems. Structural steel will begin to lose strength when heated to temperatures above 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel bridge girders are bent to conform to the curved roadway by spot heating flanges between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It is easy to comprehend the loss of carrying capacity of all the structural steel due to the raging fires fed by the jet's fuel as well as aircraft and building contents.
Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing.
D. Allan Firmage
www.debunking911.com...
ARCHITECT Magazine
The Magzine of the American Institute of Architects
The boardroom at the Washington, D.C., headquarters of the American Institute of Architects is an impressive place: Beautiful concentric wooden desks, with microphones in front of every seat, encircle a small central dais, offering the impression that important discussions are had here. “It feels like the United Nations,” a guest recently commented.
This room recently served as a peculiar venue for the 23rd stop on the 30-city “world premiere tour” of AIA member Richard Gage’s new film 9/11: Explosive Evidence—Experts Speak Out: Final Edition. Since 2006, Gage has been traveling all over the world under the banner of his organization, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth—an organization that has no affiliation with the AIA, express or otherwise—to preach the theory that the Twin Towers and 7 World Trade Center were actually brought down by explosives on September 11, 2001, and not the impact of two hijacked jetliners and the resulting fires and debris.
“I had to be dragged kicking and screaming into believing that our government and the Israeli government, the Israeli Mossad, could be responsible for the Twin Towers demolition,” one member of the DC chapter of 911truth.org declared from the AIA-emblazoned podium.
The accusations of Gage’s organization are the typical hodgepodge of pseudo-scientific claims. Along with other esoteric and debunked technical arguments, he says that melted steel was visible at the Ground Zero site proving that the fires burned too hot to have been caused by jet fuel; that because the buildings collapsed at “near free fall speed” there must have been a controlled demolition; and that traces of athermitereaction found in the World Trade Center debris proves that explosives were used.
All of Gage’s so-called evidence has been rebutted in peer-reviewed papers, by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, by the National Institute for Standards and Technology, by the American Society of Civil Engineers, by the 9/11 Commission Report, and, perhaps most memorably, by the 110-year-old engineering journal Popular Mechanics.
Untrue. Science already proves they fell at free fall, however WTC fell 2 seconds faster than free fall and NIST was "force" to make that correction in their final paper from Architectures & Engineers for 911 Truth.
Steven Jones Tells 9/11 "Debunkers" to Put up or Shut up!
”What you need to know about "Peer-review"
"Useful information for "non-scientists" about the process of peer-reviewed publishing, such as has been the case with Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction, and Environmental Anomalies at the World Trade Center: Evidence for Energetic Materials ." - 911truth.org
Since the days of Sir Isaac Newton, Science has proceeded through the publication of peer-reviewed papers. Peer-review means a thorough reading, commentary and even challenge before publication by "peers", that is, other PhD's and professors. [color=gold]This paper was thoroughly peer-reviewed with several pages of tough comments that required of our team MONTHS of additional experiments and studies. It was the toughest peer-review I've ever had, including THREE papers for which I was first author in NATURE. (Please note that Prof. Harrit is first author on this paper.) We sought an established journal that would allow us a LONG paper (this paper is 25 pages long) with MANY COLOR IMAGES AND GRAPHS. Such a scientific journal is not easy to find. Page charges are common for scientific journals these days, and are typically paid by the University of the first or second author (as is the case with this paper) or by an external grant.
A peer-reviewed journal is also called a "refereed" journal. Peer-reviewers are almost always anonymous for scientific publications like this -- that is standard in the scientific world. While authors commonly recommend potential peer-reviewers, editors choose the referees and usually pick at least one or two reviewers that the authors did NOT mention -- and that is almost certainly the case with this paper (based on commentary we received from the reviewers). In the end, all the reviewers -- who were selected by the editor(s) -- approved publication. Thus, the paper was subjected to peer review by the editor or editors, and it passed the peer-review process.
It’s time to lay the hard facts on the table! If anyone believes Steven Jones Journal is not peer reviewed as we still see a very few do on ATS, then why would 1,398 “Valid” signers put their name on a list in support of Steven Jones scientific Journal and support it 100%? These are scientists, Architects, Engineers, and professionals.
Why would all these professionals risk their careers, their reputations, and their lives to speak out against the government story of 911?
The fact is none of these professionals would take such an insane risk, if there were no supporting science to Steven Jones Journal. Do the debunkers want educated Americans to think all these professionals are stupid, and that Architects, Engineers do not understand science?
Steven Jones Tells 9/11 "Debunkers" to Put up or Shut up!
Steven Jones and his Art at Deception
Another of the many examples of deceptive photos produced by the "scholars" and cataloged on this site is the photo of firemen hovering over what they suggest is molten steel glowing from the use of thermite.
Steven Jones Deception Photo
The Video
originally posted by: Informer1958
Jones "Peer - Reviewed" Scientific Journal Found Credible!
To repeat what I wrote about this very topic a few months back. IF you send a paper and pay them $800 U.S.D. they will accept it without review... The former chief editor of Bentham Science Publishing quit because that thermite paper was accepted without review, and one of her area of research are nano-particles. Bentham Publishing Exposed For The Fraud's They Are Submitted by Just dropping by on Thu, 06/11/2009 - 17:48 in * Daily Paul Liberty Forum Here's an excerpt Earlier this year, Davis started receiving unsolicited emails from Bentham Science Publishers, which publishes more than 200 "open-access" journals – which turn the conventional business model of academic publishing on its head by charging publication fees to the authors of research papers, and then making the content available for free As the emails stacked up, Davis was not only encouraged to submit papers, but was also invited to serve on the editorial board of some of Bentham's journals – for which he was told he would be allowed to publish one free article each year. "I received solicitations for journals for which I had no subject expertise at all," says Davis. "It really painted a picture of vanity publishing." So Davis teamed up with Kent Anderson, a member of the publishing team at The New England Journal of Medicine, to put Bentham's editorial standards to the test. The pair turned to SCIgen, a program that generates nonsensical computer science papers, and submitted the resulting paper to The Open Information Science Journal, published by Bentham. Read the rest here. www.newscientist.com... So as the debunkers were saying months ago, this Bentham journal is pay-for-publish vanity journal and the fact that Stephen Jones got his little thermite paper published in it hold no fact because they were willing to publish a paper that made no sense whatsoever, as long as the $800 publication fee cleared.. www.dailypaul.com... As the Newscientist article explains Bentham Science Publishers have accepted utter nonsense in the past, and they dont even confirm the identity of the people publishing papers through Bentham Science Publishers... This publishing company even sends unsolicited emails inviting people to be editors of journals in subject on WHICH THESE PEOPLE HAVE NO EXPERIENCE WHATSOEVER... This journal accepts papers, without verifying either the authors, or whether the content of such papers is real, JUST TO MAKE MORE MONEY... Let's read some more about the activities of Bentham Science Publishers shall we?... After the first flush of enthusiasm, however, researchers began to question Benthams activities, not least because many of the invitations they were receiving seemed decidedly badly targeted. For instance, psychologists were being invited to contribute papers on ornithology, health policy researchers were being invited to submit papers on analytical chemistry and economists were being invited to submit papers on sleep research... To add insult to injury, some of the invitations researchers were receiving were addressed to a completely different person, or the name field was empty, and addressed simply to "Dear Dr.,"... By March of this year, senior health care research scientist at the University of Toronto Gunther Eysenbach had had enough. Publicly criticising Bentham's activities on his blog, Eysenbach complained..., "All pleas and begging from my side to stop the spamming, as well as clicking on any 'unsubcribe' links did not stop the spam plague from Bentham." For others, the experience of being targeted by Bentham proved even more frustrating. When Professor John Furedy, Emeritus Professor of Psychology at the University of Toronto, received an invitation to be editor-in-chief of the Open Behavioral Science Journal he initially accepted. But after doing so he found himself being bombarded with further invitations. And when Bentham failed to reply to the questions he raised about the new role he had taken on he decided the best course of action was to withdraw his acceptance, reluctant to be associated with a company that behaved in this way. Even though he had resigned, however, Furedy was surprised to see that his name had been added to the list of editors on the journal's web site. And despite repeated requests to Bentham to remove it his name remains there to this day. I too had by now begun receiving copies of Bentham's invitations — not because I was on its mailing list, but because frustrated researchers were forwarding them to me, and asking me to find out what the dickens was going on. So I emailed various Bentham directors (including Richard Scott and Matthew Honan), all of whom — with the exception of publications director Mahmood Alam — completely ignored my messages. Moreover, while Alam replied, he proved decidedly unwilling to answer my questions, despite repeated promises that he would. He was equally unwilling to put me in contact with anyone else at the company. www.earlham.edu... But hey, you seem to be using the same practices of this SCAM Publishing Company... I already demonstrated to your first thread about this research that this company ACCEPTS NONSENSE ARTICLES JUST FOR MONEY... So that nonsense article about "thermite" found at the WTC is nothing more than crap... The editor in chief of Bentham, Marie-Paule Pileni, resigned because she says that the "nano-thermite" paper was not reviewed, and that instead it is obvious the paper has political motives. 911 NanoTech Thermite Publisher Accepts Fake Paper, Editors quit By John R Moffett, Posted by John R Moffett ..... Previously, the chief editor of the Bentham journal that the Thermite article was published in resigned, and denounced the journal with this statement: “I cannot accept that this topic is published in my journal. The article has nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics, and I could well believe that there is a political viewpoint behind its publication. If anyone had asked me, I would say that the article should never have been published in this journal. Period.” Despite supposedly being the chief editor, she had not been informed that the thermite article was going to be published in her journal. The advocates for the nanotech thermite theory of the WTC collapse will never accept the fact that the Bentham Group journals are not actual peer reviewed scientific publications, but scientists all around the world are now convinced of the fact. ... www.opednews.com... BTW, do you want to know what Dr. Marie-Paule Pileni credentials, and topics of research are?... Marie-Paule Pileni Adjunct Professor Professor Dr. Marie-Paule Pileni Director of the Mesoscopic & Nanometric Materials Laboratory Chair of Institut Universitaire de France University P & M Curie, Paris VI Postal Address: Université Pierre et Marie Curie Case 52, 4 Place Jussieu, 75252 Paris cedex 05 Phone: 33 1 44 27 25 16 Fax: 33 1 44 27 25 15 Website: www.sri.jussieu.fr... E-mail Marie-Paule Pileni ... Research Interests Organization of nanomaterials in mesoscopic scale : collective properties Nanomaterials : synthesis, characterisation and physical properties Chemical modification of enzymes Physical chemistry in condensed matter Colloids sciences Solar energy Photophysic and photobiology Photochemistry in gas phase www.chemistry.gatech.edu... Don't you think she would know a thing or two about "nano-thermite"?...
Holmgren ad Hominems
Another important aspect of how disinformation in the 9/11 Truth Movement functions is through the use of attack and vitriol. While all types of people -- professionals, academics and average people -- can resort to nasty or inappropriate personal attacks when defending or promoting theories which conflict, the 9/11 Truth Movement has been packed with such attacks. Not surprisingly, however, most of the individuals who are most vitriolic are attempting to advance the more bizarre ideas such as hologram or no-plane theories. One of the advocates that commercial jets did not hit the WTC towers is Gerard Holmgren. Holmgren recently launched a campaign of attacks against Steven Jones, including a series of articles, real and promised, posted to several Indymedias, LibertyForum, and personal websites. Holmgren's spamming campaign includes public postings of personal email communications between himself and Jones, and an array of Holmgrenesque insults bordering on obscenity. Holmgren has a history of similar personal and vitriolic attacks on researchers who disagree with his positions, so the inclusion of Jones on his list is not surprising. Notably, the news of this posting was spread by "the Webfairy," a similarly hostile Internet persona known for promoting the 'theory' that impact of jetliners into the Twin Towers were simulated using holograms.
originally posted by: Informer1958
yet the person who posted that didn't bother to refute the Peer Review Journal,
That was disinformation created years ago by propaganda debunkers trying their best to discredit Jones.
More Bad Science Surrounding the “Nano-Thermite” Red Herring
Another AE911Truth member has come out with what he claims is video evidence of the presence of “nanothermite” in the demolition process of the World Trade Centers. It is surprising that AE911Truth (an organization made up primarily of engineers and scientists) would be promoting this video by David Chandler because it is an embarrassing collection of unsupported conclusions and really bad science. It so obvious, anyone can pick it apart. Unfortunately, I think that might be it’s purpose.
This “nanothermite” track that the Truth Movement has been on since the publication of the Harrit/Jones/Roberts paper has been increasingly dishonest since the very beginning and this is just another example of how “nanothermite” is blowing up our movement.Which is, of course, the only thing this “super secret” pyrotechnic COULD blow up…What they proposed in their paper was that they had found “active thermetic material” that utilized “nano technology” in the dust from the WTC demolitions. In later discussions, they (Jones and Harrit at least) have estimated the presence of at least 10 tons of this unexploded material exists in the dust that was scattered around New York on Sept. 11th, 2001.
There has been a great deal of reasoned evaluation of the paper itself and the results of those evaluations have not been positive.For the most part there is a a great deal of proof out there that the “red/grey chips” that Jones et al based their paper on, are in fact a rust inhibiting primer paint with a Kaolinite base.