• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

JONES new paper:Microspheres and Temperatures

I'd say it was wrong to collect "dust" a long ways away from the cite, analyze it then attribute it to being from the WTC (although it could be I guess). I don't see any analysis of a control sample to make any correlations to and yet they seem to suggest a control sample wouldn't have the concentrations they observed. I'd say that was wrong.

I see a well dressed pig I'm not taking to the prom.
 
http://journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp.pdf

This paper seems to raise a lot of the questions I have had recently had.

No mention of therm?te in this one.

So where did they go wrong?
I think you missed the new "buzz" words for THERMITE! Jones is calling thermite -
The data provide strong evidence that chemical reactions which were both violent and highly-exothermic contributed to the destruction of the WTC buildings.
Or could the nut bar being talking about fire? BTW, I found the same stuff in my fire place! I wonder what violent and highly-exothermic did not destroy my wood burning stove (the fireplace).

chemical reactions which were both violent and highly-exothermic
This is Jones' new PA version of THERMITE, but then, his new paper is saying there was melted steel on a scale that destroyed the WTC. Jones is kind of a nut on this. BTW, Jones makes errors, bet you can't find them. Plus Jones supports the Official story! Bet you can't tell me his Official story support elements.


Two tasks for you grasshopper. Point out the simple errors Jones made, one will do! Two, point out how he supports fire did it. Good luck. You could ask Dr Jones, who planted his fantasy thermite.
 
Last edited:
I think you missed the new "buzz" words for THERMITE! Jones is calling thermite - Or could the nut bar being talking about fire? BTW, I found the same stuff in my fire place! I wonder what violent and highly-exothermic did not destroy my wood burning stove (the fireplace).

This is Jones' new PA version of THERMITE, but then, his new paper is saying there was melted steel on a scale that destroyed the WTC. Jones is kind of a nut on this. BTW, Jones makes errors, bet you can't find them. Plus Jones supports the Official story! Bet you can't tell me his Official story support elements.

Two tasks for you grasshopper. Point out the simple errors Jones made, one will do! Two, point out how he supports fire did it. Good luck. You could ask Dr Jones, who planted his fantasy thermite.

Gimme a small hint and I'll have a go at it.
 
Jones is trying hard to lead people back to the official story. Co-author Crockett Grabbe has been suggesting that Muslim terrorists planted thermite in the towers. These are insiders doing disinfo, leading the truth movement down a dead end. The thermite theory is absurd.

Truth is, we've got evaporated steel, and plenty of radiation. It's some sort of nuclear reaction. Jones, plus guys like Frank Greening and Van Romero know what it was. They're all nuclear physicists and chemists from the nuclear industry.

They've figured out a relatively low-yield, controllable reaction. Probably fusion, given the tritium levels. Tritium has a half-life of 12 years. With all the clean-up work they've been doing at ground zero, they should have the levels down to where they can start building there pretty soon.

Look for cancer rates around ground zero to continue to explode over the next decade.
 
Jones is trying hard to lead people back to the official story. Co-author Crockett Grabbe has been suggesting that Muslim terrorists planted thermite in the towers. These are insiders doing disinfo, leading the truth movement down a dead end. The thermite theory is absurd.

Truth is, we've got evaporated steel, and plenty of radiation. It's some sort of nuclear reaction. Jones, plus guys like Frank Greening and Van Romero know what it was. They're all nuclear physicists and chemists from the nuclear industry.

They've figured out a relatively low-yield, controllable reaction. Probably fusion, given the tritium levels. Tritium has a half-life of 12 years. With all the clean-up work they've been doing at ground zero, they should have the levels down to where they can start building there pretty soon.

Look for cancer rates around ground zero to continue to explode over the next decade.



BZZZZT! Sorry, wrong answer.
 
Jones is trying hard to lead people back to the official story. Co-author Crockett Grabbe has been suggesting that Muslim terrorists planted thermite in the towers. These are insiders doing disinfo, leading the truth movement down a dead end. The thermite theory is absurd.

Truth is, we've got evaporated steel, and plenty of radiation. It's some sort of nuclear reaction. Jones, plus guys like Frank Greening and Van Romero know what it was. They're all nuclear physicists and chemists from the nuclear industry.

They've figured out a relatively low-yield, controllable reaction. Probably fusion, given the tritium levels. Tritium has a half-life of 12 years. With all the clean-up work they've been doing at ground zero, they should have the levels down to where they can start building there pretty soon.

Look for cancer rates around ground zero to continue to explode over the next decade.
All I can do is laugh. Have you even finished grade school? Sorry, but if you are not joking, please go back to school, or finish grade school, get help from mom, or give up, you have super stupid ideas on 9/11 and it is disrespectful to those who died on 9/11 to make up lies without evidence! Everything you posted is wrong.
 
Last edited:
Truth is, we've got evaporated steel, and plenty of radiation. It's some sort of nuclear reaction. Jones, plus guys like Frank Greening and Van Romero know what it was. They're all nuclear physicists and chemists from the nuclear industry.

They've figured out a relatively low-yield, controllable reaction. Probably fusion, given the tritium levels. Tritium has a half-life of 12 years. With all the clean-up work they've been doing at ground zero, they should have the levels down to where they can start building there pretty soon.

Look for cancer rates around ground zero to continue to explode over the next decade.

No it's dilithium, not tritium. That's "di" meaning 2, and lithium= 2-lithium, which I can only hope is your current recommended dosage.
 
Dr. Jones' paper is interesting but, based on a quick read, he never really addresses possible "natural" sources of metal-rich microspheres. This would make the paper of considerably more value.

Why do I get the feeling SJ et al. are hiding their conclusions...
 
That's a lot of moronic authors for one paper. Perhaps they should have consulted experts rather than Legges, Grabbes, and Ryans.
 
This is abstracted from an e-mail I sent to SJ about a month ago:

"Right now my short list of candidates that could contribute to iron-rich microspheres in the WTC dust (I am sure Chainsaw could add a lot more!) is (in no particular order!):

Pigments and fillers used in plastics
Fly ash from the combustion of cellulose-based materials: wood, cardboard and paper
Welding fume left in the towers from construction activities
Wear particles from grinding and cutting during construction of the towers
Iron powder cores from electronics (e.g. transformer cores)
Pyrotechnic agents (including thermite!)
NYC background levels of particulate from general environmental sources"

I would like to see SJ consider these sources, ONE BY ONE, before he draws any conclusions that he has found evidence for the use of explosives or thermite in the towers.
 
S&J Scientific Co., Provo, Utah

What, so now Jones is running his own consulting company? What, does he specialize in secret nano-thermite demolition techniques?
 
Ok, I looked over the paper. It certainly wouldn't pass review for any of my journals. Of course, his appendix explaining where he got the samples would make any reviewer from a forensic journal laugh.

One thing bothers me: Why does Jones assume that he knows the exact composition of the particles? There are three elements not detected in any X-ray technique: Hydrogen, Helium and Lithium. Why, then, does Jones assume that he has Fe2O3 and not Fe(OH)2?
 
Truth is, we've got evaporated steel, and plenty of radiation. It's some sort of nuclear reaction. Jones, plus guys like Frank Greening and Van Romero know what it was. They're all nuclear physicists and chemists from the nuclear industry.

They've figured out a relatively low-yield, controllable reaction. Probably fusion, given the tritium levels. Tritium has a half-life of 12 years...

Wrong. As noted in the other thread:

http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1678&context=lbnl

Traces of tritiated water (HTO) were detected at [the]World Trade Center (WTC) ground zero after the 9/11/01 terrorist attack...

Several tritium radioluminescent (RL) devices were investigated as possible sources of the traces of tritium at ground zero. It was determined that [the]Boeing 767-222 aircraft operated by the United Airlines that hit WTC Tower 2 as well as [the]Boeing 767-223ER operated by the American Airlines, that hit WTC Tower 1, had a combined 34{.3} Ci of tritium at the time of impact, contained in emergency signs. WTC hosted several law-enforcement agencies such as ATF, CIA, US Secret Service and US Customs. The ATF office had two weapon vaults in WTC Building 6. Also 63 Police Officers, possibly carrying handguns, died in the attack. The weaponry containing tritium sights was therefore a likely and significant source of tritium. It is possible that some of the 2824 victims carried tritium watches, however this source appears to be less significant than the other two.​
(http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=104832)

... and:

Tritium is generally very very low in the environment in general and 55x "Above average" is still much lower than you would ever expect as an indicator of fallout from any fusion weapon. Remember that radioisotopes can be measured at extremely minute levels, so if the general amount of tritium is very nearly zero than 55x is still a tiny tiny tiny itty bitty amount. The fact that they don't give an absolute amount of tritium (only "55X") is probably because it would look a lot less impressive if expressed in parts per billion or even parts per trillion...

... Now as far as what could account for the increased tritium. Even before I read the report I immediately thought "radiolumonescent devices" because thats the most common use for tritium and would more than account for the amount found. Basically these are self-powered glowing items which glow brightly and continuously in the dark, even without the need for "charging" with light. The amount of tritium in the, in terms of curies is quite high. They are common in emergency signs in aircraft. I actually think the amount of 34ci on the aircraft is a tad bit lower than I would have thought.

Also, as mentioned, in the sites of weapons, tritium is commonly used. It's found in higher-end glowing watches, but I doubt that would be anything signifficant. I have an exit sign which is labeled as containing 80 Ci of tritium as of manufacture. That's actually a lot. Most emergency exit signs have 20-40 or something like that.

But that having been said, they are quite common for emergency exit signs, especially because they can be installed and meet qualifications for emergency lighting without the need for any wiring or drilling of holes etc..

I do not know of any in the WTC or surrounding buildings, but I would not be surprised if there were. You would not need many to account for these levels. Anyone can buy these things. They're common. They have them in the library in my town and the walmart. They range from $150 up, but that can still be cheaper than a standard battery-backed exit sign and an electrician to wire for it. So, if you look around you see them a lot.

The world trade center was a HUGE office complex and since you don't need to have any sort of special licence for one of these, there may have been some.

Add in the weapons sites. The tritium signs on the aircraft. Possible broken signs in nearby buildings. It can more than account for the modest increase.

Tritium levels are far too low to indicate any sort of nuclear weapons use, and are explained by the presence of other sources.

ETA: Let me phrase that last sentence better - Tritium levels.... are explained by the presence of other very common, non-fusion, non-fission sources.
 
Last edited:
Dr. Jones' paper is interesting but, based on a quick read, he never really addresses possible "natural" sources of metal-rich microspheres. This would make the paper of considerably more value.

Why do I get the feeling SJ et al. are hiding their conclusions...

I did a study of rice husk ash in grad school, and I think I could show about 200 spectra that looked exactly like Jones's. Sulfur, aluminum, even iron rich particles are all extremely common, and all they represent are the primary elements found in the Earth's crust.

*For anyone interested: Rice husk ash is made by taking a large pile of rice husks and setting it on fire.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom