Micro Spheres in world trade center dust solved.

[lapman]

Perhaps Jones is simply being very careful and following in the foot steps of NIST:

"I'll trade you my microsphere report for your WTC 7 report".

I can tell you this, however, that I have not seen enough data from Dr. Jones to carry out any scientific assessment of the origin of the WTC microspheres.

But on the other hand Jones is not obliged to show me anything!

He may not be obliged to show anything, but he would require the NIST to do so. So, why can't he live up to the standards that he would require of others? Isn't he a supporter of the demand for a new, independent, transparent investigation?

 

[BigAl]

Is there a summary of this thread or some URL that I can cite when someone parrots Jones?

 

[Sizzler]

no because the microsperes have not been solved. debunkers would like to think so but it just isn't true.

CC will say he can make them from a ham sandwhich wrapped in foil. Then he will show you a macro donut, much unlike Jones spheres.

Greening will mention fly ash but is unable to post content % of elements or present any other follow up research.

So although Jones' work is not conclusive, noone here has actually reproduced them or offer any supported explanation.

Oh and if Gravy were still here, he'd say that spheres just occur commonly in office fires. He'd then point you to one paper that he quote mined.

Oh, and others will say they are due to clean up and/or construction events. However elemental content of spheres created by cutting torches does not match those found in WTC dust.

So in the end, it is just a bunch of speculation for all sides, Jones included. But the fact remains, there is no decently supported explanation for the spheres found in the WTC dust by Jones, Lee report, and the rest.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

But there are 1000s of possibilities and these "great" researchers ignore all but 1. That 1 being the most implausible one. Great work!

 

[Sizzler]

But there are 1000s of possibilities and these "great" researchers ignore all but 1. That 1 being the most implausible one. Great work!

(bolding mine)

Isn't this some kind of logical fallacy?

Anyway, the debunkers haven't been able to reasonably support even one possibility, so my point stands.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

The burden of proof is for the one making the claim (Jones) to prove his claim, not for us to come up with the 1000s of other explanations and prove them. But of course one would have to be open minded and not have a pre-determined conclusion of an inside job, etc to understand that. Hence your stance that those who don't prove his baseless claim are somehow unable to disprove him.

Why do you guys always have to resort to such shallow tactics? So your point fails again miserably.

 

[Sizzler]

The burden of proof is for the one making the claim (Jones) to prove his claim, not for us to come up with the 1000s of other explanations and prove them. But of course one would have to be open minded and not have a pre-determined conclusion of an inside job, etc to understand that. Hence your stance that those who don't prove his baseless claim are somehow unable to disprove him.

Why do you guys always have to resort to such shallow tactics? So your point fails again miserably.

Title of thread is "Microspheres Solved". That would be a claim, and that claim is unsupported.

To be clear, Jones' hypothesis is not conclusive.

To be even more clear, I'm not shifting burdon of proof to dubunkers to disprove Jones' theory, but if they claim "Microspheres Solved", they do need to back it up with decent support.

My point stands, but cleary not as high as the high horse you are on.

 

[beachnut]

no because the microsperes have not been solved. debunkers would like to think so but it just isn't true.

CC will say he can make them from a ham sandwhich wrapped in foil. Then he will show you a macro donut, much unlike Jones spheres.

Greening will mention fly ash but is unable to post content % of elements or present any other follow up research.

So although Jones' work is not conclusive, noone here has actually reproduced them or offer any supported explanation.

Oh and if Gravy were still here, he'd say that spheres just occur commonly in office fires. He'd then point you to one paper that he quote mined.

Oh, and others will say they are due to clean up and/or construction events. However elemental content of spheres created by cutting torches does not match those found in WTC dust.

So in the end, it is just a bunch of speculation for all sides, Jones included. But the fact remains, there is no decently supported explanation for the spheres found in the WTC dust by Jones, Lee report, and the rest.

No speculation! Jones made up thermite taking out the WTC 4 years after the fact with zero evidence, and not a clue! Jones is the funniest expert in 9/11 truth, late coming up with ideas and no real evidence to back up his failed ideas. No idea how anyone can support his ideas seriously given the facts he made it up on his own.

Jones made up stuff (yes, I cheated, I paid attention during fraud 101 in my 55 years as a kid who hates arbitrary authoritarian crap, an electrical engineer with a masters in the same, and a pilot who taught others to fly large jet aircraft, and a kid who has found micro-spheres in his backyard when he was 10, iron/fe and all). People who are unable to research, lack knowledge, and are fundamentally followers, believe jones' made up junk. Case closed expect for people who can not learn to think for themselves and research, or gain knowledge outside hearsay junk ideas made up by 9/11 truth. ihs.

... My point stands, ...

Your point (fe) was debunked over 100 years ago, and more. Experience, knowledge, and logical thinking can prevent being fooled by Jones and 9/11 truth. Education is the key. Lincoln knew it; I recommend all to go sharpen the sword and get it; knowledge.

Your point fizzled like poorly mixed thermite.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Title of thread is "Microspheres Solved". That would be a claim, and that claim is unsupported.

To be clear, Jones' hypothesis is not conclusive.

To be even more clear, I'm not shifting burdon of proof to dubunkers to disprove Jones' theory, but if they claim "Microspheres Solved", they do need to back it up with decent support.

My point stands, but cleary not as high as the high horse you are on.

No, you said ALL debunkers. You didn't say just the one person who claimed they may have an answer. You are making a separate generalization than from this thread. This thread is not a big compendium of "debunkers" (a word you use for people who don't buy into ******** because of their personal beliefs)

Yes, we all know very well Jone's theory is not conclusive, hence the point. But for the conspiracy side, being conclusive is not a requirement. Simply coming up with a possibility, no matter how rare is. And then unless someone can disprove every possibility, then to people like you, they can't debunk them.

Sorry, but I don't think your post ever stood to begin with. The stance you are taking, but trying to dodge so as not to be held accountable for is that Jone's research is legitimate unless someone can show otherwise.

 

[DavidJames]

My point stands...

Maybe you "won" a point, maybe not. People like you, Red, Swing and others are obsessed with getting just one fact right, somehow that gives you the encouragement to go on. Keep the faith, my friend, it's all you've got.

 

[cisco]

To be clear, Jones' hypothesis is not conclusive.

To be even more clear, Jones's hypothesis is also preposterous. He arrived lightly at a damning conclusion, like so many others. It's agenda-driven and it's profoundly offensive.

 

[johnny karate]

I'm just not sure how "conclusive" an analysis for these dust particles Sizzler requires.

See, here's the deal: You have a particular phenomenon. You have an explanation for this phenomenon that is mundane.

For rational people, that is sufficient. Only irrational minds concoct unlikely explanations for mundane phenomenon.

One thing that Sizzler and the other CTers are going to have to understand is that the rest of us aren't all that interested in convincing you of anything "conclusively".

 

[Sizzler]

No, you said ALL debunkers. You didn't say just the one person who claimed they may have an answer. You are making a separate generalization than from this thread. This thread is not a big compendium of "debunkers" (a word you use for people who don't buy into ******** because of their personal beliefs)

Point remains, there isn't one supported explanation for microspheres either in this thread or anywhere else.

Yes, we all know very well Jone's theory is not conclusive, hence the point. But for the conspiracy side, being conclusive is not a requirement. Simply coming up with a possibility, no matter how rare is. And then unless someone can disprove every possibility, then to people like you, they can't debunk them.

Being conclusive is a requirement if the truth movement wishes to get anywhere. If they don't care about conclusive results, they are a non-issue. So what is the issue here anyway? Or are you just on a rant?

Sorry, but I don't think your post ever stood to begin with. The stance you are taking, but trying to dodge so as not to be held accountable for is that Jone's research is legitimate unless someone can show otherwise.

My post was very clear, and it remains unchallenged yet. I'm not dodging anything.

 

[Sizzler]

To be even more clear, Jones's hypothesis is also preposterous. He arrived lightly at a damning conclusion, like so many others. It's agenda-driven and it's profoundly offensive.

That could be true.

 

[Sizzler]

I'm just not sure how "conclusive" an analysis for these dust particles Sizzler requires.

See, here's the deal: You have a particular phenomenon. You have an explanation for this phenomenon that is mundane.

For rational people, that is sufficient. Only irrational minds concoct unlikely explanations for mundane phenomenon.

One thing that Sizzler and the other CTers are going to have to understand is that the rest of us aren't all that interested in convincing you of anything "conclusively".

Yes you make a good point. I think the microspheres alone would only be able to prove that high temperatures (in WTC pre-collapsed fire) existed to create them (~1500C).

 

[cisco]

That could be true.

No, it is true. Even if you accept the astronomically small chance that Jones could be correct, it is still factual to state he arrived at his conclusion lightly and through shoddy scientific inquiry. If he was right, it would be purely by chance. The fact that he has made this his new career proves it is agenda-driven, and the fact that I am profoundly offended proves it is profoundly offensive.

 

[Sizzler]

No, it is true. Even if you accept the astronomically small chance that Jones could be correct, it is still factual to state he arrived at his conclusion lightly and through shoddy scientific inquiry. If he was right, it would be purely by chance. The fact that he has made this his new career proves it is agenda-driven, and the fact that I am profoundly offended proves it is profoundly offensive.

1. What science isn't agenda-driven?

2. Much science arrives at conclusions via accidents or by chance.

3. Your opinion is your own and I respect that.

 

[cisco]

1. What science isn't agenda-driven?

The word 'personal' was supposed to be implied. Most science is driven by non-personal agendas of exploration, knowledge, truth, public education, the greater good, etc.

2. Much science arrives at conclusions via accidents or by chance.

Historically, yes. That doesn't justify misuse of the scientific method, though. If "Science" was a church, Jones would have long ago been excommunicated for blasphemy. The guy pisses on integrity and eats honesty for breakfast.

 

[Sizzler]

The word 'personal' was supposed to be implied. Most science is driven by non-personal agendas of exploration, knowledge, truth, public education, the greater good, etc.

Yes I agree. Is Jones being personal though? Wouldn't his agenda fall into the knowledge, greater good, etc, categories? Is it really that unlikely that he is being genuine?

Historically, yes. That doesn't justify misuse of the scientific method, though. If "Science" was a church, Jones would have long ago been excommunicated for blasphemy. The guy pisses on integrity and eats honesty for breakfast.

I'm not sure how the scientific method can be misused other than "fudging" data.

I haven't seen any claims of Jones fudging data. I have seen examples of poor interpretation. However all science, good or bad, has to pass the scientific filter (peer review) so in the end his own game will either see his success or failure. He can't cheat at this one. Bad science always sinks and good science always rises given time. I personally don't think enough time has passed to make judgment, yet. You would disagree with that I know.

 

[cisco]

Yes I agree. Is Jones being personal though? Wouldn't his agenda fall into the knowledge, greater good, etc, categories? Is it really that unlikely that he is being genuine?

It's more than unlikely. It's impossible that he reached the PhD level in natural sciences and doesn't realize how specious he's being.

I'm not sure how the scientific method can be misused other than "fudging" data.

How 'bout by using dust that sat in someone's apartment several blocks away for weeks and calling it dust from the World Trade Center? He has no idea what that dust became contaminated with on the way over or what the tenant did to it while in possession. Actually I take that back - he does have some idea of what it became contaminated with in the apartment. I seem to recall the tenant's roommate was a welder.

all science, good or bad, has to pass the scientific filter (peer review) so in the end his own game will either see his success or failure. He can't cheat at this one. I personally don't think enough time has passed to make judgment, yet.

Really? And what would it tell you if he tried to cheat? What is JONES? When will enough time pass for you to see this guy for what he is, Sizz?