9/11: Science and Society. Dr. Steven Jones' presentation and challenge to all scientists.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


It's NOT bigotry its logic I mean HOW could anyone one with any COMMON SENSE or any REAL EDUCATION believe that, I pointed it out to show that he is not really playing with a FULL DECK is he!!!

His LOGIC is flawed its that simple Bonez so deal with it!!!!

reply to post by pteridine

The "peer reviewed" paper associated with the self-extinguishing thermite paint that comprises 10-100 tons of the dust is easily refuted.

The fact is you have never disputed it nor anyone else for that matter. You have been asked by me and many ATS posters in other 911 thermite threads to present your science, and you have not. “Easily refuted” that’s a joke, we are all still waiting for you to present your science, your analysis of your testing results from the WTC dust samples.

That the thermite paint remained unignited is not surprising.

Fact: Jones peer reviewed paper was not just about thermite paint remained un-ignited, so perhaps you should stop misrepresenting science.

Jones' theory is based on a predetermined conclusion and shows no mechanism for use of the material or what it supposedly did when it was used.

Thank G-d no one takes you seriously, your opinions based on your belief system are sadly wrong, and have been proven wrong repeatedly. The hard fact is Jones peer reviewed paper is now being accepted by professional as irrefutable.

I expect nothing more than a negative response of venomous opinions and character assassination against Professor Jones. The fact is, it took science to prove the OS was a lie.

What I find so reprehensible, are long time ATS debunkers with educated minds who know the OS and the demise of the WTC is all a lie, yet they still defend the OS religiously even after scientific evidence has been given to them repeatedly proving it is mostly lies. One has to wonder why you few continue to defend these outlandish lies in evey single 911 thread.

reply to post by impressme


"What I find so reprehensible, are long time ATS debunkers with educated minds who know the OS and the demise of the WTC is all a lie, yet they still defend the OS religiously even after scientific evidence has been given to them repeatedly proving it is mostly lies"

To be fair we (ie 9/11 truthers in general) need to step up the game and present evidence in a much better and concise way. If there were paid debunkers on this site it would be clear to me that part of the game they play is to ground people down with the repetitiveness of their replies amongst other tactics and strategies. OTOH debunkers are people too and properly presented evidence should have a long term influence on people. Except maybe some high functioning psychopaths but that is off-topic.

I guess what I'm aiming for is that over time the truth of 9/11 will be as clear as the earth revolving around the sun.

Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration
Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
Extremely rapid onset of destruction
Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally
Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
1200-foot-diameter debris field: no "pancaked" floors found

and more can be found at ae911truth.org and these facts cannot be argued against easily.

reply to post by yyyyyyyyyy

"What I find so reprehensible, are long time ATS debunkers with educated minds who know the OS and the demise of the WTC is all a lie, yet they still defend the OS religiously even after scientific evidence has been given to them repeatedly proving it is mostly lies"

That makes it sound like everyone else is on board the "inside job" train and there are just a few holdout "debunkers" that need convincing. The matter of the fact is in ten years there is no movement on the "inside job" argument because the arguments are baseless and/or grounded only in exclamations of incredulity.

To be fair we (ie 9/11 truthers in general) need to step up the game and present evidence in a much better and concise way.

Actually any evidence would be nice.

If there were paid debunkers on this site it would be clear to me that part of the game they play is to ground people down with the repetitiveness of their replies amongst other tactics and strategies.

Actually, the only reason the "debunkers" may sound repetitve is because the same old tired "inside job' arguments are being constantly recycled in hopes of finding some fresh audience.

OTOH debunkers are people too and properly presented evidence should have a long term influence on people. Except maybe some high functioning psychopaths but that is off-topic.

If you haven't picked up on it by now - please be advised the problem with the "evidence" is NOT the presentation.

I guess what I'm aiming for is that over time the truth of 9/11 will be as clear as the earth revolving around the sun.

It is already clear as gin, unfortunately, you just don't like the actual truth.

Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration

'The building fell DOWN real fast".

Improbable symmetry of debris distribution

'Wow! The buildings fell down in a big pile close to where they were standing'!

Extremely rapid onset of destruction

'Dear Lord, it doesn't take long for the high speed crash of a plane and fire to reak havoc'

Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes

'One of the worlds largest and tallest buildings is burning and falling down - think that make some noise'?

Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally

'Look at that thing fall apart'!

Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking

'Concrete broke'?

Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds

'Dust from a collapsing building - who'd a thunk'?

1200-foot-diameter debris field: no "pancaked" floors found

'Or evidence of explosives'

and more can be found at ae911truth.org and these facts cannot be argued against easily.

Because they aren't facts.


signature:

reply to post by hooper


You think it was planes and subsequent damage
I think it was planes and subsequent damage and something else planted.

The evidence I look at shapes my opinion but like anyone I fall victim to vested interest bias, ie now I believe it's an inside job, presented evidence will be shaped by this thought.

Yet I cannot understand any theory rationally that says planes were the sole explanation. The buildings were hit and an hour later explode to dust and within 30 hours the war on terror has been re-declared.

Peace

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

It's too bad you people are so close-minded and ignorant to facts. Because then you would see that 9/11 was an inside job, and that our creators made themselves known everywhere in this world including North America, not just the Middle East. Real research would show you these facts. Science and facts have proven both.

Did it ever occur to you, Bonez, that maybe YOU are the one who's closed minded and ignorant to the facts? Nowhere in Jone's report does it say the 9/11 attack was an inside job nor does he say anywhere in the report that this thermitic material was even responsible for the destruction of the towers. The whole WTC complex was built out of aluminum and steel (which natually causes rust via the elements and electrolysis), and by definition aluminum and rust are thermitic. Jones offers nothing usable for you and you are seeing things in the report on your own which simply aren't there.

We keep trying to point out that you're filling in these "inside job" blanks entirely out of your own abject paranoia but you repeatedly answer with your "CONSPIRACY! ACK! ACK!" quasi-religious mantra, as if sheer repetition will somehow make your personal fantasies into the truth. What do you expect to prove with this challenge anyway, that the towers *weren't* constructed out of aluminum and steel, or that steel doesn't rust?

reply to post by _BoneZ_

there's not a single thing about 9/11 that has anything to do with religion, what-so-ever.

Wrong . Islamic religious zealots hijacked airliners and flew them into targets .

You could comprehend that if you weren't so "closed-minded and ignorant to facts" .

reply to post by yyyyyyyyyy

You think it was planes and subsequent damage

Yes. Period.

I think it was planes and subsequent damage and something else planted.

Why?

The evidence I look at shapes my opinion

What is evidence? A college professor once gave me a very good definition of "evidence". He said "remember, evidence is a verb, in an argument you present a theory and then present facts that evidences the theory". So what is your theory and what facts support it?

but like anyone I fall victim to vested interest bias, ie now I believe it's an inside job, presented evidence will be shaped by this thought.

Your "thoughts" appear to be awful squishy. I would think less about all you are hearing, seeing, etc. and concentrate more on the idea of what constitutes a fact or what is required to have a whole theory.

Yet I cannot understand any theory rationally that says planes were the sole explanation.

Why? What real world experince did you have pre-9/11 that informed that opinion?

The buildings were hit and an hour later explode to dust and within 30 hours the war on terror has been re-declared.

I saw no explosions. And good for the war on terror.

Originally posted by impressme
The fact is, it took science to prove the OS was a lie.

What I find so reprehensible, are long time ATS debunkers with educated minds who know the OS and the demise of the WTC is all a lie, yet they still defend the OS religiously even after scientific evidence has been given to them repeatedly proving it is mostly lies.

What Jones presented did not prove anything. He didn't even to bother wth proposing a theory of how his material was used and what its effects might be. You don't want to accept that because it is contrary to your predetermined conclusions.

I am not a "debunker." I don't do anything but reach conclusions based on evidence.

reply to post by hooper


"What is evidence? A college professor once gave me a very good definition of "evidence". He said "remember, evidence is a verb, in an argument you present a theory and then present facts that evidences the theory". So what is your theory and what facts support it?"

reading between the lines my theory is it was not just planes and the evidence is presented in part above from ae911truth.org.

The counter argument it was just planes does not explain the observable evidence. Off-topic, are you someone who supports the war on terror?

Peace

PS soz for not replying to all your points but I hope you will be happy with what I've jotted.

reply to post by yyyyyyyyyy

The counter argument it was just planes does not explain the observable evidence.

I take it that we are discussing the World Trade Center. I honestly loose track sometime. Since all that was observed was the planes, explosion, fire and collapse then that they are the only facts.

Off-topic, are you someone who supports the war on terror?

Absolultely.

reply to post by hooper


Our positions are diametrically opposed on 9/11 and I would guess many other issues.

Time heals all wounds and peace is the way.

Originally posted by yyyyyyyyyy
reply to post by impressme

 

I guess what I'm aiming for is that over time the truth of 9/11 will be as clear as the earth revolving around the sun.

Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration
Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
Extremely rapid onset of destruction
Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally
Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
1200-foot-diameter debris field: no "pancaked" floors found

and more can be found at ae911truth.org and these facts cannot be argued against easily.

Lets see it wasn't freefall
Tube in tube construction walls fell away during collpase
Rapid destruction ? they lasted a while after plane impacts!
Many things make loud noises when they fail bolts,concrete,steelwork, other items may explode due to heat! Think about things you would find in an office.
Was it lateral?
So it all turned to dust just love that one! see pic below
Your dust cloud how much was sheetrock dust thousands of sq mtrs in the buildings you all seem to forget that one dont you!!!!
No pancake you say? see pics





I see rebar, truss steelwork ,decking, concrete and even paperwork!

One site with your take on this said this was molten metal till someone pointed out paperwork in it!

So its all dust? Better get those eyes checked!!!

reply to post by pteridine

What Jones presented did not prove anything.

You sound like a broken record always repeating the same nonsense, but cannot back up your claims.
You may think Jones didn’t prove anything and that is your “opinion,” the fact is many experts believe Jones did prove something and do support his science. Fact is, I do not see any of you debunkers disproving his science.

He didn't even to bother wth proposing a theory of how his material was used and what its effects might be.

That is completely untrue! Now you are making up garbage, anyone who has read Jones peer review report can see he did. The fact is you have been exposed repeatedly of making up fallacies against Jones and Jones’ scientific findings.

You don't want to accept that because it is contrary to your predetermined conclusions.

To what I think and what I believe does not get in the why of me researching and accepting the facts of real science.
Perhaps it is you who has proven to us repeatedly that you have a predetermined conclusion against all science against the OS and all Truthers as you continually demonstrate it in every post.

I am not a "debunker." I don't do anything but reach conclusions based on evidence.

Based on your “predetermined assumptions.”

An analysis of the DSC data in the Herrit-Jones paper

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You’re not a debunker??? The fact is, you created the above thread and there is nothing on it but 19 pages of you twisting Jones science, which many poster exposed you for doing so, and forming your predetermined conclusions that the OS is 100 % true, and everyone who apposes your pseudo science, are delusional according to you.

We are all still waiting for your peer review report to be published in any scientific journal refuting Jones scientific findings of the WTC dust samples?

reply to post by impressme


I see you are as confused and angry as ever with those who do not share your views. You continually rant about the "science" yet you cannot discuss it. When pressed, all you ever do is post tracts from conspiracy sites.

No one has ever answered the simple question of why the red chip super thermite is self-extinguishing when held in a DSC furnace above its purported ignition temperature. Let me know when you are ready to discuss this topic and we can make a thread where you and your many buddies can show me the light.

Until then, I will reiterate that the Jones team has ignored their own data to arrive at predetermined conclusions and that their claims are groundless.

This would have to be one of the most profound analysis and hard evidence I have seen. This is scientific proof by someone who has held a position of power at some point in his career. I believe that there is more to the story then what has been given to us by the governement, and I fully support those that seek the truth. The story that has been fed to us is a sham, and those that follow the offical story and still believe it are lost. I work in the governement and know that they do not always present things in a manner which is acceptable to the public. We have been preaching this for years, take a stand, demand the truth, and never accept what is given to us on a silver platter. Science does not lie, the problem is most americans do not understand the science of this matter. There has not been a reasonable explination of 9/11, all we get are bits and pieces of a puzzle. It is up to you my fellow american's to read between the lines and see through the lies that are Fed to us. How many more MSM articles do you have to read? How many eye-witnesses do you have to hear, how many scientist / pilots do you have to hear before you start to see a major crack in the offical story. Bad things happened on 9/11....people died...but for what, building where destroyed, but how.....it re-shaped americal history, but why. The anwers are out there, you really don't need to look much further than this 2 hour video. He touches on many things, but his arguments....published reports that anyone with scientific knowledge can refute.....have been unable to. Take a stand and seek the truth!

reply to post by pteridine

I see you are as confused and angry as ever with those who do not share your views.

No, I don’t care what people think of my views and as being confused? You are not a psychiatrist so you are not qualified to be giving any one’s mental evaluation or opinions of one’s state of mind.

You continually rant about the "science" yet you cannot discuss it.

Rant? No, most people on ATS have read my threads and posts debunking you and exposing you as a fraud. You say I cannot discuss it, exactly what is it that I can’t discuss? Be very carful how you answer this question because you may expose yourself as lying again.

When pressed, all you ever do is post tracts from [color=gold]conspiracy sites.

Yes I have posted tracks from websites that backs my claims or opinions. Yes we all understand that you are convince as you just demonstrated in your last post to me that all websites on the internet that speaks out against the OS are all “conspiracy websites.” Yet you want to talk about my state of mind?

No one has ever answered the simple question of why the red chip super thermite is self-extinguishing when held in a DSC furnace above its purported ignition temperature.

Because your question serves no propose in Jones’ scientific analysis and is not important. Your question is something you personally dreamed up to fool ATS readers to think Jones over looked something in his testing. Nice try, your not fooling anyone anymore.

Let me know when you are ready to discuss this topic and we can make a thread where you and your many buddies can show me the light.

The facts are you and I have already discussed Jones’ peer review Journal endlessly in my two threads that I created and that I was able to prove you where twisting and misrepresenting Jones’ science making outlandish accusation and character assassination against Professor Steven Jones and his scientific Journal, tell me I am lying and I will have no problems proving it from my two threads.

Jones "Peer - Reviewed" Scientific Journal Found Credible!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

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

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Until then, I will reiterate that the Jones team has ignored their own data to arrive at predetermined conclusions and that their claims are groundless.

The fact is, you cannot prove Jones team ignored their own data. The fact is this is nothing more than a negative prejudiced opinion against Jones and his scientific Journal on your “predetermined conclusions” that the government is telling the truth to what happened to the WTC.

You can call Jones’ science “groundless” all you like; you have not proved it “groundless” much less anything else. The fact is you’re pseudo science doesn’t stand up to any science.

Originally posted by impressme

No one has ever answered the simple question of why the red chip super thermite is self-extinguishing when held in a DSC furnace above its purported ignition temperature.

Because your question serves no propose in Jones’ scientific analysis and is not important. Your question is something you personally dreamed up to fool ATS readers to think Jones over looked something in his testing. Nice try, your not fooling anyone anymore.

If the super thermite won't burn, it isn't a super thermite. Jones overlooked quite a bit in his testing as I have shown on many occasions. Jones is still fooling you.

reply to post by pteridine

Because your question serves no propose in Jones’ scientific analysis and is not important. Your question is something you personally dreamed up to fool ATS readers to think Jones over looked something in his testing. Nice try, your not fooling anyone anymore.


If the super thermite won't burn, it isn't a super thermite. Jones overlooked quite a bit in his testing as I have shown on many occasions. Jones is still fooling you.

You need to stop misrepresenting Jones Journal; Jones explained this in his report to why some didn’t burn and to why some did burn. Jones never over looked anything you haven’t proved your claim and you are making up fallacies again. Jones science speaks for itself as proven facts, and the fact is you are the one that is trying to fool everyone not science.

Originally posted by impressme
If the super thermite won't burn, it isn't a super thermite. Jones overlooked quite a bit in his testing as I have shown on many occasions. Jones is still fooling you. You need to stop misrepresenting Jones Journal; Jones explained this in his report to why some didn’t burn and to why some did burn. Jones never over looked anything you haven’t proved your claim and you are making up fallacies again. Jones science speaks for itself as proven facts, and the fact is you are the one that is trying to fool everyone not science.

Jones didn't explain it. He tried to explain it but either didn't understand the configuration of the DSC or was just winging it on the spur of the moment. He did this when he was told that paint-on wouldn't do anything when he claimed that the material could be ignitors or fuse materials. He actually overlooked quite a bit in his paper because he had a conclusion in mind before he started. This, by the way, is contrary to the way real science is done.
While many on ATS still believe in CD of the towers, Jones seems to be losing credibility because there are too many holes in his paper and little rationale for the use of the paint-on nanothermitic material that he claims.