At some point custody issues of all things will have to depend on "ones word".
That is not actually accurate, but I'll leave it aside for now because to educate you on the topic of continuity would require a very lengthy post and it is not particularly relevant to the issue currently under discussion, which is your lack of supporting evidence for your assertions.
Jones could be telling the truth, or he could be lying. It is up to each individual to decide whether they believe his samples have or have not been contaminated.
The issue is not that the samples may have been contaminated (although that is certainly worth some thoughtful consideration once we get past the current discussion about your lack of evidence in support of your assertions). The issue is that the single most fundamental and basic information about Jones' samples - their source or sources - has not been established, other than the second hand information that Jones has provided about the sample he obtained from Ms. MacKinlay.
Regarding the second sample Jones claims to have, the person alleged to have collected it has not been identified and there is no first hand information about the circumstances and location of its collection. All we have so far is Jones saying that an as-yet anonymous person told him so.
Regarding the third and fourth samples Jones claims to have, there is no information at all provided so far by Jones about the source or sources of those samples or about the location and circumstances of their collection.
This is simple, simple stuff. Three of the four samples have not even been sufficiently identified as coming from the WTC area. This is a completely separate issue from any 'contamination' issue.
As for taking Jones' word for anything related to his conclusions about the events of 9/11, I have already given you examples of some of the ludicrous and unsupported claims and conclusions he has espoused in that regard. His prior ludicrous, unsupported and demonstrably false claims certainly do preclude me from accepting what he says on the subject without corroboration. You are, of course, free to continue to blindly accept everything Jones says and to continue to post as factual everything that you've heard that he might have said somewhere (as you have done repeatedly in this sub-forum) but you should not be surprised when rational and critical thinkers do not share your blind faith in Jones' claims.
I'm not sure where you are going with my claim that non-truther scientists found the "same" microspheres in other dust samples. Here, my use of "same" means "similar". Of course they didn't find the exact same microspheres in two different dust samples. How can something exist in two different places at once?
I thought it was rather obvious that I wasn't referring to the "exact same" microspheres, but I guess not.
How silly. Of course nobody thought you were talking about the same spheres being in different places at the same time. Did you seriously fail to comprehend that I was talking about the spheres being the same in size, shape, composition, etc., as opposed to being in two places at once? Seriously? I find it hard to believe that you could actually be that dense, so I will instead assume that you were merely playing silly buggers in an attempt to divert from the actual point, and will address the actual point (that you seem to be trying to obfuscate) as follows.
Again, this is simple, simple stuff. Similar does not = same. Having similar size, shape, composition, etc. does not = the same size, shape, composition, etc. Is this too difficult for you?
Scientists did however find micropsheres that were similar in shape, size, and chemical content. That was my original point, and I'll refine that to be my new claim because it is the same (more detailed now for the reading impaired).
If your original point was simply that others had found similar spheres in other locations, that is a pretty simple matter to articulate. Unfortunately, that is not what you wrote.
Everyone occasionally messes up while posting and fails to articulate a point that they thought they had made clear. There is no shame in that. However, it is poor form to blame readers and accuse them of being reading impaired because of one's own failure to articulate one's point properly.
(Not to put too fine a point on this but your post history shows that you are frequently sloppy with language and that you often post in a somewhat frenzied, frenetic manner. The latter probably contributes to the former. You could easily remedy this by simply taking the time to consider your words, re-read your posts before hitting the "submit reply" button, see if it actually says what you think it says, see if it actually conveys the message that you are attempting to convey, etc. As I said, we all occasionally mess up but when it becomes more frequent than "occasionally", it's not a bad idea to slow down and reflect upon the words you've typed before hitting "submit".)
His discovery of microspheres are corroborated by other discoveries of microspheres.
Again, the work done by others in the studies cited does not corroborate Jones' findings or conclusions. Jones found spheres. Mr. A. found spheres. Mr. B. found spheres. The fact that Mssrs. A. and B. have identified "similar" spheres to those that Jones reports on does not in any way corroborate Jones' findings or conclusions. It means only that Mssrs. A. and B. have identified spheres similar in composition to those that Jones has identified. Do you understand the difference?
In my view, this is just another example of a twoofer attempting to use the legitimate work of non-crackpots to insinuate that the non-crackpot's work lends the twoofer (in this case, Jones) some much needed credibility. This is particularly egregious in Jones' case as he is simultaneously playing games and refusing to provide the details that are necessary to properly assess his conclusions. In other words, he's claiming that the work of credible scientists supports his conclusions while he simultaneously refuses to provide sufficient evidence upon which his conclusions can be properly assessed.
Very poor form, that.
You've done a good job twisting my claims around but in the end it just makes you seem silly and quite frankly, a waste of my time.
I have not twisted your claims at all. If you cannot state your claims clearly and properly and if you cannot communicate your ideas effectively, that is hardly my fault.
It would be childish of me to respond in kind to the juvenile insults at the end of the sentence quoted immediately above, so I will refrain.
And after all of this, you are still, for the most part, stuck at, "It's true because Steven Jones says so." That may be good enough for you and it may be good enough for some or most of your fellow twoofers, but it is not good enough for me.
But do let me know if and when you obtain any corroboration for Jones' claims, which you have echoed here repeatedly without substantiation, and I will be delighted to read all about it and discuss them with you further.
