What evidence would accept to prove 9/11 was an inside job?

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Lillydale

 

Thank you for your vote of confidence but I never tell lies in boldface, so I am unsure of your claim. Perhaps you could point it out. I get accused of telling lies quite a bit when people don't agree with me. Perhaps, when I have the urge to prevaricate, I will use the bold font for easy reference.

*Snip*

There is no personal information in the title of a degree. You said there is. That is either a lie or more likely a mistake. Wouldn't someone with a great deal of education know that there is no personal information in the title of a degree?

Mod Note: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link. Removed Off Topic Remarks

[edit on 12/24/2009 by semperfortis]

NOTICE

This business of calling one another cowards, liars or anything else will stop, either voluntarily or as the consequence of post/account bans. Note that any such misconduct may result in 9/11 Madness warnings.

Several of the preceding posts qualify. Do not resurrect old drama. Continuation of this line of discussion will be considered deliberate disruption and treated accordingly.

Stay on topic or stay out of this thread. The topic:

What evidence would accept to prove 9/11 was an inside job?

Anything else doesn't belong here.

THIS IS A MODERATOR ADVISORY. DO NOT REPLY TO THIS POST. STAY ON TOPIC.

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by dereks

 

Who said anything about peer review?

That makes it that much easier for someone to post a refutation, doesn't it?

Certainly, there isn't much, if any, peer review in Bentham publications. I wouldn't publish there.
ATS seemed like a good place to point out the flaws for the non-scientists, so I did. Chemists would see the errors if they bothered to read the paper at all, but many ATS members are unfamiliar with the technical end of things and wouldn't realize the weaknesses of the paper unless they were explained. There are many errors but the most glaring is running the DSC in air and claiming thermite. The thing that can actually be claimed is an exotherm in the DSC. It is not known whether it is thermitic reaction or just burning paint. Jones realized that the energy calculations were way off and said in the paper that some of it may be from combustion. Of course, some or all of it is certainly from combustion.
Jones has stated that he has another paper in the offing where he will determine if there is a thermitic reaction or not. Regardless of the new paper, my citicism of this paper is valid.

reply to post by Lillydale


What I said was that I did not wish to divulge personal information. Your interpretation of what constitutes such is why you are confused. My degrees, experience, employment, publications, consultancies, and such, shouldn't effect anything regarding the validity of my arguments and discussions. There should be no self-realized "appeal to authority."
Note even now how Jones is being defended by his supporters on the board. It is implied that since he was once a nuclear physics professor, his analytical chemistry should be above reproach. Illogic prevails.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Lillydale

 

What I said was that I did not wish to divulge personal information. Your interpretation of what constitutes such is why you are confused.

No, what you said is posted two pages back.

My degrees and schools are personal information [see T&C].

See, what was said is right there. No confusion on this end but thanks.

Originally posted by pteridine
Certainly, there isn't much, if any, peer review in Bentham publications. I wouldn't publish there.

You wouldn't publish anywhere, because you're all talk and you know you aren't a chemistry expert.

ATS seemed like a good place to point out the flaws for the non-scientists, so I did.

You are also a "non-scientist."

Jones has stated that he has another paper in the offing where he will determine if there is a thermitic reaction or not. Regardless of the new paper, my citicism of this paper is valid.

What does it mean when the oxygen in iron oxide is stripped during the reaction, and leaves only iron? Have any idea?

reply to post by bsbray11


By running the DSC in air, Jones cannot determine if the exotherm is due to a thermitic reaction or combustion. The first step is to run it in the absence of air. No reaction means no thermite and that will be the end of this theory. If such a reaction occurs, then the next step would be an analysis of the material.

Iron oxide is a common pigment in many paints, including this one, so I am not sure what point you are trying to make. The EDAX analyses and the spheres have a few problems of their own. Before we bother with such details, we need to see the thermitic reaction in the absence of air. If you have a specific question, please ask, and I will answer it.

[edit on 12/24/2009 by pteridine]

reply to post by Lillydale


I consider my degrees, experience, employment, publications, consultancies, and such, as personal information. You apparently don't, which is why you are confused. None of these should effect anything regarding the validity of my arguments and discussions.
I provided some information a few posts back. Do you believe it? If you do, how will it effect your acceptance my arguments? Of course, it shouldn't affect anyones' acceptance of them at all. They should stand on their own.
I reiterate my offer of explaining any aspect of Jones paper at any technical level that you are comfortable with.
Thanks for the U2U. Merry Christmas, Lillydale.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Lillydale

 

I consider my degrees, experience, employment, publications, consultancies, and such, as personal information.

You can consider yourself superman if you like as well. That will not make you able to fly, nor will it make a degree personal information.

You apparently don't, which is why you are confused.

I am not at all confused. I know the difference between personal information and NOT personal in any way shape or form information. No matter what anyone, you or I, think about it - there is no personal information in a degree. That is just a fact. It is not debatable. It is not an opinion. It is not something you consider or not. It is a fact. There is no personal information in a degree title.

None of these should effect anything regarding the validity of my arguments and discussions.

It shouldn't but it certainly does affect your credibility. Lets just run it down, shall we not?

You claimed to have all this expertise, experience, education.
You were asked to back ANY of that up.
You were asked for something as simple as a degree.
You claimed that you could not do that because it was against T&C.
It is NOT against T&C anywhere so you moved on.
Now it is what you consider to be personal against all logic.

I provided some information a few posts back. Do you believe it?

You mean the rather personal sounding info about where you work? Here is my problem with believing any of that.

If your education did not matter as much as your posts, why brag about it?
If you are not willing to provide the most basic info about your education, why brag about it?
If you are as educated as you claim, why do you think there is personal information in a degree title?
If you are still going to insist that there is something so personal in a title completely void of any personal data that you cannot reveal it - because it is personal, then why would you tell us all that info you are referring to if it is true?
I could be wrong, is this what you mean -"If I told you that I had a PhD in organic chemistry and supervised a lab of 53 PhD scientists and engineers, including post-docs and university profs, until retiring, would you believe me?" If so, the answer is certainly no. No one would tell me they had a PhD in Organic Chemistry and then continue to tell me why they refuse to tell me what degrees they have. See the paradox?

If you do, how will it effect your acceptance my arguments? Of course, it shouldn't affect anyones' acceptance of them at all. They should stand on their own.

and yet they don't. As far as I can see, this thread is still going. So far, as you have done much posturing, you have provided little real argument. The crux of your argument seems to rely on the idea that you are supersmart and Jones is a buffoon. If you would like to change my perception, please do.

I reiterate my offer of explaining any aspect of Jones paper at any technical level that you are comfortable with.
Thanks for the U2U. Merry Christmas, Lillydale.

There was no need to take you up on your offer the first time. Merry Christmas to you too.

the only evidence you will ever get is if bush gets seriously pissed or truth serum,

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Swing Dangler

 

The faults in Jones' paper have been pointed out many times. Bad science published in a vanity journal is bad science. Vanity journals are not peer reviewed in the sense that real primary journals are peer reviewed.

You mean there was a peer reviewed rebuttal published in a scientific journal or are you referring to a bunch of anonymous posters on JREF who claim to be experts? LOL. Guys that say things like it was paint! Of course not reading the paper which scientifically proved it was not paint. Dolt!

Oh and make sure you contact every author who has published through Benthem Open and let them know their science is junk too. Let us know how that goes, will ya!

Originally posted by Swing Dangler

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Swing Dangler

 

The faults in Jones' paper have been pointed out many times. Bad science published in a vanity journal is bad science. Vanity journals are not peer reviewed in the sense that real primary journals are peer reviewed.

You mean there was a peer reviewed rebuttal published in a scientific journal or are you referring to a bunch of anonymous posters on JREF who claim to be experts? LOL. Guys that say things like it was paint! Of course not reading the paper which scientifically proved it was not paint. Dolt!

Oh and make sure you contact every author who has published through Benthem Open and let them know their science is junk too. Let us know how that goes, will ya!

Bentham is an Abou Dhabi (?) based vainty publishers that accepts anything submitted to it for a fee of $800. As a test two college kids sent in a random computer generated gobbledygook piece and Bentham accepted it for publication.

No self-respecting English language peer review journal has or would
even consider Jones amateuris paper that lacks even basic procedural controls.

Dozens of professional chemists as well as structural engineers and/or demolition experts have looked at Jones's work. A few are quoted online. The first thing pointed out is that thermite can not be used effectively as an explosive. Even Jones has quietly conceded that. They've also pointed out his chips are consistent with primer paint chips chemically. An explosive wouldn't work on steel applied in millimeter thin layers.

Outside conspiracy circles his falsified findings do not even justify a footnote.

Send one of his pieces to a lab or chemistry prof sometime and find out for yourself.


M

[edit on 20-1-2010 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael
Bentham is an Abou Dhabi (?) based vainty publishers that accepts anything submitted to it for a fee of $800. As a test two college kids sent in a random computer generated gobbledygook piece and Bentham accepted it for publication.

No self-respecting English language peer review journal has or would
even consider Jones amateuris paper that lacks even basic procedural controls.

Mahmood Alam, Bentham's director of publications, responded to queries from New Scientist by email: "In this particular case we were aware that the article submitted was a hoax, and we tried to find out the identity of the individual by pretending the article had been accepted for publication when in fact it was not."

source

no story is better than half a story.

reply to post by billybob


Yeah.

And I've got a bridge for sale if you believe that.