9/11 Explosive Evidence: Experts speak out.

reply to post by impressme


Using Jones' own data, I have repeatedly shown the abject incompetence and bias in his so-called "science" and all you can do is say it is opinion. You take his claims at face value, without question, because those claims fit your view of the world. You claim to seek the truth and deny ignorance yet you seek only what you want to hear and embrace the ignorance and contorted conclusions of a charlatan. You have reached your predetermined conclusions based on badly done science and now must defend your hero, Steven Jones. When I ask you to explain the fatal flaws is Jones work, you say I should ask Jones.
Do not feel that you are unique in this situation. Many of your compatriots also do not understand any of the technical aspects of the theories that they promote but promote them they do. This group, the cheerleaders, are all about promoting any theory that supports their predetermined conclusions without any critical thought.

You are your own worst enemy.

reply to post by Doctor Smith


Mark Basile, one of the OP's so called "experts," is a Jones lackey. This confirmation by Basile is much like Jones confirming his own work.

I have posted unrebutted criticisms of Jones faulty work and even asked you to explain some of it. Now, you are shifting the argument again because you cannot say why the super demolition materials self extinguished in a DSC furnace.You cannot explain why Jones used data from a partial combustion to calculate energies. You cannot explain how the energy of the chips was greater than any combination of thermite and high explosive.

Jones paper is demonstrably in error and his conclusions are unjustified.

reply to post by pteridine

Using Jones' own data, I have repeatedly shown the abject incompetence and bias in his so-called "science" and all you can do is say it is opinion.

That is absolutely correct, you gave us your "bias opinion.”

You take his claims at face value, without question, because those claims fit your view of the world.

Wrong, I suppose you are going to tell me you’re a psyche to. Again, this is your opinion.
No one is taking his claims at face value, science proves his claims, this is not just someone’s opinions, this is science.

You claim to seek the truth and deny ignorance yet you seek only what you want to hear and embrace the ignorance and contorted conclusions of a charlatan.

How juvenile, yet you want everyone on ATS to believe you are a scientist. You can’t disprove Jones science so you attack me, that is real mature. It’s a good thing that most scientist do not behave in this appalling manner that you continue to display.

You have reached your predetermined conclusions based on badly done science and now must defend your hero, Steven Jones. When I ask you to explain the fatal flaws is Jones work, you say I should ask Jones.

Now look who is being a “charlatan”. You certainly have “never disproved Jones peer reviewed science. Insulting Professor Jones is not disproving his science.

For someone who avoids answering most of my questions, I find it quite amusing that you demand I answer you, yet when I do, my answers perturb you, how interesting.

Do not feel that you are unique in this situation.

I don’t, however I do have a problem with posters who feel they are superior to everyone else, by telling fallacies and manipulating someone science to suit their agenda.

Many of your compatriots also do not understand any of the technical aspects of the theories that they promote but promote them they do.

You do not know what people understand. You tell me that I support “contorted conclusions”, yet it is you who is making “contorted conclusions” about people’s educations, scientific understanding, and perhaps their IQ. Apparently you seem to enjoy ridiculing people who are seeking the truth, who do not support your beliefs, says a lot about you and what you are trying to promote.

This group, the cheerleaders, are all about promoting any theory that supports their predetermined conclusions without any critical thought.

You’re sadly wrong. Look’s to me, the pot calling the kettle black.
Now, out of your post to me, did you prove Jones science flawed? No.

reply to post by impressme


I have shown Jones' errors on many occasions. So far, neither you nor anyone else has been able to refute my criticisms. I offered to debate you and whomever you wished to have help you on the technical points that I refuted. You were at a loss to do so and reverted to your ploy of posting quotes from Jones' paper.

See if you can find anyone to help you, including Jones, and meet the challenge.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by impressme

 

I have shown Jones' errors on many occasions. So far, neither you nor anyone else has been able to refute my criticisms. I offered to debate you and whomever you wished to have help you on the technical points that I refuted. You were at a loss to do so and reverted to your ploy of posting quotes from Jones' paper.

See if you can find anyone to help you, including Jones, and meet the challenge.

Why don't you publish your brilliant science and refute Jone's paper? Everyone can see what a true genius you are. I'm sure Jones is very frightened. Any day now we are expecting your peer reviewed paper.

reply to post by pteridine

I have shown Jones' errors on many occasions.

Perhaps, in your imagination, but not on ATS. Given one’s opinions is not proving anything.

So far, neither you nor anyone else has been able to refute my criticisms.

Your criticisms are your opinions nothing else, you have proved nothing.

I offered to debate you and whomever you wished to have help you on the technical points that I refuted.

That is untrue, and you know that. I was able to prove how you were twisting Jones Journal and exposed you as a fraud. It was I who challenged you; you are deluding yourself if you think otherwise. I asked you repeatedly to back up your opinions with evidence or science, you avoided most of my questions and continued repeating that you have already proven Jones science is a fraud; Perhaps you feel you did, however no one is interested in your un-provable opinions when it comes to debunking real science.

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

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You were at a loss to do so and reverted to your ploy of posting quotes from Jones' paper.

That is completely untrue, I had to post quotes out of Jones journal because it was the only way I could prove you were twisting his science. You can smear me all you like however; anyone with common sense can read what you are doing you are not fooling anyone in here.

See if you can find anyone to help you, including Jones, and meet the challenge

Perhaps you should take your own advice because, it is you that needs help, “I support Jones work.” You are the one making the claims and yet, you can’t back them up.
The more you carry on like this the less credible you become.

reply to post by Doctor Smith


Any peer reviewed paper will be one more than Jones wrote about 911. I have shown how Jones made error after error and I used his own data to completly debunk his thermite theory. I challenged anyone to defend his paper in light of my criticisms and no Jonesian was able to.
How about you? Would you like to defend the points of Jones paper that I have shown to be in error or are you another cheerleader? You could start by explaining why the super thermite extinguished itself when it was held above its so-called ignition temperature in the DSC furnace.

reply to post by pteridine

You could start by explaining why the super thermite extinguished itself when it was held above its so-called ignition temperature in the DSC furnace.

This was already discussed in my old thread and you were debunk.

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

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I have shown how Jones made error after error and I used his own data to completly debunk his thermite theory.

To prove how untrue this statement is, I will direct the readers to my old thread in my above link.

If you think giving your opinion is debunking science you’re fooling yourself.

reply to post by impressme


I was not giving my opinion. I used Jones data to easily disprove his theory by showing the inconsistencies and errors in his paper. Perhaps you don't understand it, but I would be happy to explain any part that eludes you.

Ironically, Jones provdes more than enough information to sink his own theory. It is unfortunate that you are unable to accept any criticism of Jones who, himself, seems unable to understand the nuances of analytical chemistry. As a matter of fact, Jones and his team are so laughably incompetent that it is no wonder that the paper was not peer reviewed before publication.

reply to post by pteridine

I was not giving my opinion. I used Jones data to easily disprove his theory by showing the inconsistencies and errors in his paper.

That is not true; you gave only your opinion and assumptions, nothing more.

Ironically, Jones provdes more than enough information to sink his own theory.

Again, that is your opinion; however the scientific community disagrees with you.

It is unfortunate that you are unable to accept any criticism of Jones who, himself, seems unable to understand the nuances of analytical chemistry.

Again this is your opinion and assumption to what you think about Professor Jones.

As a matter of fact, Jones and his team are so laughably incompetent that it is no wonder that the paper was not peer reviewed before publication.

No, it is not a matter of fact, it is a lie.

reply to post by impressme

I see that you are unable to come up with any questions regarding my critique of the paper. Perhaps I did too good a job with my review. You should consider reading the paper yourself. Pay close attention to the energy calculations which were done without complete combustion of the sample. This means that they are incorrect and too low because of incomplete combustion. Note also that the calculations show that, even with only partial combustion, the energy outputs exceed those of thermite and any combination of thermite and energetic materials, indicating combustion and not thermite reactions. If you have specific questions about this, I will be glad to explain it in more detail for you.
The bottom line is that Jones has discovered ten tons of unburned red paint in dust arising from the WTC 1&2 collapses and, through incompetence or self-delusion, has claimed evidence of thermite. At first, I suspected simple incompetence but now that Jones has received critiques and done nothing to address them, I see that he is completely deluded and will continue to make unsubstantiated claims to remain in the lime light. Unfortunately, the remainder of his followers, those who refuse to see his weaknesses, are being dragged along, unaware that his paper is incorrect on many levels.

A good watch. Still they aren't yet sure about the results.

Originally posted by impressme
How juvenile, yet you want everyone on ATS to believe you are a scientist. You can’t disprove Jones science so you attack me, that is real mature. It’s a good thing that most scientist do not behave in this appalling manner that you continue to display.

Hilarious.

You accuse him of being "juvenile", and you were "attacked", and then call it "real mature", when in fact it was you who first replied to pteridine saying

Originally posted by impressme
Perhaps you feel twisting and distorting Jones’ scientific findings to fit your belief system works for you. However anyone with a fifth grade reading comprehension can clearly see how Jones separated each of his tests results and explained in great detail to how each test was performed. Perhaps you feel your ”opinions” outweigh credible science.

Wow, who's the juvenile? Who was doing the attacking? Who's being immature?

You are.

As far as Jones and his silly little money making theory go, no one of any credibility will EVER take him serious until the following are done :

1. Have a 3rd party independent group of scientists with no ties to either the Government or a money making 9/11 scam site acquire a VERIFIABLE sample of dust.

2. First perform the test in the ABSENCE of air. If there is no combustion, then case closed. If there is, then follow up test and analysis.

3. Publish those peer reviewed findings.

Until these things are done, people just aren't going to take you serious because you come across as a believer, without even beginning to question the process and motives.

You guys DO want a truly independent investigation, no?

reply to post by pteridine

I see that you are unable to come up with any questions regarding my critique of the paper.

We are not interested in your opinions, time to move on.

Perhaps I did too good a job with my review.

Your review? Don’t you mean your opinions?

You should consider reading the paper yourself. Pay close attention to the energy calculations which were done without complete combustion of the sample

I have, and your question have nothing to do with Jones test results and are completely useless.

The bottom line is that Jones has discovered ten tons of unburned red paint in dust arising from the WTC 1&2 collapses and, through incompetence or self-delusion, has claimed evidence of thermite.

That is completely untrue. Perhaps telling fallacies against Jones scientific Journal is entertainment to you.

Jones has received critiques and done nothing to address them, I see that he is completely deluded and will continue to make unsubstantiated claims to remain in the lime light. Unfortunately, the remainder of his followers, those who refuse to see his weaknesses, are being dragged along, unaware that his paper is incorrect on many levels.

You are certainly entitled to your opinions and rants, however in my opinion, having this conversation with you has grown unproductive as you demonstrate you’re over obsessive loathing of Professor Jones has blinded your judgment in Jones peer reviewed journal.

Creating trivia out of nothing will get you no answers.

reply to post by impressme


I see that you are unable to defend Jones' work. If you ever find anyone who can help you address my criticisms, please have them stop by for a chat.

For anyone else on this thread, I would be happy to explain any aspect of my critique of Jones' paper.

Why do the truthers get so hostile? It shows weakness in your own arguments. You are so desperate for people to believe your own conspiracy theory that when someone comes up with a counter argument you just get irate? There are loads of forums on the 9/11 conspiracy that just have truthers as members. You won't get any arguments on there. Nobody will disagree with any outrageous views you have.

reply to post by pteridine

I see that you are unable to defend Jones' work. If you ever find anyone who can help you address my criticisms, please have them stop by for a chat.

For anyone else on this thread, I would be happy to explain any aspect of my critique of Jones' paper.

Every single one of your questions were addressed in the below thread by me and many posters. You were asked to provided evidence and proof to back your “opinions” and we are all still waiting. I have no problem in defending Jones work; in fact I did such a wonderful job that you created a mud slinging rant and refused to answer any of my questions and everyone else’s questions for that matter.

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

www.abovetopsecret.com...


You behave as if you have found a flaw in Jones Journal. The fact is, you were asked to show your scientific evidence, instead all you gave us was mumble jumbo garbage and your opinions and you asked me and other posters questions that can not be answered unless we have a science laboratory and a professional staff to carry on more experiments.

You asked us many questions that you cannot answer yourself, as if you “think” you have found a flaw in Jones Journal, end of story. The fact is no one is supporting your opinions because many of your questions to us have not been proven yet.

reply to post by impressme


Your hostility is evident. If I used "mumbo-jumbo" as you claimed, you should realize that it was Jones' mumbo-jumbo. Of course you can't explain Jones' data; Jones can even explain his data either because he doesn't understand it or won't admit his errors. Your hero is either a none-too-astute analytical chemist or a fraud and he is detracting from the truther movement. The chances of any sort of 911 reinvestigation becomes more and more remote as people like Jones dilute the message with easily disproved "science" published in marginal or self-serving, captive "journals."
He may yet do some good; Jones and his ilk will be partially responsible for reducing the deficit by saving the Government the reinvestigation money.

reply to post by pteridine



Nice spin.

If I used "mumbo-jumbo" as you claimed, you should realize that it was Jones' mumbo-jumbo.

It is not a matter of "if" it is a proven fact.

Of course you can't explain Jones' data;

You are putting words in my mouth, I never made that claim, this is your desperate attempts to try and discredit me, fact is, this is your claim.

Jones can even explain his data either because he doesn't understand it or won't admit his errors.

That is poppycock and you know that.

Your hero

My hero is John F Kennedy, not Professor Steven Jones, I would prefer you stop making such outlandish claims.

Your hero is either a none-too-astute analytical chemist or a fraud and he is detracting from the truther movement.

These are “your opinionated claims” and the fact is, you have failed miserable to prove Jones is any of the above.

The chances of any sort of 911 reinvestigation becomes more and more remote

You do not know what the future hold for a new investigation.

He may yet do some good; Jones and his ilk will be partially responsible for reducing the deficit by saving the Government the reinvestigation money.

Thank you for proven my point, the last thing you want to see is a new investigation, now we all understand your real motives and why you continue to twist Jones science.

reply to post by impressme

Shall I explain the errors in the energy calculations, again? After all, it is the Jones' mumbo jumbo that you've come to know and love.