9/11 Explosive Evidence: Experts speak out.

Following are new interviews with two very qualified Ph.D's who have tested dust and steel samples from ground zero and talk about their findings.


First up is Dr. Jeff Farrer, physicist and Ph.D who discusses in-depth his process of discovery using the scientific method.


Part 1:




Part 2:




Part 3:






Next we have Dr. Steven Jones, physicist and Ph.D who discusses in-depth his process of discovery
using the scientific method. Chain of custody of the WTC dust and nanothermite are also discussed in-depth.


Part 1:




Part 2:





I have yet to see any published papers from any other physicist that discredits or otherwise debunks the work of these highly-qualified individuals.

On a side note, Dr. Jones has made a recent forum post that a Mark Basile obtained independent dust samples and tested those independent samples and still concluded the same as the above physicists. Mark Basile has not, as of yet, published his findings.

Independent testing and confirmation gives more credibility. Which means the results are repeatable.

I heard that some people who was inside of the WTC 7 has taped the explosions and the video was going to come out soon. Does anybody knows about that??

reply to post by _BoneZ_

Actually, Bonez, neither of them are very qualified as analytical chemists. Jones scientific credibility is about zero after his abysmal Bentham paper and his rants on Jesus in North America. Basile is part of the cabal promoting the thermite theory and also has no credibility.
You ask about papers refuting the Jones paper. No one will waste time with a rebuttal as the paper is so flawed that refutation is not necessary. It falls apart on its own. The promised follow-on paper correcting the flaws never appeared. Henryco at thedarksideofgravity couldn't reproduce the results and thought that someone must have sabotaged his samples, as he wanted a thermite conspiracy also. The comedy of errors will likely continue with variations on the theme that paint-on thermite is real and actually works. This will be perpetrated by those with little knowledge of chemical thermodynamics and heat transfer but with detailed inside information on the next Star Trek movie.
The chips are red paint, and small-minded individuals grasping at conspiracy straws with predetermined conclusions and botched chemical analyses only work against any reinvestigation demands from being taken seriously. After all of this time, I would have expected the hard-core truthers to have figured this out. Maybe straw grasping is not limited to deluded ex-professors.

Originally posted by pteridine
Jones scientific credibility is about zero after...his rants on Jesus in North America.

I'd appreciate if you kept someone's religious views out of the 9/11 debate. Just by even stating what you have stated shows your bigotry and lack of theological education and research.

Just because his religious views don't agree with your religious views doesn't make him lose any credibility whatsoever. It's disgusting and distasteful for you to even mention such a thing.

Originally posted by pteridine
Basile is part of the cabal promoting the thermite theory and also has no credibility.

Really? So someone who obtained independent dust samples and came to the same conclusion, automatically loses credibility because you say so? Unbelievable.

It's nice that you've backed up your claim with sound evidence.

Originally posted by pteridine
No one will waste time with a rebuttal as the paper is so flawed that refutation is not necessary.

In other words, it can't be debunked, so let's attack the scientist instead and make wild accusations. Again, your opinion on the paper's flaws without any actual scientific evidence of your own to prove otherwise means you are the one losing credibility here.

Originally posted by pteridine
The chips are red paint

And you've obtained samples and have tested them in the lab yourself to prove this, right? No? Then when you say something like "the chips are red paint", then make sure you say "the chips are red paint IN MY OPINION", because that's all it is: your opinion, minus some actual scientific evidence and lab tests to show otherwise.

reply to post by pteridine

neither of them are very qualified as analytical chemists

So then surely random people on the internet are far more qualified to speak about such matters.

"No one will waste time with a rebuttal as the paper is so flawed that refutation is not necessary. It falls apart on its own."

Since you're 'wasting your time' posting the same old, same old here, why not amuse us and waste your time putting together a rebuttal? Since the piece 'falls apart on its own', the rebuttal should be a piece a cake for someone as knowledgeable as you. Or are you one of those people that talks the talk, but cannot walk the walk?

"Maybe straw grasping is not limited to deluded ex-professors."

Correct. It also applies to imbeciles and suckers who allow for their intelligence to be insulted by the Official Fairy Tale.

The truth has a certain elegance and restraint to it. Sometimes it can be a little rough because the truth doesn’t spend as much time in makeup as the lies do. Lies require cosmetics and strategic lighting. Truth possesses its own beauty (if you can see it), without the need for artifice and produces its own light.

Dog Poet

I watched a documentary pertaining to 9/11 , right around the recent anniversary , on NatGeo .

The narrator mentioned that around 100 new compounds were created by the collapses but , he didn't elaborate on it further .

Does anyone have anything to add to this ?

I think the doc was called " Inside 9/11 : Ground Zero " . ( Could be wrong about the title ) .

reply to post by _BoneZ_


OK Bonez .....

Tell me why dozens of bomb techs from the NYPD and other departments (including Passaic County NJ Sheriff
bomb squad, many of whom I have talked to), arson/explosive investigators from FDNY and ATF, demolition
experts from Pro-Tech and CDI, in addition to hundreds of ordinary FF and constructions workers could detect
any signs of explosive demolition. No traces of det cord. blasting caps, shaped cahrges, delay tubes, radio
detonaters, etc in the debris which was sifted multiple times including final screening at Fresh Kills for
bone tissue/fragments and personal effects. Were able to recover tiny fragments from victims yet nothing survived of explosive demolition?

Nothing was found. Nada, Zip, Zilch, No Dice...

Yet we are to believe these clowns who come by years later and say can prove explosive demolition from some dust ?

Sorry doesn't work......

reply to post by okbmd


Here is analysis of the chemical compounds detected at WTC

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

reply to post by thedman


So in your world, absence of physical evidence automatically dismisses a case? Thank the aliens you're not a lawyer.

Absence of physical evidence by no means dismisses anything. There are plenty of other forms of evidence. How many murders or other types of crimes have been prosecuted and won without any body or weapons being found (i.e. physical evidence)? Dismissing all other evidence on the lack of physical evidence shows close-mindedness, ignorance, and denial.

On the other hand, there are construction workers, demolition experts, and plenty of first responders, by-standers, and survivors that did hear the explosions, that did hear the detonations, that did see the flashes; which are all associated with controlled demolitions. Add on top of the witness testimony the audio and visual evidence, and you have ample evidence for controlled demolition regardless of the lack of the physical pieces of devices left over.

Then there's the forensics factor of residue found in the dust, verified by independent testing.

The witnesses are pretty clear on what they saw and heard. They corroborate each other, and there are videos that corroborate them. And preliminary forensic dust testing corroborates the videos and witnesses. That much evidence is reasonable doubt on the official conspiracy theory.

Why do you think the NIST report says right in the beginning that nothing in their report can be considered factual and used as evidence in a court of law? Because they knew damn well that their report would not hold up to public scrutiny and it would only further prove that they used guesses, theories and made-up computer calculations to make their report.

Originally posted by thedman
Were able to recover tiny fragments from victims yet nothing survived of explosive demolition?

Tiny bone fragments. Everything in those towers were blown to tiny fragments. Natural collapses have never caused synchronized booms as they fell, on top of flashes going "up, down and around" them while collapsing, let alone causing humans to be reduced to tiny fragments. There are still too many people that haven't even had their tiny fragments found. And do you think that amongst tiny fragments, and only looking for human remains, they would recognize tiny fragments of detcord, or any other signs of explosives from those tiny fragments?

Give me a break. If there are people still "missing" and not even identified (found), then there is still potential evidence that has never been identified or found.

Originally posted by thedman
Sorry doesn't work......

Your right. In a denial and ignorance-driven world, it wouldn't work. Every other piece of evidence, regardless of the lack of physical evidence, proves otherwise.

Great thread. Many people make claims that Jones or other scientists are wrong in their findings, yet they fail to provide any evidence supporting their claims.

I have always said, if you are so sure that Jones' paper is wrong, then why not publish a paper yourself? Why not go public with your findings, as opposed to simply making claims on an internet message board. It's one thing to make claims on an internet messaging board and it's something else entirely to produce a scientific study backing up your claims.

Most people here who refute Jone's (or other scientists asking serious questions about 9/11), do so only having sifted through the official conspiracy theory websites and parrotting the hit pieces made against them (that are often irrelevant to study at hand). That's all fine and dandy but doesn't matter one bit until you can refute these studies with your own studies, studies that have been through the same scientific scrutiny.

In fact, the official conpsiracy theory proponents and creators (such as NIST), just ignore the issue of explosives all together and then try to discredit any scientist who refuses to ignore that possibility. So, instead of trying to kill the message (because they can't), they simply try to kill the messanger and then still don't provide any valid evidence to that.

It's one thing to say, "they are wrong" and it's something else entirely to publish your own findings refuting theirs, ultimately backing up your claim that "they are wrong". Until then, those claims of Jones (and other scientists) being wrong, remain unsubstantiated.

S&F



--airspoon

Originally posted by airspoon
Great thread. Many people make claims that Jones or other scientists are wrong in their findings, yet they fail to provide any evidence supporting their claims.

I have always said, if you are so sure that Jones' paper is wrong, then why not publish a paper yourself?

If Jones' ideas get anywhere near the mainstream people will.

Until then they're of minor fringe interest and not really worth people's time and effort.

reply to post by SphinxMontreal


I have rebutted Jones' paper in may threads and would be happy to answer any specific questions you might have.
I do not have one of Jones' samples to analyze but that is a small point considering that paint on thermite, if it did exist, would not do anything to the structure even if it could be ignited and stay ignited.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by SphinxMontreal

 

I have rebutted Jones' paper in may threads and would be happy to answer any specific questions you might have.
I do not have one of Jones' samples to analyze but that is a small point considering that paint on thermite, if it did exist, would not do anything to the structure even if it could be ignited and stay ignited.

Paint on thermite does exist. It was actually successfully recreated on a very popular television show called 'Mythbusters' for millions to see. They showed how "paint on thermite" was the cause of the Hindenberg disaster (not just the hydrogen in the "balloon").
Paint on thermite was also used on "Conspiracy Theory" with Jesse Ventura.


That was only a small portion of the beam painted with thermite. Now imagine if the entire beam had been coated (or double coated) with thermite.

The thermite isn't what I question though. I want to know how you debunk the hundreds of reported cases of explosions in tower 2 before the plane even hit? Especially the massive explosion that was felt from the basement of the building?

And no one has been able to explain building 7 yet.

Originally posted by pteridine
I have rebutted Jones' paper in may threads

Again you for got to add "in your OPINION". Yes, you've "rebutted" Jones' paper many times in many threads with your opinion and nothing more. You haven't obtained any samples, you haven't tested any samples in a lab.

You have zero verifiable, scientific, repeatable proof of your claims. Why waste any more of your time without proof? Because I assure you, your word isn't proof alone, nor is it credible in the least.

reply to post by Mactire

Paint on thermite does exist. It was actually successfully recreated on a very popular television show called 'Mythbusters' for millions to see. They showed how "paint on thermite" was the cause of the Hindenberg disaster (not just the hydrogen in the "balloon").

Hindenberg was filled with explosive hydrogen gas - WTC was not

Explain how one "paints on" thermite to columns of 110 story building. columns behinds walls, without ripping
out said walls......

Originally posted by _BoneZ_First up is Dr. Jeff Farrer, physicist and Ph.D who discusses in-depth his process of discovery using the scientific method.

I thought Farrer was 'merely' a graduate student and lab manager at BYU Dept. of Physics? I guess he fessed up and got his Ph.d. in the end (and record time)

Double-post. Delete.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Unfortunately, many of the alleged people you claim heard and saw these supposed explosions, actually stated that the loud "bangs" where the impact of jumpers. Secondly, the "physical evidence" or the lack there of would then be defined as direct evidence, which must be supported by either video or audio. Only problem is, there is no taping of any sort that would show beyond a reasonable doubt that charges were strategically placed throughout the towers. And hopefully, an individual of some common sense, wouldn't try to use the film " loose change" as their basis of argument. Spoiled college kids with way to much of mommy and daddy's money to spend on computer equipment hardly suggests their expertise.
The world may never know......but what do you expect from a forum? Its as if ATS condones and embraces make believe~

Here is a link to view statements from many eye witnesses from just the Pentagon, which all you truthers seem to think was missile~ www.ratical.org...

I'll see what I can dig up on other statements from the towers site~