Moderated Thermite: Was it there or not?

[CHF]

I just don't get it.

On what grounds do people still defend a fraud like Steven Jones?

Concluding "thermite" based on finding things that were in the WTC anyway (rust, sulfur, aluminum, paint chips).

Peer-review in his own journal.

Lying about photos.

"Peer-review" in a vanity journal that publishes gibberish for $800.

Failure to pre-produce results by a fellow truther.

I mean what does the man have left?

Seriously, truthers.....how do you manage to stick with such a shameless fraud? What goes through your head when you type up another lame message defending the man? I really want to know.

 

[ImANiceGuy]

I actually try to educate, not entertain trolls. Don't be a troll.

Education is what everyone needs...derogatory insinuations could be left behind. Your false conclusion is that I have confidence in Jones' MEK testing as demonstrated by your suggestion I was duped by a hack move intended for the uneducated.

My new original statement stands, see my previous post.

If you do not accept the basic premise that Jones analyzed real WTC dust, and performed tests on substances found within in earnest, then you cannot debate the methods within, because in your opinion, he could be falsifying data at any and all points.

When a Truther claims that the 9/11 Terrorists were fabrications of a cover-up, Debunkers love to say: "Well then why didn't they fabricate them as Afghan or Iraqi nationals, to directly link the countries they subsequently invaded?"

This is the same as asking, and topically begs the question; Why would Jones falsify data that did not support his conclusion?

This leaves only a few options, time for another multiple choice question;

A) Jones, determined to benefit from 9/11, completely fabricates a scientific paper in order to further his agenda. In this option, Jones may mix in small portions of truth, in order to be deceptive(eg. real spectra analysis of paint found in dust) However, option A) concludes that Jones is purposefully deceitful.

B) Jones, fueled by misinformation and rumors of 911 conspiracies, earnestly analysed dust from the WTC, and due to his misinterpretation of data due to existing bias, concluded that thermite was present in the dust. This option concludes Jones honestly believes in his discovery.

C) Jones acted for a different reason.

 

[Thunder]

A) Jones, determined to benefit from 9/11, completely fabricates a scientific paper in order to further his agenda. In this option, Jones may mix in small portions of truth, in order to be deceptive(eg. real spectra analysis of paint found in dust) However, option A) concludes that Jones is purposefully deceitful. .

"The best way to hide a lie..is between 2 truths."

-Agent Mulder's handy helper

 

[Dog Town]

,Jones may mix in small portions of truth,...

The only thing close to the "truth", he has, is the date!

 

[ImANiceGuy]

So then it doesn't matter what any of the data in the paper says; some could be real, some could be false, who could tell what is and what isn't?

So if that's the case, then why wouldn't they get the data a little bit closer to what thermite actually is? Make it really believable instead of easily debunked. Why wouldn't they go all the way and make the paper perfect so it could be published in a credible scientific journal?

 

[Dog Town]

...

So if that's the case, then why wouldn't they get the data a little bit closer to what thermite actually is? Make it really believable instead of easily debunked. Why wouldn't they go all the way and make the paper perfect so it could be published in a credible scientific journal?

You must be new?

 

[R.Mackey]

Your false conclusion is that I have confidence in Jones' MEK testing as demonstrated by your suggestion I was duped by a hack move intended for the uneducated.

Then why'd you bring it up?

My new original statement stands, see my previous post.

"New original?" You didn't once play for Spinal Tap, by any chance?

If you do not accept the basic premise that Jones analyzed real WTC dust, and performed tests on substances found within in earnest, then you cannot debate the methods within, because in your opinion, he could be falsifying data at any and all points.

He could indeed be falsifying data. In fact, since the only other person to see these dust samples -- Dr. Henry-Coannier -- says he can't find a match to the original description, it's a distinct possibility. However, that in no way precludes me from debating his methods. Whether or not he's falsifying materials, data, conclusions, or anything else, he doesn't appear to even know how to conduct the experiment properly. The two items are uncorrelated.

When a Truther claims that the 9/11 Terrorists were fabrications of a cover-up, Debunkers love to say: "Well then why didn't they fabricate them as Afghan or Iraqi nationals, to directly link the countries they subsequently invaded?"

This is the same as asking, and topically begs the question; Why would Jones falsify data that did not support his conclusion?

It is not remotely the same thing. See above. It has been proven that Dr. Jones writes nonsense. It has not been proven that the terrorists are fabrications. No parallel.

This leaves only a few options, time for another multiple choice question;

Please make sure you phrase this one correctly.

A) Jones, determined to benefit from 9/11, completely fabricates a scientific paper in order to further his agenda. In this option, Jones may mix in small portions of truth, in order to be deceptive(eg. real spectra analysis of paint found in dust) However, option A) concludes that Jones is purposefully deceitful.

B) Jones, fueled by misinformation and rumors of 911 conspiracies, earnestly analysed dust from the WTC, and due to his misinterpretation of data due to existing bias, concluded that thermite was present in the dust. This option concludes Jones honestly believes in his discovery.

C) Jones acted for a different reason.

I have no way to answer this question. Speculatively, I believe the correct answer is B), with the added wrinkle that his "earnest analysis" is incompetent in both design and execution. But he could be a knowing fraud, could even be a combination of A) and B), or he could even have some other, truly inscrutable motivation.

Who cares? The relevant point is that his paper is nonsense, and this is not mere opinion. What his motivation is to produce rubbish is of no consequence.

 

[beachnut]

...

This leaves only a few options, time for another multiple choice question;

A) Jones, determined to benefit from 9/11, completely fabricates a scientific paper in order to further his agenda. In this option, Jones may mix in small portions of truth, in order to be deceptive(eg. real spectra analysis of paint found in dust) However, option A) concludes that Jones is purposefully deceitful.

B) Jones, fueled by misinformation and rumors of 911 conspiracies, earnestly analysed dust from the WTC, and due to his misinterpretation of data due to existing bias, concluded that thermite was present in the dust. This option concludes Jones honestly believes in his discovery.

C) Jones acted for a different reason.

C: Jones could be insane since he makes up the conclusion first.
Here is Jones conclusion based on hearsay.

The observations of molten metal (I did not say molten steel!) in the basements of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 and 7 is consistent with the use of the extremely high-temperature thermite reaction: iron oxide + aluminum powder --> Al2O3 + molten iron.

Jones is using thermite as his source for the heat in the WTC pile burning for months. Using knowledge this statement is a delusion.

Jones thermite scam is a lie in the first place. Jones paper is not important as is his conclusion of controlled demolition. There was no controlled demolition so looking for thermite is insane. If you want to help Jones you have to prove there was a controlled demolition and you can't because it was a gravity collapse. Not a single engineer has provided evidence the WTC towers can't collapse the way they did from impacts, fires and gravity.

The evidence must come from you or Jones to prove controlled demolition took place. Jones never was able to show the WTC did not fall due to gravity but he did lie about conservation of momentum. The evidence for thermite being used was not found.

The paper found Fe, O, Al, and many other elements in the dust. Jones burns the dust and the energy released is not the same as thermite. Jones declares it is thermite and makes the conclusion the WTC complex was destroyed by explosives or thermite. One small step for Jones, an impossible leap for rational minds. The humor comes when Jones endorse Hoffman's insane thermite chips in the ceiling tiles delusion.

Are you a troll on purpose or by accident? What is your conclusion on the WTC towers falling? Was thermite used in the ceiling tiles like Jones believes?

 

[ImANiceGuy]

Hey Macky, I don't know what it is I did to ever piss you off, but you've been condescending and uncivilized towards me from the jump. You don't know me at all, but you've got me boxed in based on the questions I'm asking; because many before me have come and asked the same questions in a roundabout way of revealing the grand conspiracy. So do you treat everyone you meet based on the previous people you've met who are in their category. Do you think maybe your catalogging process could ever be wrong?

So why wouldn't Jones just make up some credible BS, rather than just BS....please tell us oh wise Mackey(just no false conclusions this time)

...if you want to be supercilious, I'll play along and be patronizing.

 

[TexasJack]

Hey Macky, I don't know what it is I did to ever piss you off, but you've been condescending and uncivilized towards me from the jump. You don't know me at all, but you've got me boxed in based on the questions I'm asking; because many before me have come and asked the same questions in a roundabout way of revealing the grand conspiracy. So do you treat everyone you meet based on the previous people you've met who are in their category. Do you think maybe your catalogging process could ever be wrong?

So why wouldn't Jones just make up some credible BS, rather than just BS....please tell us oh wise Mackey(just no false conclusions this time)

You bring it on yourself, improve your reading comprehension abilities. Please.

 

[ImANiceGuy]

There's nothing wrong with my comprehension Jack.....any chance you could back your ******** post up with maybe a quote, or a link to a post, etc....something that displays my lack of comprehension?

Otherwise that's useless post number 1,792.

 

[R.Mackey]

Hey Macky, I don't know what it is I did to ever piss you off, but you've been condescending and uncivilized towards me from the jump. You don't know me at all, but you've got me boxed in based on the questions I'm asking; because many before me have come and asked the same questions in a roundabout way of revealing the grand conspiracy. So do you treat everyone you meet based on the previous people you've met who are in their category. Do you think maybe your catalogging process could ever be wrong?

Stop projecting, please.

So why wouldn't Jones just make up some credible BS, rather than just BS....please tell us oh wise Mackey(just no false conclusions this time)

Funny you should ask this. For several years, I've wondered when the Truth Movement would get around to constructing an actual credible fake argument. Seriously, there hasn't ever been a single thing from the entire organization that made me think for more than a few seconds. Sometimes a rigorous, quantified response or follow-up investigation takes time, but a simple BS-detection is remarkably simple. Every time.

This leads me to conclude that the level of technical competence in the Truth Movement is universally low. Dr. Jones is a good example of this -- he has a legitimate Physics Ph.D., yet he actually claimed once that the Towers should have toppled, not crushed down, because of the Laws of Thermodynamics. Can you imagine, a physics prof saying such bunk?? Nonetheless, it happened.

Now, how this arose I don't quite follow. Paranoia and conspiracy thinking must do simply awful things to a person. But it is fact that the only members of the Truth Movement whose work I respected -- again, see Gregory Urich as an example -- never espoused the wackier beliefs of the movement, and most if not all eventually gave it up after satisfying their own questions.

After so much time, and so many detailed investigations, so many papers, so many reviews, those who are left in the Truth Movement are either not paying attention, or have some kind of complex problem that prevents them from moving on. Understanding this in depth is well beyond my expertise. I can no sooner cure them than I can help any garden variety schizophrenic. Such people simply are. Human beings are woefully imperfect.

 

[MIKILLINI]

So then it doesn't matter what any of the data in the paper says; some could be real, some could be false, who could tell what is and what isn't?

If Jones has a smoking gun of evidence that is verifiable, then there's no reason not to reveal it to peers who can verify it as well. I can't imagine what's preventing him from doing this, can you?

So if that's the case, then why wouldn't they get the data a little bit closer to what thermite actually is? Make it really believable instead of easily debunked. Why wouldn't they go all the way and make the paper perfect so it could be published in a credible scientific journal?

Really I Am, Jones has had plenty of time to present his "evidence" to a credible scientific journal, so why hasn't he done this? Such extremely important info should be analyzed with credible peers for verification.

 

[ImANiceGuy]

You guys crack me up....

Either Jones is lying about everything, or he honestly believes in what he found. It doesn't mean that what he believes to be true, is.

Isn't critical thinking and reasoning an intro level class in college? Surely some of you guys must have done a year or two.....

 

[TexasJack]

There's nothing wrong with my comprehension Jack.....any chance you could back your ******** post up with maybe a quote, or a link to a post, etc....something that displays my lack of comprehension?

Otherwise that's useless post number 1,792.

A little sensitive there i'm an ice guy, I must have struck a truth nerve.

 

[beachnut]

...

...if you want to be supercilious, I'll play along and be patronizing.

Did you learn a new word today; that was funny? Do you think the WTC was blown up by someone? That means you disagree that the impacts, fires and gravity collapse are not true. What is your conclusion or will you hide behind the stupidity of Jones unable to produce your evidence for thermite or your ideas?

I would have used correct instead of supercilious, but you are not able to understand Jones’ paper but you sure act like other failed truthers who were banned. You ask super dumb questions and never get to a point. What is your point.
You said Mackey is supercilious and you agreed to be supercilious too. Did you mean that to come out that way, or is it the same as your posts? You really did learn a new word, or you lucked out. This is good; post again and expand on your delusions of Jones’ super-nano-paper.

 

[ImANiceGuy]

Texasjack, that's pretty much what losers say when someone finally calls them out; "I was just joking, don't be so sensitive. Sheesh."

Edit: Beachnut, its clear to me that you in fact learned a new word today. Judging by your post, you must have found "patronizing" and "supercilious" to be synonyms. In certain contexts you would be correct. I'm glad you're learning Beachnut!

Please ensure your posts address the OP (ie. topic of the thread); remember it is attack the argument and not the arguer.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[beachnut]

Texasjack, that's pretty much what losers say when someone finally calls them out; "I was just joking, don't be so sensitive. Sheesh."

So where is your conclusion on 911?

Do you support the thermite claims or not? If you support them where is the evidence? How can you hide evidence of thermite it leaves a nasty pile of iron like a cat leaves scat! In bigger piles.

 

[ImANiceGuy]

I've never been banned, and I don't intend to be.

I walk the fine line of informing/insulting, as do you.

But you started it.

 

[R.Mackey]

I've never been banned, and I don't intend to be.

I walk the fine line of informing/insulting, as do you.

But you started it.

Just in case you're unaware of this, posts like the above are poor form if you wish to be taken seriously.

There's no need for such theatrics. The nanothermites don't care. Back to topic, or are you finished?