Best 9/11 documentaries

a reply to: pteridine

He sells the idea but not for money. He likes the attention and admiration. His career is over; he is retired and writing whatever strikes his fancy.

Yes his career is over but not because there was anything wrong with the paper, it's because he was attacked and ridiculed mercilessly just for writing it. The only attempt at rebutting his work was sponsored by JREF, written by a scientist who just happened to work for NIST, and never peer-reviewed.

originally posted by: Flatcoat
a reply to: pteridine

He sells the idea but not for money. He likes the attention and admiration. His career is over; he is retired and writing whatever strikes his fancy.

Yes his career is over but not because there was anything wrong with the paper, it's because he was attacked and ridiculed mercilessly just for writing it. The only attempt at rebutting his work was sponsored by JREF, written by a scientist who just happened to work for NIST, and never peer-reviewed.

Another good point, not the bad guy he seems to be...

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine

That was five or so years ago. Apparently, it didn't show thermite, so with all the scientific integrity he could muster, Jones just kept promoting his completely unsubstantiated conclusion to accolades from all those duped by the paper.

This is your "opinion" and not a fact.

Jones was able to separate the red paint chip from the thermite and ran different heat flash test. The fact is, the panel of scientist sitting on the Peer Revive Board asked Jones to run the test again, the outcome was the same.

It is in the report.

It is a fact that the test he did not do was to run the DSC under argon. Without that, he cannot prove thermite because thermite has an oxidant and reductant in the mixture and will react in the absence of air. Jones only ran the DSC in air so he doesn't know what he has. Further, as can be seen in Jones own data, too much energy was released in the DSC under air for the sample to be thermite, and it is most probable that the red paint chips are....red paint.

A thermite demolition conspiracy makes no technical sense. Thermite cannot be accurately timed for effect or depended on for the desired effect. A thin layer of thermite would not do anything to the building even if it could be ignited. Jones estimated that 10 tons of "highly reactive" material were in the dust and didn't react. Hot stuff, that.
"Heat flash tests," or whatever they are, are non-diagnostic.

a reply to: pteridine

It is a fact that the test he did not do was to run the DSC under argon. Without that, he cannot prove thermite because thermite has an oxidant and reductant in the mixture and will react in the absence of air.

Who is making this claim?

A thermite demolition conspiracy makes no technical sense. Thermite cannot be accurately timed for effect or depended on for the desired effect. A thin layer of thermite would not do anything to the building even if it could be ignited. Jones estimated that 10 tons of "highly reactive" material were in the dust and didn't react. Hot stuff, that.
"Heat flash tests," or whatever they are, are non-diagnostic.

This is your opinion?

My understanding is the military has patents of thematic weapons, and is used in making bombs.

a reply to: bknapple32

My advice is not to take anything as credible from websites that are well-known for spreading disinformation, and I can verified that as a fact from my own experience as a pilot and as an aircraft structural technician, where I can relate my experiences to the WTC structures, the 9/11 aircraft and 9/11 events that relate to the world of aviation. In fact, I have debunked claims from "Pilots For 9/11 Truth" and I have gone head-to-head with Rob Balsamo after I caught him and his website spewing disinformation and in some cases, outright lies.

I have led aviation-related chapters that include members who are commercial and military pilots, instructor pilots, private pilots, sport and student pilots, FAA-certified and military aircraft technicians, military officers and enlisted personnel, and military and DoD civilian retirees, and my more than 40 years with the military and defense contractors is how I weed out false and misleading information that conspiracy websites are known for.

To sum it up, don't take those conspiracy websites seriously because they are full of disinformation.

.

a reply to: Debunkology

Did you know that Steven Jones is the same person who mislead 9/11 conspiracy theorist with the following photo by claiming that the photo depicts molten steel? Here is that photo, which was doctored.

Steven Jones Claims This Photo Depicts Molten Steel.

Now, for the rest of the story in reference to that photo and note that what Steven Jones claimed was molten steel was actually a flashlight reflection.

a reply to: Flatcoat

Let's take another look at Steven Jones.

Letter to the Editor
Refuting 9/11 Conspiracy Theory

April 09, 2006
Dear Editor,

After reading in the Daily Herald the presentations made by Professor Steven E. Jones (BYU Physics) to students at UVSC and BYU, I feel obligated to reply to his "Conspiracy Theory" relating to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (9/11/01).

I have studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft. I have also read Professor Jones' (referred to) 42 page unpublished report. In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.

The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all
www.debunking911.com...

Steven Jones has been caught misleading people, plain and simple.



ADMIN EDIT
Massive copy and past from external source has been removed.
This is against our terms and conditions and specifically pointed out in the new 9/11 Forum Rules. Continuing to do this may result in account suspension or termination.

a reply to: Debunkology

From your link.

The 2009 publication in The Open Chemical Physics Journal (TOCPJ) of a fabulous paper by Harrit et al. entitled “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe”

Now, for the rest of the story.

No Thermite Found

The R.J. Lee Company did a 2003 study on the dust and didn't find thermitic material. Other sampling of the pulverized dust by United States Geological Survey and RJ Lee did not report any evidence of thermite or explosives. It has been theorized the "thermite material" found was primer paint.

No evidence has ever been found of explosive charges and there are no recordings of a series of very loud explosions that would have been expected with controlled demolition. Furthermore, there is an alternative explanation for the "thermitic material" the sceptical scientists found in the dust - it is just a type of primer paint. It's calculated 1,200,000 tonnes of building materials were pulverised at the World Trade Center and most minerals are present in the dust (not necessarily in a large quantity).

More extensive sampling of the dust has not found any evidence of thermite or explosives, says a report from the US Geological Survey and another from RJ Lee.

The RJ Group

The RJ Lee Group report considers samples taken several months after the collapses, and it is certain that torch-cutting of steel beams as part of the cleanup process contributed some, if not all, of the spherules seen in these samples.

911research.wtc7.net...

www.wtcreflections.rjlg.com...

a reply to: Dharma Employee

The Trillion Dollar Conspiracy

Most of the money has since been accounted for and I should add that the Pentagon's system could not handle that much money at one time with its outdated system. In other words, there was no conspiracy involving the $2.3 trillion.

a reply to: wildb

Why would he do that, destroy his life and career, reputation ? Sell bad science to who, I don't know much about him but I have yet to see him selling anything to anyone, unlike Guage..

Speaking of Richard Gage, let's take a look at how he has been misleading conspiracy theorist.

Pteredine.

I said “It is not necessary to attack someone because they simply published scientific papers that were peer reviewed prior to publication.”

I find it fascinating that your response to this is yet another attack on a well respected professor.

originally posted by: pteridine
Steven Jones is a man of no integrity who will subvert the scientific method for his own ends, cheat the peer review system, and sell bad science to the unsuspecting.

And then not satisfied with attacking him, you continue in another post….

originally posted by: pteridine
He sells the idea but not for money. He likes the attention and admiration. His career is over; he is retired and writing whatever strikes his fancy.”

Well, I don’t really want to respond to your attack on someone's character because this tactic is used time and time again by people dedicated in presenting official narrative on this forum. Then we are not debating the information but rather fallacy.

Aso, the retirement age of someone in the United States which includes full benefit is for people aged 66 years old. Steven E. Jones is 66 years old, so it is no surprise that he is naturally retired. He has worked all his life, so credit to him for retiring. I find it bizarre you use this to attack him also. “Clutching at straws” is the term that comes to mind.

Moreover. Just because you “pointed out” your opinion from the beginning of the paper being published, does not make your opinion any more valid.

Can you point me in the direction of the paper you have written on this? Has this work been published? Has it been peer reviewed?

Because what I see, is that Steven E. Jones paper was peer reviewed and has been published.
Moreover, the only “gain” Steve E. Jones made by publishing his work, was being attacked and ridiculed by the mainstream media and people like yourself, which continue to this day.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: Debunkology

Did you know that Steven Jones is the same person who mislead 9/11 conspiracy theorist with the following photo by claiming that the photo depicts molten steel? Here is that photo, which was doctored.

Steven Jones Claims This Photo Depicts Molten Steel.

That is interesting, I did not know that. However, are you aware that you have simply posted a random photo, and made an accusation? If you make accusations can you at least post links to the “proof” rather than presenting an accusation?

Also, Skyeagle409, is it necessary to post six times in a row? I am not surprised that you have nearly twice as many posts as stars. Because right now the thread is being diluted with your posts which is nothing but spam of official narrative.

This goes a long way towards establishing motive, if you decide to follow up on this stuff, just wait until you dig around in the stories of Barry Seal, his ties to Escobar, and some obscure little flight schools that go back all the way to Oswald and JFK.


The strange circumstances surrounding the death of FBI terrorism expert John Oneil.


Bush's involvement in the JFK assassination.

originally posted by: Debunkology
Pteredine.

I said “It is not necessary to attack someone because they simply published scientific papers that were peer reviewed prior to publication.”

I find it fascinating that your response to this is yet another attack on a well respected professor.

originally posted by: pteridine
Steven Jones is a man of no integrity who will subvert the scientific method for his own ends, cheat the peer review system, and sell bad science to the unsuspecting.

And then not satisfied with attacking him, you continue in another post….

originally posted by: pteridine
He sells the idea but not for money. He likes the attention and admiration. His career is over; he is retired and writing whatever strikes his fancy.”

Well, I don’t really want to respond to your attack on someone's character because this tactic is used time and time again by people dedicated in presenting official narrative on this forum. Then we are not debating the information but rather fallacy.

Aso, the retirement age of someone in the United States which includes full benefit is for people aged 66 years old. Steven E. Jones is 66 years old, so it is no surprise that he is naturally retired. He has worked all his life, so credit to him for retiring. I find it bizarre you use this to attack him also. “Clutching at straws” is the term that comes to mind.

Moreover. Just because you “pointed out” your opinion from the beginning of the paper being published, does not make your opinion any more valid.

Can you point me in the direction of the paper you have written on this? Has this work been published? Has it been peer reviewed?

Because what I see, is that Steven E. Jones paper was peer reviewed and has been published.
Moreover, the only “gain” Steve E. Jones made by publishing his work, was being attacked and ridiculed by the mainstream media and people like yourself, which continue to this day.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: Debunkology

Did you know that Steven Jones is the same person who mislead 9/11 conspiracy theorist with the following photo by claiming that the photo depicts molten steel? Here is that photo, which was doctored.

Steven Jones Claims This Photo Depicts Molten Steel.

That is interesting, I did not know that. However, are you aware that you have simply posted a random photo, and made an accusation? If you make accusations can you at least post links to the “proof” rather than presenting an accusation?

Also, Skyeagle409, is it necessary to post six times in a row? I am not surprised that you have nearly twice as many posts as stars. Because right now the thread is being diluted with your posts which is nothing but spam of official narrative.

Steven Jones is a con artist. He decided that he wanted a demolition plot and then overreached without even coming up with a workable plot. I have written no paper as the only samples of the original material are held by Jones and, for some reason, he is not forthcoming. Jones concept is a non-starter. He has not shown anything of substance. Paint-thin layers of thermite would be difficult to ignite, so he would have to show that he can ignite them on the steel structure and measure their effect. He has not shown thermite with the DSC because he ran the analysis in air and burned the binder in the paint. BYU knew this and forced a retirement on Jones because of the shoddiness of his work.

I will make you the same offer that I have made to others who subscribe to demolition of the towers. Assume you are the plotter. How did you do it? What did you use, how much, and where did you place the charges? When did you place the charges? What did you use to trigger the charges?

What I usually get from this offer is "you don't have to know this to know the buildings were demoed." Really? You say that it was explosives, but since the respondent has no knowledge of explosives at all, you can't even theorize. I get the "super-secret demo material" reply and off we go on another impossible theory. I read "it just didn't look right" which is interesting, as no one knows how it was supposed to look except those who desire a conspiracy and state that "it just didn't look right" and think that sums it up.

If you have a theory, produce it.

a reply to: Informer1958

Anyone who can read the thermite equation understands that air is not necessary for the reaction to take place. Elemental Aluminum reduces iron oxide to metallic iron as it oxidizes to aluminum oxide. The thermodynamics of the reaction is such that the iron is molten.
That thermite cannot be timed for a demolition which is why it is not used for commercial building demolitions. This is a fact and not an opinion. Look back through a few earlier posts of skyeagle; I think he had a quote from a demolition expert.
Thermobaric weapons are in the inventory but are not thermite nor are they quiet. This would be a bad choice for demolition.

originally posted by: pteridine
a reply to: Informer1958

That thermite cannot be timed for a demolition which is why it is not used for commercial building demolitions. This is a fact and not an opinion.

I assume you've heard of an igniter... Do you think that maybe igniters can be 'timed'?

What if you had two of these?
looseendshome.com...

originally posted by: twitchy

originally posted by: pteridine
a reply to: Informer1958

That thermite cannot be timed for a demolition which is why it is not used for commercial building demolitions. This is a fact and not an opinion.

I assume you've heard of an igniter... Do you think that maybe igniters can be 'timed'?

What if you had two of these?
looseendshome.com...

The thermite reaction is slow, relative to demolitions, so the idea that you could melt your way down the building is not a good one. If you ever look at any videos of thermite, you will see that from the time the igniter sets off the thermite to when there is an effect is much longer than what would be necessary to take down a building. Then, there is an uncertainty in the effect. Will the thermite actually melt through what you intend it to? How long will it take? Seconds is not good enough because floors were being cleared in less than 2/10 of a second.

originally posted by: pteridine from the time the igniter sets off the thermite to when there is an effect is much longer than what would be necessary to take down a building.

So after claiming that thermite cannot be timed, which it obviously can, now you're saying that thermite wouldn't be able to take a building down because the timing from an initial ignition to a full blown thermitic reaction is too slow? That's bunk. And as far as 'uncertainty in the effect', well that's what recipes are for. A consistent mixture will produce consistent results, if you follow grannies recipe for oatmeal cookies, they will likely turn out to be pretty close to her cookies. Chemical reactions are like that.

a reply to: twitchy

He said it can't be timed for effect, there's a difference. With explosives the effect happens all at about the same time. With thermite it burns at different rates, so one column may burn through faster than another so the effect can't be timed properly.

a reply to: Zaphod58

And I say it can be 'timed for effect'. If you have a specific burn rate for a specific thermitic compound and you apply it in consistent amounts to consistent structures then, yeah it can be timed and coordinated. Fairly easily. Can you imagine a professional fireworks show if they had no idea what burn rates their chemicals were using?

a reply to: twitchy

The burn rate is specific, but the materials it is burning through isn't. If the steel it's burning through isn't identically uniform, it will burn through at different rates.