Moderated Thermite: Was it there or not?

[beachnut]

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.

What are your ideas on 911? Your conclusion of the WTC towers falling?

Are you supporting thermite being used, or not?
Where is your evidence?

 

[MIKILLINI]

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.....

This is what cracks me up about those who claim they use critical thinking.

Jones may truly believe he has traces of thermite. Belief is just like an opinion; Everybody has one. Now does that make what Jones has in his possession real thermite? No. Shouldn't he have a sense of urgency to have his "evidence" verified? Yes. Does he have a sense of urgency for verification? No. He is dragging his feet.
Who does he have for conformation to back him up? Very few.

 

[TruthersLie]

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.

mackey has not been rude or condescending to you. He has spent an extraordinary amount of time trying to answer your "questions."

You have gotten your hair up like a cat who is being pet backwards.

YOU have insulted other members and been nasty to almost everyone who has replied to you.

So get off the pity party.

 

[ImANiceGuy]

Beachnut, I've got some pretty strong opinions when it comes to foreign policy, not all of which I'll share here.

I think 9/11 was the result of many, many events over decades which culminated in an attack by islamic extremists against the idea of 'America'.

In my opinion, there is not enough evidence to support the Thermite hypothesis. The fires underneath the towers were strangely hot, many first-responders witnessed molten metals, strange ejections from the south tower impact zone....things like this can not be immediately discarded. However, there are logical explanations for anomalies, and I believe that an event as large as the collapses of the 3 WTC towers would create many anomalies.

 

[TruthersLie]

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.....

Strawman.

I love twoofs who want to be clever. (see I am being condescending, unlike Mackey).

Jones probably does believe what he is spewing, like Richard Gage.

Unfortunately they threw out their science for political agendas.

In science you make a hypothesis, then look at the data, then revise the hypothesis to fit the data.

The twoofs have made a hypothesis (thermite, nanothermite, etc) then completely ignored the data, and are now trying to make the data fit their hypothesis.

So no matter what happens in ANY test that jones and co run, it will automatically show that it is thermite of some sort, or that it was CD.

The analysis of their "papers" (snicker) uses REAL science, real scientific methods to examine their PRECHOSEN answer and tear them apart.

Go back to school twoof. Take some classes in research methods, experimental design or simple scientific method

 

[ImANiceGuy]

mackey has not been rude or condescending to you. He has spent an extraordinary amount of time trying to answer your "questions."

You have gotten your hair up like a cat who is being pet backwards.

YOU have insulted other members and been nasty to almost everyone who has replied to you.

So get off the pity party.

Actually, Trutherslie, if you read through the thread, you'll get several demonstrations of Mackey's rudeness. When I demonstrated how his insult was based on a false assumption he had made, he retorted that by bringing the subject up, I was deemed in support of it.

All I can be accused of is attempting to form a JREF consensus surrounding the Thermite issue, so it can be provided to other researchers like myself without having to search for days. So that we may, in turn, pass on this information in debates with Truthers.

However, by presenting the well-formed rebuttals of the Truth Movement in response to the debunkers claims, I was branded a truther myself, and insulted and misquoted.

You guys should lighten up!

 

[ImANiceGuy]

Strawman.

I love twoofs who want to be clever. (see I am being condescending, unlike Mackey).

Jones probably does believe what he is spewing, like Richard Gage.

Unfortunately they threw out their science for political agendas.

In science you make a hypothesis, then look at the data, then revise the hypothesis to fit the data.

The twoofs have made a hypothesis (thermite, nanothermite, etc) then completely ignored the data, and are now trying to make the data fit their hypothesis.

So no matter what happens in ANY test that jones and co run, it will automatically show that it is thermite of some sort, or that it was CD.

The analysis of their "papers" (snicker) uses REAL science, real scientific methods to examine their PRECHOSEN answer and tear them apart.

Go back to school twoof. Take some classes in research methods, experimental design or simple scientific method

Interesting how you call me clever, but then proceed to answer my question fairly succinctly. However, Jones and the other "scientists" must know by now that they are manipulating the data to fit their conclusions.

So perhaps they actually did believe that they had found thermite initially, but if they were to have it independently analysed and it were found to be paint all along, they would be completely ruined. So knowing this, they hesitated to prove anything conclusively, and manipulate the data based on whichever criticism is sharpest?.

A couple questions:

The dust was analysed by the EPA right? Think the author's name is Lee. This seems obvious, but can they not have their samples requisitioned for testing, or was this done already? Truthers will question the NWO Chain of Custody though.....(sarcasm)

How much dust do Jones and crew have? Will they send me a spoonfull?

 

[TruthersLie]

Actually, Trutherslie, if you read through the thread, you'll get several demonstrations of Mackey's rudeness. When I demonstrated how his insult was based on a false assumption he had made, he retorted that by bringing the subject up, I was deemed in support of it.

All I can be accused of is attempting to form a JREF consensus surrounding the Thermite issue, so it can be provided to other researchers like myself without having to search for days. So that we may, in turn, pass on this information in debates with Truthers.

However, by presenting the well-formed rebuttals of the Truth Movement in response to the debunkers claims, I was branded a truther myself, and insulted and misquoted.

You guys should lighten up!

I have read the thread from the beginning.

And you have been directly answered. You were NOT attacked nor spoken down to. But you sure do act like it.

You have insulted members from the beginning, you have acted rather like a rude guest.

Mackey has spent several (about 10 posts) answering your "questions" (and insinuations). He has been direct and very straight forward.

You have tried to set up false choice questions which lead to strawman ideas, and been called for it.

The biggest problem (as it has been explained to you) with your "dirt dumb ideas" (beachnut, any number of posts) is that since 2004 Jones and co have run through at least 3 different "thermite like" ideas. They have presented this "evidence" in their own self published "peer reviewed" (snicker) journal, then they have gone to a vanity publisher and tried to get the peer review label... yet the only folks who fall for it are the ignorant, uneducated or politically driven.

You have spewed these same ideas. You have NOT been "just trying to get a concensus" (said in a pouty teenage voice). If you have, then you would realize that Jones has presented all of the ideas, and each one that you listed is in response to different things Jones has claimed.

Now I believe that you are a troll who is getting off on trying to get the "big bad jrefers" riled up.

 

[R.Mackey]

Guess we're finished, then.

 

[beachnut]

...
However, by presenting the well-formed rebuttals of the Truth Movement in response to the debunkers claims, I was branded a truther myself, and insulted and misquoted.

You guys should lighten up!

Well formed? lol
Yes we should. We just converted you into a debunker. Or are you still doing the truther act? So you play truther, and now debunker. Cool you are too embarrassed to admit it.

We converted you into a debunker. You found your dirt dumb delusions on 911 were false and converted. Good job. I have to admit Jones debunks himself with his first talk of thermite.

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. Falling buildings are not observed to generate melting of large quantities of molten metal -- this requires a concentrated heat source such as explosives. Even the government reports admit that the fires were insufficient to melt steel beams (they argue for heating and warping then failure of these beams) -- but these reports do not mention the observed molten metal in the basements of WTC1, 2 and 7. Again we have a glaring omission of critical data in the FEMA, NIST and 9-11 Commission reports.

You faked your truther act; No, you are too embarrassed to admit you were a truther so you backed in you are really a debunker. A Jones technique, maximizing your truther training.

You came here with delusions. Trying to sell delusions and you figured out in a few posts your ideas on 911 were dirt dumb. As to cover your failure you converted to being a debunker and claim you always were.

... you need to lighten up! You know Jones made up thermite and agree now after being a truther for how long? It only took Flight 93 Passengers minutes to figure out 911 and take action. How long were you a truther before you took action to figure out 911?

 

[alienentity]

Interesting how you call me clever, but then proceed to answer my question fairly succinctly. However, Jones and the other "scientists" must know by now that they are manipulating the data to fit their conclusions.

So perhaps they actually did believe that they had found thermite initially, but if they were to have it independently analysed and it were found to be paint all along, they would be completely ruined. So knowing this, they hesitated to prove anything conclusively, and manipulate the data based on whichever criticism is sharpest?.

A couple questions:

The dust was analysed by the EPA right? Think the author's name is Lee. This seems obvious, but can they not have their samples requisitioned for testing, or was this done already? Truthers will question the NWO Chain of Custody though.....(sarcasm)

How much dust do Jones and crew have? Will they send me a spoonfull?

Just read a few posts in the thread to catch up - especially when Ryan Mackey's posting I'm interested. Which brings me to my point: I don't see anything out of the ordinary in Mr. Mackey's exchanges w/you. He's pretty blunt with everybody, perhaps a touch gruff for your tastes.
But I wouldn't take it personally. At least he was taking time to respond to you.

I didn't find anything horrible in any of your posts either.

Nothing as insane and dramatic as the other thread where that FloydGoethe character melted down....

Hope you find the info you're looking for.

 

[bill smith]

So it seems plain, at least from Ryan Mackey's perspective that it is an open question whether Steven Jones is an honest but deluded scientist or whether he is deliberately falsifying data.

If Jones was playing with the data then it seems logical that those scientists who are allied with him and were heavily involved in the writing up of the thermite paper- Harrit, Ryan and many others would be aware of this. That would surely have to mean that they are complicit in the falsification of scientific data.

This seems unlikely to say the least as no scientist is going to lay his career on the line for a published fraudulent paper that is completely open to inspection and debunking. Who knows ? Maybe even criminal charges could be brought against them ?

Given that no credible scientific body has debunked this controversial but peer-reviewed paper it seems obvious that it is an honest scientific study and that Jones is an honest man.

The only way to fight this is for NIST to empower Princeton or another university to perform an 'independent' study of their own using smples of dust from NIST itself and control samples from Jones and his team.

 

[Dave Rogers]

So why wouldn't Jones just make up some credible BS, rather than just BS

This is, in itself, an interesting question, but only from the point of view of those who study the psychology of people who hold beliefs that directly contradict reality (a not insignificant subset of humanity, it has to be said). From a point of view of studying the events of 9/11, it's not particularly significant why Jones and his co-workers have got their conclusions so horribly wrong; what matters is the observation that they have, indeed, got them wrong. As I think I've said elsewhere, I suspect that Jones is so convinced that 9/11 was an inside job, that he feels that little lies are acceptabe in exposing the greater truth, and that therefore he will eventually be vindicated; however, there must be some level of cognitive dissonance involved as well, for him to be able to make the claims he makes. I suspect I may be wrong, though; the mentality of a trained scientist who is able to defend publicly something so patently wrong is something of a mystery to me.

Dave

 

[CHF]

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.

I would suggest:

D) Jones initially believed his 9/11 research while back at BYU, and soon found himself with a truther following that followed his ever word and move. But it wasn't long before feedback came pouring in he realized that his research was rubbish. However, admitting this would cause his fan club to go elsewhere.

So Jones carried on with his thermite research, fully aware that it was a hoax.

He doesn't outright FAKE data because that would be too obvious, so he settles on misrepresenting it instead. That way he can at least claim to be using real information. Plus he knows that his truther followers - being completely uneducated and having invested so much emotionally in his research - would be unable or unwilling to see the obvious problems with his conclusions.

But everyone else CAN see the problems, and Jones knows it.

This explains his mockery of the peer-review process and his apparent focus on convincing only his followers in order to keep them hanging on.

I'd say everything makes perfect sense if we assume the above.

Because if Jones really does believe what he says then it's hard to imagine how he would behave if he didn't.

 

[bill smith]

Both of the previous posts suggest that Steven Jones is knowingly and beliberately falsifying data.

One uses the word 'misrepresent' but it is hard to see how you can 'misrepresent' hard numerical scientific data so we can confidently assume that 'falsify' is what was really meant.

One post suggests that Jones is falsifying data as a means to the greater end of exposing the 9/11 'inside job'. But it is hard to see why a scientist would publish false data that any ther qualified scientist could expose at the drop of a hat. This would make zero sense.

The other post suggests hat Jones is some kind of an attention junkie who publishes false data to ensure the following of the Truth Movement. I find this to be an extremely weak argument that can be dismissed out of hand.

The fact remains that Steven Jones has literally written the book on thermite at the WTC and until there is a credible counter-study his is the definitive work on the subject.

All the bitching and backbiting from the jref is meaninglss until Jones is proven wrong by a credible body like Princeton- and when that happens the conversation will really get going.

 

[twinstead]

All the bitching and backbiting from the jref is meaninglss until Jones is proven wrong by a credible body like Princeton- and when that happens the conversation will really get going.

Yea. Well exactly when can we expect Jones to present his evidence to a credible body like Princeton? For somebody who says he has rock-solid evidence of "thermitic material" he sure is dragging his feet.

Why do you think that is, bill?

 

[Dave Rogers]

One post suggests that Jones is falsifying data as a means to the greater end of exposing the 9/11 'inside job'. But it is hard to see why a scientist would publish false data that any ther qualified scientist could expose at the drop of a hat. This would make zero sense.

I agree that it makes zero sense for Jones to behave the way he does. However, at that point our reasoning diverges. You assume that Jones's behaviour is somehow required to make sense, and therefore proclaim him a world authority who has an understanding greater than that of lesser mortals. I note that he does, indeed, publish work that is patently, discernibly and embarrassingly wrong, that he is capable of discerning that it is wrong, and that he does not do so. From this I conclude that his mental state is not entirely consistent with that of a sane person. At that point I can't make any further deductions; a clinical psychologist might make a little more headway.

All the bitching and backbiting from the jref is meaninglss until Jones is proven wrong by a credible body like Princeton- and when that happens the conversation will really get going.

Actually, no. All this vanity publishing and web-based assertion by Jones is what is really meaningless, and it will be ignored by the scientific and engineering establishments other than as a source of light amusement because it is so very obviously fatally flawed. As a result, the conversation will never get going; there is no rational conversation to be had.

Dave

 

[CHF]

One uses the word 'misrepresent' but it is hard to see how you can 'misrepresent' hard numerical scientific data so we can confidently assume that 'falsify' is what was really meant.

But that's just it, bill.

He's not misrepresenting the numbers so much as he is misrepresenting the conclusions.

I don't doubt that he found rust, alluminum, sulfur and paint chips in the WTC dust. Where he decends into total dishonesty is when he concludes "thermite!" from these substances being present.

And yes, he is being willfully dishonest.

If he isn't then please explain to me why he's been avoiding serious peer-review for four years and counting.

Wouldn't you think such earth-shattering discoveries would cause someone to go straight to the most credible journals? Of course!

So tell me, bill - why do we instead find him pissing around with his own journal and the gibbierish publishers at the Bentham?

What on earth does he hope to accomplish by doing this?

If you answered: "to convince truthers that he's serious," then give yourself a pat on the head.

 

[bill smith]

Yea. Well exactly when can we expect Jones to present his evidence to a credible body like Princeton? For somebody who says he has rock-solid evidence of "thermitic material" he sure is dragging his feet.

Why do you think that is, bill?

You should read bck a few pages Twinstead. For your convenience I am reposting post #308 here.


'' Suppse for a moment that you were Steven Jones and his team ? Then further suppose that you sent your samples off to Princeton or somewhere equally prestigeous for testing ?

But then you stop and think whether a place like Princeton might not be part of the intelligentsia...the American elite ? It's undeniably true that they would be very vulnerable to a call, say from the Whitehouse asking for a favour wouldn't you say ?

Jones would abslutely NOT need Princeton University saying that they had found no unreacted thermite in the WTC dust.

Are you getting the point ? ''

 

[Leviath]

It's an interesting question as to why Jones et al didn't just outright fake everything, but I think CHF touches on something:

He doesn't outright FAKE data because that would be too obvious, so he settles on misrepresenting it instead. That way he can at least claim to be using real information.

Jones has been in the game long enough to know that if his ideas ever got an impact on the scientific community, sooner or later he would have to replicate his results or have others confirm them. He knows the scientific process well enough to know this. So he can't fake his results, because that would eventually become obvious. But he can do selective analysis and misrepresent his results.

Now thermite, was it there or not? Jones et al can do a very easy test to try to falsify or strengthen their theory. Put the chips in an inert atmosphere (nitrogen, argon) and heat them up. If they still ignite at elevated temperatures, they probably contain a thermite-like substance. If it doesn't ignite, the theory falls apart. It's so easy one can only speculate on why they haven't done this test already.