• 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

Stupiter dust

Apollo20 said:
StoneRook:

You have a valid point but dust from comparable building collapses might be hard to find because of the involvement of jet aircraft, the unique design and age of the WTC etc, etc.

One point to remember, though, is that a lot of research was carried out on WTC dust because of environmental and health concerns as well as the associated insurance claims. Thus many researchers have been looking for some distinctive characteristic of WTC dust that could serve to distinguish it from ordinary " NYC" dust. Iron-rich microspheres were actually on the short list of such characteristics but I believe slag wool was finally chosen by the EPA as the definitive WTC dust identifier.
Click to expand...


We will probably see with the passage of time that the many different studies of WTC dust - probably most of which are currently isolated from one another - (like dust!) - coalesce.

These meta-studies that emerge - these research proto-planets - will probably make identifying samples such as Jones' much easier.


Beaming to you live from Stupiter - which is right between Saturn and Jupiter,

Max
 
Hot Rubble Pile Reference

Found this just today:

American Journal of Industrial Medicine 42, 532, (2002):

Paper on health and safety issues at the WTC site by R. Spadafora:

"Fires burned beneath the rubble for the first 4 months of the operation. Helicopters using thermal imaging cameras revealed underground temperatures ranging from 400 to more than 2,800 deg F."

This is coincidently the melting point of iron!

However, I believe this is much hotter than the thermal imaging data reported by the USGS.
 
Apollo20 said:
Found this just today:

American Journal of Industrial Medicine 42, 532, (2002):

Paper on health and safety issues at the WTC site by R. Spadafora:

"Fires burned beneath the rubble for the first 4 months of the operation. Helicopters using thermal imaging cameras revealed underground temperatures ranging from 400 to more than 2,800 deg F."

This is coincidently the melting point of iron!

However, I believe this is much hotter than the thermal imaging data reported by the USGS.
Click to expand...

Found and downloaded that paper. After reading it, I wanted to run down the original source for that "2,800" degree claim. To that end, that article provides an attribution: "Vincoli JW, Black NH, Burkhammer SC. 2002. SH and E at Ground Zero. Professional Safety, May 2002, 21–28".

I found the periodical "Professional Safety" (it's nice to work for a university. Their online periodical collection is great!), and got a hold of the article "SH&E at Ground Zero" (I don't know what "SH&E" stands for, but they're a group of professionals working for the Bechtel corporation). The bottom line is, the article implies that the temperature readings were taken by Bechtel's own helicopter:​

"Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400F to more than 2,800F. The surface was so hot that standing too long in one spot softened (and even melted) the soles of our safety shoes. Steel toes would often heat up and become intolerable.​
Click to expand...

So in the end, we can attribute the 2,800 degree temperature measurement to the Bechtel corporation, documented in the article cited above.

Now, the question is why the USGS didn't use Bechtel's measurement in their own report, but that's a topic for a different thread. I can't figure out why myself. At any rate, we can now return to the microsphere topic.

(Ps. If anyone wants a copy of either the American Journal of Industrial Medicine, or the Professional Safety article, I have both. I'm not certain what the copyright issues in sharing them are are, but in the name of research, I don't see a big problem (if anyone else does, speak up!). Just PM me).
 
SH&E is a safety industry abbreviation for "Safety, Health, & Environmental."
 
beachnut said:
Wrong 6 years ago. Gee, even RJ Lee said fire. Jones made this up 4 years after 9/11. Mislead by an idiot idea, from a possible insane professor of fusion physics. I hope his physics work was better than his failed thermite and cider block test model of the WTC. Failure is 9/11 truth, and represented in Jones work of zero research, just talk school of DRG. Did DRG support Jones' work on the article claiming evidence that Jesus Christ visited the Americas. Did Jones get help from Christ to figure out Thermite?

Seems to me, to have this perfectly insane insight into 9/11, 4 years after the fact, he must of received the word from Christ when he also was inspried to writh his article about Christ. With expert theologian and super hearsay "truth" aurthor, DRG, I doubt if we can fight the truth! As you say, with enough time the insane ideas of Jones will have to be truth; just ask Uncle Fetzer. Oops, he broke up with Jones when they went their separate but both nut case idea way.

So you are not sure about real evidence, but you are sure with enough time the pile of lies with come up to be the truth.

You may be a truther if you say -
Of course you are so sure about that you retract your statement almost - Oops I made a mistake, you did not say anything. So you are a truther.

Just glad you did not find real support for Jones in his RJ Lee citations. I think you may of uncovered errors in Lee's work, you should go public; or did you miss it as you posted accepting the errors in Jones' work?

So you believe 9/11 was an inside job, like the guy who Clinton said those groups ideas make them "look like idiots". Or you are not a truther but keep repeating How do you feel to have gut feeling that even Clinton says is a sign of "looking like an idiot"? Good that Jones just made this up and has crazy ideas on 9/11; how did you get your false ideas, and a gut feeling, that is also wrong on 9/11? Did these charlatans fool you? Was it the false ideas from LCFC? What is the key for people like you to say, , without evidence and just the false papers like Jones' work?
Click to expand...

didn't you already post something similar to this a few pages back?

oh wait, now you've thrown clinton's comments into the mix.

:boggled:
 
On another board, a poster made a rather cryptic remark about a mineral substance identified as tremolite that is used as a substitute for asbestos in modern construction. Perhaps a component of rock wool incorporated into the insulation? Would it have contributed to any of the oddities in the dust?

(Lets see if Jones eventually tries to tell us that that should be present in thermite.)

And now, thinking of that, was there any significant amount of calcium in any of Jones' microspheres? That should have been present in any kind of cast thermite that i can think of, which would be neccessary to make some of the cuts that would support Jones' theories.
 
Apollo20 said:
Found this just today:

American Journal of Industrial Medicine 42, 532, (2002):

Paper on health and safety issues at the WTC site by R. Spadafora:

"Fires burned beneath the rubble for the first 4 months of the operation. Helicopters using thermal imaging cameras revealed underground temperatures ranging from 400 to more than 2,800 deg F."

This is coincidently the melting point of iron!

However, I believe this is much hotter than the thermal imaging data reported by the USGS.
Click to expand...

IT is hotter than the thermal imaging data published by the USGS.
As I always stated I expect those types of temperatures in the rubble pile.
 
I think the answer is simple enough. For some time now Dr Jones has been sitting on evidence that could help to bring the real perpetrators of this crime to justice . If Dr Jones really thinks what he hs found is something why doesn't he do two things

1 Pony up the money , hire some real experts in the field to examine his "evidence" and let the chips fall where they may instead of just using it as some more slides in his traveling show.

2 Hand some of this magic dust over to the prpoer authorities

I think i can guess why. Although you could make the argument that by attempting to publish this paper he is finally trying to do something more than just add some mileage to his lecture circuit.
 
R.Mackey said:
:eye-poppi Hokey smokes!!


So rather than focus on hyperbaric explosives, you should instead start looking into hypotheses involving, for instance, expanding foam, or (dare I say) collapse of the upper structure.

If you need still further help, as I imagine you do, please start another thread. This is long overdue.
Click to expand...


I started a new thread at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=105423

I have no idea what you mean by an 'expanding foam' - I take it you were joking.
 
I stand corrected!

Well, I have been complaining on this thread that Steven Jones is yet to tell us how much of his WTC dust sample is "iron-rich microspheres". In fact I have suggested that all he has said by way of an answer to this question is that "We found an abundance of tiny solidified droplets... (which) were predominately iron-rich."

Now the word abundance is very vague, but it certainly suggests a lot... say more than 25 %.

Well, I have now discovered that SJ has in fact made an estimate of the fraction of microspheres in the WTC dust, so, I STAND CORRECTED!

But what is Jones' estimate?

Well, go to page 78 of his May 2007 JONES article entitled "Revisiting 9/11/2001 - Applying the Scientific Method."

Here we read:

"The mass of the two larger spheres (0.012 g) found in the sample can be used to provide a crude estimate of the fraction of iron-rich spheres in the dust: 0.012/32.1 = 0.04 %"

0.04 % !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is Jones' idea of "an abundance"!!!!
 
R.Mackey said:
Wow, it's Craig Furlong. Never thought I'd see you here again. I might take this opportunity to remind you to retract your seismic paper. Your prompt attention is appreciated. Thanks.
Click to expand...

You are the one who needs to clean up his error, Mackey. I notice in your "On Debunking 9/11 Debunking" you claim Ross' and my paper is incorrect (page 79 and following). However, the truth is you are in gross error in your paper regarding our use of the term "origin time" for seismic events, and everything you wrote and the examples provided do not dissuade from this fact. It is amazing what some people do to prop up false ideas such as what you did in your paper on a simple time definition. Personally, I think you are smarter than that--perhaps you just lied.

"Origin time" means exactly what it says. The following are examples of this seismic term's definition:

The precise time that an earthquake rupture occurs. On a seismogram, the earthquake origin time can be determined by the P wave arrival.
http://rev.seis.sc.edu/definition.html

What is the origin time of the earthquake?; that is when did it happen?
http://mimp.mems.cmu.edu/~ordofmag/earthqua/earqua.htm

Determination of the time at which the earthquake broke out : the origin time
http://www.mgm.monschau.de/seismic/english/artikel/artikel_6.php


And some origin times referred to in our paper:
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_wtc.html

Therefore, our paper still stands while yours needs cleanup...and 9/11 WAS an inside job.
 
Gravy said:
SH&E is a safety industry abbreviation for "Safety, Health, & Environmental."
Click to expand...
Another common abbreviation for the industry is "ESOH" or Environment, Safety, & Occupational Health or "ESH" or Environment, Safety, and Health.

Depends on your country and other factors.
 
quicknthedead said:
You are the one who needs to clean up his error, Mackey. I notice in your "On Debunking 9/11 Debunking" you claim Ross' and my paper is incorrect (page 79 and following). However, the truth is you are in gross error in your paper regarding our use of the term "origin time" for seismic events, and everything you wrote and the examples provided do not dissuade from this fact. It is amazing what some people do to prop up false ideas such as what you did in your paper on a simple time definition. Personally, I think you are smarter than that--perhaps you just lied.

"Origin time" means exactly what it says. The following are examples of this seismic term's definition:

The precise time that an earthquake rupture occurs. On a seismogram, the earthquake origin time can be determined by the P wave arrival.
http://rev.seis.sc.edu/definition.html

What is the origin time of the earthquake?; that is when did it happen?
http://mimp.mems.cmu.edu/~ordofmag/earthqua/earqua.htm

Determination of the time at which the earthquake broke out : the origin time
http://www.mgm.monschau.de/seismic/english/artikel/artikel_6.php


And some origin times referred to in our paper:
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_wtc.html

Therefore, our paper still stands while yours needs cleanup...and 9/11 WAS an inside job.
Click to expand...


Why do you enjoy being slapped down by someone so much smarter than you are? How does it help the evil movement you serve?

Incidentally, there were no explosives used at the WTC complex on the day of the jihadist attacks.
 
quicknthedead said:
Nonsense on your part.

Get knowledge; it will help.
BTW, the evil you speak of is in your camp.
Click to expand...



One of the great joys of being a rationalist is getting to watch a real scientist with a fine mind expose you doltish frauds.
 
Last edited:
quicknthedead said:
You are the one who needs to clean up his error, Mackey. I notice in your "On Debunking 9/11 Debunking" you claim Ross' and my paper is incorrect (page 79 and following). However, the truth is you are in gross error in your paper regarding our use of the term "origin time" for seismic events, and everything you wrote and the examples provided do not dissuade from this fact. It is amazing what some people do to prop up false ideas such as what you did in your paper on a simple time definition. Personally, I think you are smarter than that--perhaps you just lied.
Click to expand...


Funny, even Dr. Griffin won't stand behind your paper. He merely cites it as a "disputed possibility," even though he only cites Truth Movement sources.

I really don't get your strategy. Your error is so simple, so instantly verified by anyone who can read a graph -- what do you possibly have to gain by still vehemently attacking anyone who tries to correct you?

Money? Fame? Help me out, here.
 
pomeroo said:
One of the great joys of being a rationalist is getting to watch a real scientist with a fine mind expose you doltish frauds
Click to expand...

I will consider it a personal revenge against some of these arrogant truthers the fact that the 911 truth movement will go nowhere and will not garner support from ANY respected scientist or ANYBODY who even has a chance of doing something about it EVER.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

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