Micro Spheres in world trade center dust solved.

[LashL]

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.

Not to mention that the someone whose apartment the dust allegedly came from is a Bush-hating twoofer who became involved with twooferism shortly before the 2004 elections after reading a book by David Ray Griffin and swallowing his nonsense hook, line and sinker.

And not to mention that the someone whose apartment the dust allegedly came from is also the person who took the photograph of the "meteorite" that Jones used in an earlier version of his paper, in which he described the crushed and compacted floors (complete with visible identifiable elements, including metal, pipes, paper, etc.) as "huge quantities" of "previously molten metal" and "slag" rather than describing it as what it actually is. Jones claimed that the photo was "quietly taken" as though Ms. Mackinlay was a surreptitious spy routing out the truth or something, when in fact, the existence of the chunk of compacted floors and photographs of it are hardly a secret.

Now, the fact that she's a twoofer and a staunch anti-Bush person who has also hosted screenings of 9/11 videos and anti-Bush videos at her home in California doesn't make her a liar, of course, but it certainly means that her claims must be assessed objectively, and it certainly means that her impartiality and her credibility must be questioned and scrutinized in matters as significant as the providence and continuity of a dust sample that is being touted as evidence of an "inside job".

But Jones does no such thing. It appears that he has not bothered to look into these obvious problematic areas, has not attempted to establish continuity or identify sources of contamination, has not even mentioned the obvious biases of his source, and he completely missed the mark in his description of the evidence as "previously melted metal" and "slag". Such errors and omissions are inexcusable.

Thus, anything that flows from his uncorroborated, unsubstantiated, source of the dust (and the source of his "meteorite" photo) should be taken with several pounds of salt without corroboration and objective evidence from other sources.

 

[Sizzler]

It is a good thing Jones has 4 independent samples.

It is also a good thing that the microspheres he found in his samples were also found by non-truther scientists looking for toxic chemicals.

For these reasons, I just don't buy the argument that his sample has somehow been tainted, meaning, it is the only one with microspheres. Because, that just isn't true.

Fact remains, iron microspheres are present in the dust found both by truthers and non-truthers.

 

[LashL]

It is a good thing Jones has 4 independent samples.

Evidence?

It is also a good thing that the microspheres he found in his samples were also found by non-truther scientists looking for toxic chemicals.

Evidence?

Fact remains, iron microspheres are present in the dust found both by truthers and non-truthers.

Evidence?

For these reasons, I just don't buy the argument that his sample has somehow been tainted, meaning, it is the only one with microspheres. Because, that just isn't true.

Evidence?

By the way, even if you can provide the evidence asked for above, it does nothing to change the fact that since 2004, he's been relying upon a source whose veracity and credibility are legitimately at issue, and it still does nothing to change the fact that he hasn't done what any legitimate scientist would do to verify that source or the continuity of his alleged sample.

And what do you make of his dishonesty with respect to the 'meteorite', by the way?

 

[LashL]

P.S. "Steven Jones says so" does not = evidence, just in case you were wondering.

Please provide actual evidence of your assertions.

 

[funk de fino]

There are many explanations of why there are the micro spheres and Jones one could technically hold water to the layman. However, it is one in many and as such needs corroboration from other sources and evidence. He has none of this.

If you look at pictures he has used to support his theory then it is obvious he is at best disingenious and at worst a bare faced liar. This detracts from his other evidence.

 

[Sizzler]

By the way, even if you can provide the evidence asked for above, it does nothing to change the fact that since 2004

Should I provide the evidence?

, he's been relying upon a source whose veracity and credibility are legitimately at issue, and it still does nothing to change the fact that he hasn't done what any legitimate scientist would do to verify that source or the continuity of his alleged sample.

He has 4 samples. His findings are also confirmed by other non-truther research and reports.

And what do you make of his dishonesty with respect to the 'meteorite', by the way?

I think a picture can be interpreted in many different ways. Whether it is compressed floors or once molten iron, it is still speculative without further investigation. I have not seen further investigation.

 

[Pardalis]

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?

If you only care to read and listen to what else he's saying about 9/11, you would conclude that he is a politically motivated kook.

 

[funk de fino]

I think a picture can be interpreted in many different ways. Whether it is compressed floors or once molten iron, it is still speculative without further investigation. I have not seen further investigation.

There are threads on this lump on this very forum IIRC

Can a picture showing rescue workers shining lamps into holes during rescue ops be interpeted as evidence for molten metal in the piles?

(Especially as they have no heat protective clothing on and some are standing in the hole?)

Can a picture showing cuts made by torches during the clean up phase be interpreted as meaning a 110 storey building was brought down by thermite for the first time in history?

(Especially as there are pictures showing these type of cuts during clean up being made?)

If the answer is yes to either of the above then you are either very stupid or you fall for Jones lies.

 

[lapman]

It is a good thing Jones has 4 independent samples.

It is also a good thing that the microspheres he found in his samples were also found by non-truther scientists looking for toxic chemicals.

For these reasons, I just don't buy the argument that his sample has somehow been tainted, meaning, it is the only one with microspheres. Because, that just isn't true.

Fact remains, iron microspheres are present in the dust found both by truthers and non-truthers.

IIRC, Apollo stated that Dr. Jones cherry picked the spheres that supported his claim while ignoring the rest.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

It is a good thing Jones has 4 independent samples.

Where did "4" come from? His paper only mentions 2:

In order to better understand these events, we obtained and examined two independent dust samples acquired very soon after 9/11/2001...

...One sample was collected on an indoor window sill on 9/14/2001, just three days after the disaster while searching for survivors in the rubble was ongoing, and in a building four blocks from ground zero. The other sample was acquired inside a fourth-floor apartment (whose upper windows broke during the WTC collapse) a few days later.

(Source: http://journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp.pdf)

Would you be able to source the retrieval of the other two samples? I'm afraid I'm not finding it.

It is also a good thing that the microspheres he found in his samples were also found by non-truther scientists looking for toxic chemicals.

For these reasons, I just don't buy the argument that his sample has somehow been tainted, meaning, it is the only one with microspheres. Because, that just isn't true.

Fact remains, iron microspheres are present in the dust found both by truthers and non-truthers.

I think I remember an EPA scientist also discussing the presence of such particles - if someone here knows what I'm referring to, can you provide a link or explanation? My memory of this is fuzzy - but that's not really that important. I don't think that the samples were tainted either, and I don't really think that's a good avenue of criticism to follow. Unless it can be proven that the dust did not come fromt he WTC, there's really no point to criticizing its collection, because the real meat of the argument comes in Steven Jones's findings. And his findings are not as accusatory as much of the Truth Movement makes them out to be. You see, there's still a hole in the argument that iron-rich microspheres equals thermite use. As previous threads in this forum have noted, the presence of those spheres can be explained by other, far more likely sources. Dr. Greening mentions fly ash. Crazy Chainsaw has conducted experiments demonstrating other formation mechanisms not involving thermite. And above and beyond that, there's no acknowledgement from Dr. Jones at all that the spheres could have been formed during the construction of the Twin Towers; much welding is involved in building a skyscraper, and welding is a known source of iron rich microspheres. Jones does not acknowledge this, yet it by far is the most probable source of any of the microspheres he's found. If you take that and then consider that his research doesn't invalidate any of the other arguments against thermite, the result is that it changes nothing about the "official story" that thermite wasn't used. As I mentioned elsewhere: His findings either prove the presence of welds, or the presence of as yet unpostulated high temperature reactions, but it still doesn't answer the critiques that other signatures of thermite are missing. So it doesn't lend weight to that conclusion, regardless of what others want to make of it.

A truer concern for truth would acknowledge that Jones has proven the presence of microspheres, but not the genesis of them. He merely postulates that. And he ignores non-thermite reaction mechanisms for their formation. So do all other fantasists. It's rather important to view his work for what it is - proof of the sphere's existence - than what people want it to be - proof of thermite use. It is not that.

 

[Sizzler]

IIRC, Apollo stated that Dr. Jones cherry picked the spheres that supported his claim while ignoring the rest.

Pretty vague summary of Apollo's thoughts. I don't remember it much like that.

 

[LashL]

Should I provide the evidence?

Of course, you should. Unsourced claims are meaningless and worthless. You have made claims above and it is, therefore, incumbent upon you to back them up with evidence, retract them, or concede that they are meaningless and worthless.

He has 4 samples.

So you've said, but you have not provided evidence. Again, please provide some evidence of the existence of these four samples and their providence.

His findings are also confirmed by other non-truther research and reports.

So you've said, but you have not provided evidence. Again, please do so.


Also, I have to post a correction with regard to my post from last night in which I mentioned 2004 as the date of Jones' initial paper citing the dust that he got from Ms. MacKinlay in California. It appears that the first edition of his paper (which he changed repeatedly without citing the numerous changes, by the way) was from 2005, not 2004, and he didn't receive the dust from Ms. MacKinlay until after he posted his 2005 paper online.

 

[Sizzler]

A truer concern for truth would acknowledge that Jones has proven the presence of microspheres, but not the genesis of them. He merely postulates that. And he ignores non-thermite reaction mechanisms for their formation. So do all other fantasists. It's rather important to view his work for what it is - proof of the sphere's existence - than what people want it to be - proof of thermite use. It is not that.

I will find some links that mention 4 samples.

I agree with the above statement. Microspheres do not directly prove therm?te. They could only ever prove high temperatures beyond WTC precollapse fire temps if Jones is ever able to provide more conclusive analysis.

I've yet to see a good explanation (truther or non) for the production of said spheres though. That point remains. I also feel the same way about sulfidized steel members but that is another ball of wax

 

[DavidJames]

Microspheres do not directly prove therm?te.

They prove nothing, directly or indirectly, except to CTists.

They could only ever prove high temperatures beyond WTC precollapse fire temps if Jones is ever able to provide more conclusive analysis.

Yes and I could be God if I'm ever able to provide more conclusive analysis

I've yet to see a good explanation (truther or non) for the production of said spheres though. That point remains.

Perfect nonesense from a CTists, you need people to prove evidence is not part of a CT. Please learn how rational adults think.

I also feel the same way about sulfidized steel members but that is another ball of wax

See above statement.

Considering your inability to think rationally, how do you exist in this world?

 

[Sizzler]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JZr5FuWytc&eurl=http://911blogger.com/

Jones mentions 4 samples in this video very early on.

 

[Sizzler]

Considering your inability to think rationally, how do you exist in this world?

Considering your inablitity to communicate like an adult, how do your relationships hold up in this world?

And for your information, me and my "irrational" brain are doing just great thus far. I hope the same to you

 

[LashL]

Jones mentions 4 samples in this video very early on.

He says, "We're looking at 4 dust samples."

Are you suggesting that this is evidence in support of the claims you made above? If so, how do you get so much from those 6 unsubstantiated words by Jones?

Do you have any legitimate evidence to support your unsourced claims above? For ease of reference, your claims were:

[my numbering added, bolding in original]
1) It is a good thing Jones has 4 independent samples.

2) It is also a good thing that the microspheres he found in his samples were also found by non-truther scientists looking for toxic chemicals.

3) For these reasons, I just don't buy the argument that his sample has somehow been tainted, meaning, it is the only one with microspheres. Because, that just isn't true.

4) Fact remains, iron microspheres are present in the dust found both by truthers and non-truthers.

So far, all you have said amounts to, "It's true because Steven Jones says so." That is not even remotely sufficient as evidence in support of your claims.

 

[Sizzler]

He says, "We're looking at 4 dust samples."

Are you suggesting that this is evidence in support of the claims you made above? If so, how do you get so much from those 6 unsubstantiated words by Jones?

Do you have any legitimate evidence to support your unsourced claims above? For ease of reference, your claims were:



So far, all you have said amounts to, "It's true because Steven Jones says so." That is not even remotely sufficient as evidence in support of your claims.

refer to other thread...duplicate conversation happening here.

 

[LashL]

refer to other thread...duplicate conversation happening here.

It is only duplicated because you repeated 2 of the same unsubstantiated claims in that thread that you made here, but I would prefer that you respond here with evidence in support of the 4 claims you made here.

 

[Sizzler]

It is only duplicated because you repeated 2 of the same unsubstantiated claims in that thread that you made here, but I would prefer that you respond here with evidence in support of the 4 claims you made here.

i don't want to cut and paste. the other thread will do.