I Was A "Professional" 9/11 "Truther" (And I Still Am!)

a reply to: Informer1958

Funny the first link that is opinion, references scientists that reveals jones pseudoscience.

It's still a lie to say jones has never been criticized scientifically by scientists and experiment. As the the third link proves. As the references in the first link proves.

It's the truth no columns on 911 were cut by thermite.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: neutronflux

The first link gives names of the researchers that find jones work flawed and not professional. Leads to work that debunks jones.

"Opinions" only. No credible science here?

The second link gives a skeptics view. Links to more debunking. Examples of persons interested in the lack of science among conspiracists.

"Skeptics view," more "opinions," where is their science?

Third link. Hope you can manage to find the link to the English version.

www.darksideofgravity.com...

Most of us speak and read English, perhaps you can find a English version for us?

You must understand when debating science, one must produce science, or they have nothing but other people "opinions" and nothing more.

The website you gave are only "opinions" nothing more.

Speaking of pseudo science, why are you not complaining about the NIST pseudo science?

Where is Jones' "science?"

Jones investigates only the red and gray chips and not the entire sample. He has a limited sample size. The chips have a laminar nature which suggests a coating or adhesive but he rules out paint by comparing the effect of MEK on some unknown paint and comparing it to the effect on the red chips. The lack of chemical knowledge by Jones, et. al. is astounding. The use of a solvent such as MEK instead of methylene chloride, DMF, or DMF-DMSO to attack the organic matrix further confirms that no real chemists were involved in the analyses. This is either incompetence or scientific misconduct and fraud.
He sees that there is an organic fraction but does not analyze it. He uses DSC to measure exotherms but does it in a stream of air so he cannot tell the difference between a reaction and plain combustion of components but claims thermitic reaction. His EDAX shows silicon, aluminum, and oxygen in the same areas of the particle but he ignores this congruency; aluminosilicates are clays and are often fillers in paints and coatings. He does not extract a larger sample of the red and gray chips with a more agressive solvent, such as hot DMF or DMF-DMSO which would allow analysis of individual components.

As to your complaining about Henryco's use of his native language, French, and your inability to find an online translator, I will sum up what he found. He truly wanted a conspiracy but the chips he tested didn't react as Jones claimed and he reluctantly concluded that they were paint.

a reply to: neutronflux

Funny the first link that is opinion, references scientists that reveals jones pseudoscience.

No, it does not.

It's still a lie to say jones has never been criticized scientifically by scientists and experiment.

The fact is no scientist that I am aware of has ever done experiments on Jones work.

You can make all the claims, ( "opinions" ) you want against Jones paper, however you have yet to show any scientific evidence that Jones paper is flawed.

Given sources to other people "opinions" is not science.

a reply to: pteridine

pteridine, you and I have gone over this for many years and again your "opinions" are not scientific facts.


You can make all the claims, ( "opinions" ) you want against Jones paper, however you have yet to show any scientific evidence that Jones paper is flawed.

Given sources to other people "opinions" is not science.

a reply to: Informer1958

Gave you links. Sight sources jones work has not been debunked?

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine

pteridine, you and I have gone over this for many years and again your "opinions" are not scientific facts.


You can make all the claims, ( "opinions" ) you want against Jones paper, however you have yet to show any scientific evidence that Jones paper is flawed.

Given sources to other people "opinions" is not science.

What Jones did was not science, Informer. I have shown his errors using his own data on many occasions. I have shown his lack of chemical knowledge and incompetence in using the scientific method. He has essentially taken his "opinion" and forced it into a paper lacking in so many ways that he had to defraud the online journal to have it published. I have challenged any of the true believers to show how the thermodynamics are consistent with thermite. None have done so.
Henryco repeated the Jones experiments and I have translated his conclusive comments for you, here:
"Anyway, I have already given the reasons why explosive or incendiaries would not explain the main characteristics of the towers destruction, so why should we lose anymore time on this inadequate and unverifiable hypothesis? It seems now established that the red layer of the two kinds of red-gray chips found in the dust-have exactly the same composition and microscopic visual appearance as the two kinds of red paint applied, respectively, to the steel columns and trusses of the towers."

Jones is the worst kind of fraud. He uses his influence to convince those who have little knowledge of science that he has the answer. Send Jones more money so he can tell you what you want to hear. He is flexible and if you tell him what you want, he will sell you a CD with exactly that.

originally posted by: Informer1958

The fact is no scientist that I am aware of has ever done experiments on Jones work.

Experiments trying to replicate jones results.
www.internationalskeptics.com...
From www.skeptic.com... (remember link one. The chemist guy's work was link three. Ring a bell.)
"A chemist named Frédéric Henry-Couannier got another dust sample from the original experimenters and wrote, “Eventually the presence of nanothermite could not be confirmed.” The R.J. Lee Company did a 2003 study on the dust and didn’t find thermitic material.". Just opinions?

a reply to: pteridine

What Jones did was not science, Informer.

Not science? Your "opinions"

I supposes some believe in the NIST Report with all it's flaws and pseudo science is the truth?

Jones is the worst kind of fraud. He uses his influence to convince those who have little knowledge of science that he has the answer. Send Jones more money so he can tell you what you want to hear. He is flexible and if you tell him what you want, he will sell you a CD with exactly that.

Lets change that paragraph to the real truth.

NIST is the worst kind of fraud. They uses their influence to convince those who have little knowledge of science that NIST has the answer. Government sent NIST more money so they can tell you what you want to hear. NIST is flexible and if you tell NIST what you want, they will sell you a CD with exactly that.

a reply to: Informer1958

Have fun with this Aegis insurance WTC 7 court case.
www.metabunk.org...

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine

What Jones did was not science, Informer.

Not science? Your "opinions"

I supposes some believe in the NIST Report with all it's flaws and pseudo science is the truth?

Jones is the worst kind of fraud. He uses his influence to convince those who have little knowledge of science that he has the answer. Send Jones more money so he can tell you what you want to hear. He is flexible and if you tell him what you want, he will sell you a CD with exactly that.

Lets change that paragraph to the real truth.

NIST is the worst kind of fraud. They uses their influence to convince those who have little knowledge of science that NIST has the answer. Government sent NIST more money so they can tell you what you want to hear. NIST is flexible and if you tell NIST what you want, they will sell you a CD with exactly that.

What are your opinions about Jones' paper based on? Jones' work is beyond incompetence; it is deliberate fraud and is designed to grab up any cash that suckers want to send in.
How much did you give him?

a reply to: pteridine

What are your opinions about Jones' paper based on? Jones' work is beyond incompetence; it is deliberate fraud and is designed to grab up any cash that suckers want to send in.
How much did you give him?

Completely untrue.

Any ATS members and casual readers, can research the internet to see you are making up nonsense.

I am done with the "opinions" of naysayers in this thread, who cannot produce a single credible piece of science to back their "opinions".

When debating credible science one must show "proof" of credible scientific evidence, your "opinions" are not facts here.

Do you not understand how to debate?

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine

What are your opinions about Jones' paper based on? Jones' work is beyond incompetence; it is deliberate fraud and is designed to grab up any cash that suckers want to send in.
How much did you give him?

Completely untrue.

Any ATS members and casual readers, can research the internet to see you are making up nonsense.

I am done with the "opinions" of naysayers in this thread, who cannot produce a single credible piece of science to back their "opinions".

When debating credible science one must show "proof" of credible scientific evidence, your "opinions" are not facts here.

Do you not understand how to debate?

It is you who cannot debate. Every time I show you the flaws in the Jones paper, you tell me it is an "opinion" then say something about "peer reviewed" and are unable to continue. I use Jones' paper for the basis of my comments. Since you refuse to accept Jones' data as credible scientific evidence, perhaps you already agree that his paper is lacking.

Anytime you are ready to begin a debate, let me know. You can even make the first point. Try not to use "opinion" or "peer reviewed" if you are able to contain yourself.

a reply to: Informer1958

Because you were misinformed by conspiracists talking points in that scientists have tried to recreate jones experiments? In there are more than just the NIST models that proves fire collapse?

a reply to: Informer1958

When debating credible science one must show "proof" of credible scientific evidence, your "opinions" are not facts here.

exactly.

This is why Jones paper doesn't need to be debated with science to debunk or discredit it.

Its opinions and claims that are eaten up by those hungry for a conspiracy.

I am done with the "opinions" of naysayers in this thread, who cannot produce a single credible piece of science to back their "opinions".

If they are opinions who cares if they are backed by science or not, but like you say

Any ATS members and casual readers, can research the internet to see you are making up nonsense.

To many readers this quoted above sounds like you talking about yourself.

Do you not understand how to debate?

You are doing a great job and setting a great example, also providing great entertainment

When starting a Conspiracy about Planes hitting Buildings... it helps if you put the right Engines on the Lawn of the Pentagon.

How some of the smartest people in the world couldn't even get the right Engine on that lawn blows my mind.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: tracy18

we will never get to the bottom of this cos there is no conclusive evidence to prove any of the theories.

There are only a handful of professionals that believe in the conspiracies.

Are there every more than a hand full of professionals willing to risk their careers over a Conspiracy?

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: tracy18

we will never get to the bottom of this cos there is no conclusive evidence to prove any of the theories.

There are only a handful of professionals that believe in the conspiracies.

Are there every more than a hand full of professionals willing to risk their careers over a Conspiracy?

originally posted by: Informer1958
I am done with the "opinions" of naysayers in this thread, who cannot produce a single credible piece of science to back their "opinions".

Yet you desperately want to believe hoaxers like Jones, who did not do proper testing!

When debating credible science one must show "proof" of credible scientific evidence, your "opinions" are not facts here.

Jones does not do credible science, as has been pointed out many times here before....

originally posted by: KillerKell
When starting a Conspiracy about Planes hitting Buildings... it helps if you put the right Engines on the Lawn of the Pentagon.

How some of the smartest people in the world couldn't even get the right Engine on that lawn blows my mind.

What "wrong" engine on the lawn? You really do not know much about jet engines....

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: KillerKell
When starting a Conspiracy about Planes hitting Buildings... it helps if you put the right Engines on the Lawn of the Pentagon.

How some of the smartest people in the world couldn't even get the right Engine on that lawn blows my mind.

What "wrong" engine on the lawn? You really do not know much about jet engines....

Did it look like one of these engines Bruce? Howard Hughs flew this one.