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

originally posted by: Doctor Smith
by manufacturing high-tech energetic nanocomposites that only a handful of labs in the world can even make and adding them to samples!

Commonly known as paint!

Also the fact Jones refused to do his test in the absence of air shows he knows it was paint!

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Doctor Smith
by manufacturing high-tech energetic nanocomposites that only a handful of labs in the world can even make and adding them to samples!

Commonly known as paint!

Paint that puts out more energy than known nano thermate in a calorimeter? Rediculous. Disinfo non science Bruce at his trade again.

The truth is that we are all muslims now. We have to live like that now. No unity, just gods,guns,war.

originally posted by: Doctor Smith
Paint that puts out more energy than known nano thermate in a calorimeter? Rediculous.

Except it did not, and how much did it put out in the absence of air?

a reply to: Doctor Smith

The craziness is sampling dust sent to him by random people five years after 911 with no account of the samples history for that time. Gives no account how the integrity of the samples used as evidence was protected or verified. (If you want to make a side deal, I have some moon dust you might like to purchase. I could just mail it to you. Just making a point.) How did he get in contact with the people. He mentions other samples in his paper, around 11, but never mentions why the four were chosen. Fire collapse backers counter samples show the common materials explain by WTC buildings materials. Even conspiracist Dr Wood gives a thumbs down to terminate. Or the conspiracists that claim seismic activity shows explosives used at WTC.

The more I read about Jones and his "experiments", the more I am convinced he was one of the idiots that NIS used to investigate the turret explosion on the USS Iowa. You know the one where they decided that steel wool, sodium chloride and Break Free, meant that there had to have been a bomb.....and never once considering that sodium chloride (salt) is a given aboard a US Navy warship and steel wool and break free were used to clean the guns.....

originally posted by: Doctor Smith

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: hellobruce

So you now think Jones's paper is NOT a credible source!

Funny, Yet no one on here can provide any credible sources but only give their "opinions" and demanding for everyone to believe their "opinions are the facts.

Source Please.

I see you are back to your old tricks with your favorite word, "opinion" and demands for credible sources. You do this whenever you have backed yourself into a corner, which seems to be fairly often.

The Jones paper is the source of the sample collection descriptions. I provided that reference for you, but it seems that you have again failed to read the paper that you are so strongly opinionated about. Who is telling you what to think and say? Are you buying into Gage, et al., or some other half-baked website? Jones provided no information on storage, protection from humidity and oxidation, or protection from contamination of 5+ year old samples in his 'credible source' paper that you are purportedly basing your opinions on.

Unless you can show credible sources that describe the storage, protection from humidity and oxidation, and protection from contamination, the samples are suspect along with the scientific capabilities of the Jones team. Your 'opinions' don't count. Provide the reference or admit that you have no such evidence and it is only your 'opinion.'

My earlier challenge to you is still open. I made this general challenge in the past on several threads and no one has disproved my conclusions. No one has even tried. Either they are not capable or can see the truth to my analysis of Jones' data. You can start with Jones' thermodynamic data and we can work our way to the DSC and EDAX so we can discover that all of this fuss was over red primer paint.

By questioning the chain of custody you are effectively accusing the scientists and the citizens of conspiring to fake evidence by manufacturing high-tech energetic nanocomposites that only a handful of labs in the world can even make and adding them to samples! That sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory to me! And yet you find the idea of the government tampering with evidence ridiculous! Someone get Pat a tin foil hat!

Now that red/gray chips, or at least particles purporting to be them, have been found in professionally collected samples independent of Steven Jones', debunkers can now be assured that these red/gray chips, whatever they are, did not enter Jones' samples via accidental contamination, and were not intentionally added by 9/11 truth activists. So criticisms regarding the collection and chain of custody of Jones' samples are now null and void.

source


Physicist Steven Jones - one of the scientists who found thermite
in the World Trade Center dust discusses in depth his process of discovery
using the scientific method. Chain of custody of the WTC dust and nanothermite are discussed in depth.

The chips are red primer paint on the gray iron oxide that was the original surface of the steel beams comprising the superstructure of the WTC. Jones estimated that there were ten TONS of unreacted red/gray chips in the rubble. Ten tons of some super reactive material didn't react. What dangerous stuff. Pictures of the steel beams in various memorials show the red primer paint coating the metal. There are not any flammability warnings or 'no smoking' signs around the memorials and, amazingly, they are still unscathed.

The reason that the organic binder in the paint has more energy than thermite per unit weight in the DSC is that when burning a hydrocarbon, the oxidant is the oxygen in air and it is not part of the measured weight. In the case of conventional thermite, the oxidant is iron oxide which makes up a significant fraction of the measured weight. This type of measurement would show that candle wax has more caloric content than thermite on a mass basis. This doesn't mean that candle wax burns hotter than thermite, just that it has a much larger caloric output per unit weight.
What Jones did was run the DSC in air, burn the binder in the paint, and claim it was thermite. He ignored the fact that thermite does not need air to react and that his measurement should have been reaction under argon or nitrogen. Too much energy was produced for it to be thermite even though the combustion was incomplete. In his burning desire to find thermite, he never did the simple calculation that would have showed his gross error. After much criticism, he said he would run the DSC under inert and publish the results. It has been five years and he either never kept his word or found out how wrong he was and decided to continue his fraud for personal reasons.
I haven't decided whether his initial experiment was planned deception or just incompetence. From his statements, I lean toward blind incompetence followed by the inability to admit error and the desire to continue to deceive the gullible.

I understand your desire for there to be a conspiracy of some sort but any conspiracy is likely more of a coverup by various agencies and government entities after they failed to prevent the attack or were afraid to admit to substandard materials of construction and paid off building inspectors. I invite you to use the data in the paper and show how the thermodynamics indicate that the material is some form of thermite. Then, once you have that, explain how the material was ignited when only a thin layer of it was coating the substantial heat sink of a steel beam. Finally, given the thermal output that you calculated and using the heat capacity of structural steel, calculate the temperature rise of a beam if all the material could be ignited.

I await your response.

Eight Disturbing Articles From the Mainstream Press

It seems to me that even in the MSM there has been enough troubling information released regarding the credibility of the official conspiracy theory concerning 9/11 to leave even the most ardent supporters of the OS scratching their heads in disbelief. The articles below bring up many troubling issues such as lying to the 9/11 Commission, foreknowledge of an impending attack, meetings between government officials immediately prior to 9/11 and individuals later implicated as being involved in 9/11, brazen destruction of evidence and manipulation of judicial proceedings etc., etc.


9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon---Washington Post

"Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate."
-----
Still Secret: 28 Pages That Could Change Our Understanding of 9/11---ABC News

"A bipartisan group of congressmen joined with 9/11 family members today to renew efforts to declassify 28 pages of a joint congressional inquiry into the worst terrorist attack against the United States."
-----
The Pakistan connection---The Guardian

"Omar Sheikh, a British-born Islamist militant, is waiting to be hanged in Pakistan for a murder he almost certainly didn't commit - of the Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in 2002. Both the US government and Pearl's wife have since acknowledged that Sheikh was not responsible. Yet the Pakistani government is refusing to try other suspects newly implicated in Pearl's kidnap and murder for fear the evidence they produce in court might acquit Sheikh and reveal too much."
-----
A Trainee Noted for Incompetence---New York Times

"Although the authorities say none of the 19 hijackers on Sept. 11 were tied to an F.B.I. intelligence alert issued by an agent in Arizona two months earlier, one hijacker, Hani Hanjour, had come to the Federal Aviation Administration's attention earlier last year, when he trained in Phoenix."
-----
The UK's Bin Laden dossier in full---BBC News

"This document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Osama Bin Laden in a court of law."
-----
The investigation and the evidence---BBC News

"Within hours of the attacks, the Federal Bureau of Investigation launched what has become the biggest manhunt and investigation in US history."
-----
Report cites warnings before 9/11---CNN

"U.S. intelligence officials had several warnings that terrorists might attack the United States on its home soil -- even using airplanes as weapons -- well before the September 11, 2001 attacks, two congressional committees said in a report released Wednesday."
-----
9/11 judge and prosecutors should step down over 'destroyed evidence', defense demands---The Guardian

"An explosive allegation about destroyed evidence threatens to unravel the already shaky military tribunal for the alleged architect of the 9/11 terrorist attacks."

a reply to: Elbereth


"It seems to me that even in the MSM there has been enough troubling information released regarding the credibility of the official conspiracy theory concerning 9/11 to leave even the most ardent supporters of the OS scratching their heads in disbelief."


No, not really. It depends on how hard you want to dig into things. You posted several articles to back yourself up, but it does not appear you did anything other than cut and paste the articles...

BBC article (The investigation and the evidence) was written about three weeks into the aftermath. There is nothing there to make one scratch their head. Again, its three weeks into the investigation, still plenty of work that needed to be done.

BBC article (Bin Laden dossier in full) again, written three weeks into the investigation and the heading is misleading. Presuming that the BBC had full access to all of the information that had been discovered in the three weeks is silly. Again, nothing to scratch your head about.

CNN (Report cites warnings before 9/11)....do you have any idea how many "credible" warnings came to the US on a weekly basis? Did our agencies fall down? Yes....mainly due to idiotic restrictions on how they share information with other agencies. You could have information on your desk about a warning that you could not share with the guy sitting across the room because of the rules placed on our agencies by our legislators. Of course in the aftermath, it is EASY to connect the dots. Again, pay attention to reality and it doesn't make you scratch your head....shake it in sadness maybe......

NYT (Trainee noted for incompetence)...and? Again, how many times do you think people were reported to the FBI? Prior to 9/11/01, quite a few Arab students in the country with money doing things like trying to learn to fly...engineering....without any other information, do you try to investigate everyone? Not enough hours in the year for that. Again, it is easy to connect the dots afterwards. The very nature of our society makes it easy for people to sit back and find the holes they can exploit.

Deception by the Pentagon? You really think that ANYONE wants to admit that we failed to recognize potential threats to this country? No. And remember, in the days following, we were told that our response that day, while slow, was organized and flowed...when in reality it was a cluster that day. It was that day that we discovered that maybe 14 fighter jets to protect the entire country was probably not enough. It was that day that the US Air Force discovered that the aircraft that our President travels on, had HUGE issues when it came to communications systems....literally dozens of things were discovered that day that hurt our response, most of which were unknowns until that day. You really want to stand in front of someone and take responsibility for the failures that were built into our systems by people who had the best intentions when they made decisions in the years prior?

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

I really appreciate that you took the time to draft such a detailed response. I'll let the articles stand or fall on their own, and also let people draw their own conclusions. I have no intention of defending against all the criticisms generated by the other side. It being a clash of world views, I would consider that to be an exercise in futility.

I don't think there's any common ground to be found with those who believe that a 9/11 pilot who could barely fly a single engine Cessna was somehow able to execute expert maneuvers and navigate from altitude to and strike the Pentagon in the manner reported. I don't think there's any common ground to be found with those who believe that there's nothing at all strange in the unprecedented failure of WTC 7, a mode of collapse that NIST admits has never occurred before or since 9/11. I don't think there's any common ground to be found with those who have no issue with much of the 9/11 Commission's report having been derived from the enhanced interrogations of KSM, but the Commission not being given access to the (now destroyed) video of those interviews, or to KSM himself. I don't think there's any common ground to be found with those who have no problem with the bizarre nature of the (not under oath) joint testimony of Bush and Cheney before a select few members of the 9/11 Commission. I don't think there's any common ground to be had with those who are unperturbed by the 9/11 Commission's report having been outlined with headings, sub-headings, and sub-sub headings prior to the Commission having met, and that this fact was considered essential to keep secret from the public.

It is beyond my meager rhetorical skills to penetrate through to those who have such a willfully poor grasp of the obvious. What accounts for such a profound disconnect between two camps that are, I assume, processing the same evidence? Is Framing Theory at work, or confirmation bias? Is it the narrative power of 9/11 as a "searing or molding event" as described in Zelikow's "Creation and Maintenance of Public Myths"? All I know is to me, the cumulative arguments against the OS strike me as overwhelming at this point.

originally posted by: Mianeye
16 years and truthers are still searching for a non existing truth in the collateral damage in building 1, 2 and 7 ignoring all the fire fighters witness accounts of extensive damage and fire to building 7, ignoring the facts that building 1 and 2 collapse started exactly were the planes hit, ignoring the fact that no explosives sounds were heard before or during any of the collapse.

What an awful waste of time you guys are showing....

wha??....there are clips of firefighters saying they heard explosions as well as other witnesses hearing them also...build 7 did not have the "extensive damage" that would have led to a orderly collapse of a block long, 47 story, building. fire fighters and others were walking right by it....and the fact that the 9/11 commission didn't even want to investigate whether bombs had been placed, even though the WTC had a large bomb go off in 1993....no curiosity that it might have been another one?...are you kidding me?...are you from the NIST?...don't take a lack of anarchic violence toward our government, as a sign of stupidity.

a reply to: jimmyx

It's been covered hundred of times, explosions does not equate sounds from detonating explosives. Windows from the pressure of compressed air from the floors collapsing being blown out is an explosive force with no explosives.

When they recovered the 20000 body parts and bone fragments, with ordnance teams, firefighters, and engineers present, no bomb fragments, blasting caps fragments, no shape charge fragments, no detonation system in the debris with the human remains. No steel that was drilled for explosives placement, no steel worked on by explosives. Bottom line, no audio of explosives being detonated. No steel damaged by explosives. Shifting of debris lead to 20000 remains found, 6000 that could fit in a test tube, but no parts of explosives. No physical evidence explosives or thermite.

a reply to: jimmyx

And you have reports from MIT, Purdue, University of Edinburgh, engineering firms back fire collapse. Some openly criticized the NIST, but still concluded fire. No it's not just NIST reports you need to focus on.

a reply to: Elbereth

How does that make the pseudoscience of thermite and jones creditable?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Elbereth

How does that make the pseudoscience of thermite and jones creditable?

Is there another Elbereth? You won't find me wasting my time on that boondoggle.

a reply to: neutronflux

Just to be clear, I would like to list my criticisms of Jones's paper:

www.internationalskeptics.com...

Not a Peer Reviewed.

The fact is physicist Dave Rogers has only given his "opinions" and nothing more. No science, nothing.

a reply to: Informer1958

Then physicist giving point by point why jones is scientifically wrong is on opinion. One, he is a peer sighting why jones us wrong. Two, it's a lie to say jones conspiracy work has not be reviewed by peers and jones work lacking credibility. Finally, to be presented as evidence of thermite, jones still cannot give an account how the integrity of the samples were maintained for five years.


Please detail how Dave Rogers is wrong? You cannot, no point in further debate.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

Paint that puts out more energy than known nano thermate in a calorimeter?

During World War II navies found that years of peacetime painting had built up combustible layer on the steel

Found that enemy bombs/shells would ignite this layer sparking an intense fire with dense choking smoke.

Heat conducted by the steel could ignite the paint layer in adjacent compartments spreading the fires

Were forced to quickly remove it, much to the disconfort of the poor swabbies who had to scrape it off .........

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: Doctor Smith

Paint that puts out more energy than known nano thermate in a calorimeter?

During World War II navies found that years of peacetime painting had built up combustible layer on the steel

Found that enemy bombs/shells would ignite this layer sparking an intense fire with dense choking smoke.

Heat conducted by the steel could ignite the paint layer in adjacent compartments spreading the fires

Were forced to quickly remove it, much to the disconfort of the poor swabbies who had to scrape it off .........

Hence the development of spumific paint which forms an insulating carbonaceous char when heated.

a reply to: firerescue

During World War II navies found that years of peacetime painting had built up combustible layer on the steel

Found that enemy bombs/shells would ignite this layer sparking an intense fire with dense choking smoke.

The key word is combustible.
Not explosive.