Forum

TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

"Steven Jones is an agent" SPAM (57 posts)

  1. truthmod
    Administrator

    Dear 9/11 Truth Supporter,

    Evidence has recently surfaced which suggests that Dr. Jones may actually be a government operative meant to mislead the 9/11 Truth Movement down a false path, to delay us from finding out the real truth. Have you heard of Dr. Judy Wood? She has been researching 9/11 since 2001 and has already filed several law suits against NIST and Congress demanding a new investigation and requesting that NIST’s false data gets reexamined. Dr. Judy Wood has received many threats due to the amazing research she has done, and 2 of her friends that were involved in Cold Fusion research were murdered. In contrast, Dr. Steven Jones has not filed any such law suits, nor has he filed his nano-thermite findings with Congress or NIST.

    Dr. Judy Wood accuses Dr. Steven Jones of being an operative who is pushing the nano-thermite theory to mislead the 9/11 Truth Movement down a false path to prevent us from finding out the true criminals behind 9/11, and the true cause of 9/11, which is related to Cold Fusion, Free Energy, and Directed Energy Weapons.

    Dr. Judy Wood was once a high-ranking member of Dr. Jones’s group, Scholars for 9/11 Truth, but Dr. Jones suddenly expelled her from the group a while ago because he disagrees with her theory. Dr. Wood theorizes that a Directed Energy Weapon of some kind (possibly HAARP?) was used to vaporize (‘dustify’) the primary steel and concrete portions of the building into dust, while leaving paper, aluminum, and many other materials completely unharmed. She has collected an overwhelming amount of photographic evidence in support of her theory, yet Dr. Jones disagrees with her so strongly that he decided to remove her from the group.

    Please read the following information carefully, for it seems as though we need to examine Dr. Jones’s motivations and figure out why Dr. Jones kicked Dr. Wood out of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth group a while ago, rather than collaborating together. Please read this information thoroughly, for it is very important.

    Either Dr. Judy Wood is lying, or Dr. Steven Jones is lying. One of them is trying to mislead the 9/11 Truth Movement, and the evidence points to Dr. Steven Jones. After thoroughly researching both of their stories and evidence, I honestly believe that it is most likely that Dr. Jones is the liar, and is using his fame and credentials to mislead the 9/11 Truth Movement down the wrong direction to prevent us from taking urgent and rapid legal action, and to prevent us from finding out the true cause and true criminals behind the 9/11 attacks. Please review the evidence (links) I have provided which explain Dr. Judy Wood’s claims about Dr. Jones.

    Please review the following information regarding Dr. Steven Jones, so that you can become familiar with all of the evidence that has led Dr. Wood, myself, and many others, to conclude that Dr. Steven Jones is interfering with the 9/11 Truth Movement. First he interfered with Cold Fusion / Free Energy movement, and now he is interfering with the 9/11 Truth Movement. Please review these five links thoroughly and with an open-mind, before drawing any conclusions:

    1. http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subp...

    2. http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/cc/CB.html

    3. http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?op...

    4. http://drjudywood.com/articles/why/why_indeed.html...

    5. http://drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/JJ7.html

    Here are some important questions to ask ourselves when comparing the theories of Dr. Steve Jones versus Dr. Judy Wood:

    -How come steel and concrete were pulverized, but paper and aluminum were unharmed? Nano-thermite and heat do not selectively pulverize certain materials. -How come countless vehicles located several blocks away from ground zero experienced metal warping and electricity-like burns and holes during the attacks? -If thermite caused the destruction of the buildings, where is all the molten steel? Thousands of pictures, yet not a single one shows large quantities of molten steel. -If thermite caused the destruction, how come the dust was not hot enough to burn the people it coated or set adjacent buildings on fire? -If thermite caused the destruction, how come there was significant magnetosphere readings in Alaska at the very same time of the 9/11 attacks? -Why was the Alaskan magnetosphere normal until immediately before and during the 9/11 attacks, when there was a huge surge in magnetic activity? -How come Dr. Wood has already filed several legal claims against suspected 9/11-involved defense and weapons companies, yet Dr. Jones has not? -How come Dr. Wood has already been taking legal steps towards demanding a new 9/11 investigation, yet Dr. Jones does not support her legal efforts? -How come Dr. Jones has not officially filed or shared his nano-thermite evidence with Congress, NIST, or any official governmental body? Why the delay? -Why isn’t Dr. Jones and his affiliates supporting Dr. Judy Wood’s legal efforts to pursue 9/11 Truth, regardless of whether or not they agree on a theory? -Why is Dr. Jones just now “pursuing a new investigation” when Dr. Judy Wood has already filed several legal complaints, one which made it to the Supreme Court? -Shouldn’t we all be supporting the investigation that Judy Wood has already demanded, even if we do not agree on her theory?

    Dr. Judy Wood received her: B.S. (Civil Engineering, 1981) (Structural Engineering), M.S. (Engineering Mechanics (Applied Physics), 1983), and Ph.D. (Materials Engineering Science, 1992) from the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia. Her dissertation involved the development of an experimental method to measure thermal stresses in bi-material joints. She has taught courses including: Experimental Stress Analysis, Engineering Mechanics, Mechanics of Materials (Strength of Materials), Strength of Materials Testing

    Dr. Judy Wood has already filed several law suits against NIST and many suspected military / defense / weapons organizations in late 2008 and 2009, from Data Quality Analyses (DQAs) to Request For Corrections (RFCs) to Qui Tam whistle-blower suits. She is actively pursuing 9/11 Truth with her lawyer, despite the lack of support she has received from Dr. Jones and his followers. One of the many reasons Dr. Wood accuses Dr. Jones of misleading the 9/11 Truth Movement is because Dr. Jones has not filed his nano-thermite findings with NIST or with Congress, which he should have done long ago if he actually wanted to present them to Congress and NIST. The many legal documents Dr. Judy Wood has filed in her pursuit of 9/11 Truth can be observed here:

    1. http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/NIST_RFC.h...
    2. http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wo...

    It is important to consider the fact that Dr. Wood has actively been taking legal steps and scientific steps to pursue 9/11 Truth, yet Jones has kicked her out of his Scholars for 9/11 Truth group and has not supported her costly legal efforts to bring about a new 9/11 investigation. They should be working together, but it seems that Dr. Jones does not want to have anything to do with her because of her theory, even though her theory is strongly supported by evidence.

    Dr. Wood presents quite a compelling case which suggests that Dr. Jones is a paid government operative meant to mislead the Truth movement away from the real truth, which involves Free Energy, and Directed Energy Weapons. She does not know if Richard Gage and AE911Truth is in on this, but she says that as long as AE911Truth blindly promotes Dr. Jones’s nano-thermite theory as a fact, they are helping to mislead the 9/11 Truth Movement down the wrong path. I recently messaged Richard Gage to introduce him to Dr. Judy Wood, in hopes of them sharing information and collaborating in their pursuits of 9/11 Truth. Hopefully he responds, although no one from AE911Truth has ever responded to any of my emails.

    If you would like to email Dr. Judy Wood personally to discuss this matter further and possibly collaborate with her to more effectively pursue the truth about 9/11 by supporting her law suits or her research, here is her email address: lisajudy@nctv.com

    I strongly support the 9/11 Truth Movement, and I strongly hope that your primary 9/11 Truth group will collaborate with Dr. Judy Wood, so we can all work together to find out what is really going on. If Dr. Jones is indeed misleading the Truth movement, he needs to be exposed so that this movement continues moving forward.

    To Summarize: Dr. Judy Wood has gathered overwhelming evidence suggesting that a highly advanced Directed Energy Weapon, such as HAARP or something else from the military’s black budget and space weapons program, was the device used to bring down the towers and dustify / vaporize the steel and concrete, while leaving other materials (paper, aluminum, etc.) unharmed. She offers overwhelming proof that the molten metal and nano-thermite claims of Dr. Jones are not true. She offers overwhelming evidence which suggests that this is not the first time Dr. Jones has been called upon to use his scientific credentials to mislead a movement, as was seen during the Cold Fusion movement which was successfully squelched. She offers proof that Dr. Jones has used modified pictures, lies, and inconclusive evidence to try and mislead others into concluding that these buildings were brought down by nano-thermite, when in fact, nano-thermite does not account for much of the evidence (for example, where was all the molten metal if all the steel was melted? How come there was so much paper left unburned and unharmed if thermite was ripping through the building at incredible temperatures? How come the dust clouds that were generated by the demolition was not hot enough to burn anyone or start any other buildings on fire?)

    Please let me know how what you think about all this.

    All the best to you,

    -Abe

    Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez M1 Medical Student B.S. Biology / Neurobiology

    Posted 6 years ago #
  2. M-r-Anderson
    Member

    I've seen this on many boards.

    Disappointing.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  3. JohnA
    Member

    "Either Dr. Judy Wood is lying, or Dr. Steven Jones is lying."

    really? those are the only two choices?

    lol

    Posted 6 years ago #
  4. mark
    Member

    The third choice: neither of them is telling the truth.

    Thermite has never been used for controlled demolitions since it lacks the precise timing that would be needed.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  5. Victronix
    Member

    Thermite has never been used for controlled demolitions since it lacks the precise timing that would be needed.

    He doesn't say thermite was used, although he doesn't rule it out. Nanothermite is what was found in the dust.

    Nanoscale composites are easier to ignite than traditional thermites. A nichrome bridgewire can be used in some cases. Other means of ignition can include flame or laser pulse. Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) is developing super-thermite electric matches that use comparatively low ignition currents and resist friction, impact, heat and static discharge.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite#Ignitio...

    Posted 6 years ago #
  6. mark
    Member

    Good luck finding any actual evidence for this. Sorry that a bag of dust allegedly from someone's apartment is not exactly primary evidence that can be used for scientific inquiry.

    And it would be interesting to read a response from a demolition theorist about the testimony of the firefighters who measured bulging buildings (using transits) before 1,2 and 7 fell down, or how electronics for alleged demolition charges in the towers could have survived the infernos since the failure points were at the points of impacts from the planes.

    I vote for termites, not thermites, as the cause of the collapse :)

    Posted 6 years ago #
  7. Victronix
    Member

    a bag of dust allegedly from someone's apartment

    It's actually not alleged, but really happened.

    We saw the photos she took when they got out of there (they had wet scarves over their mouths and it looks like they're walking out of a volcano recently erupted) and from when she was allowed to return to her apt and collected the dust (she said the dust even got into CDs that were in their cases inside of other containers). She almost sufforcated because there was so much in her throat she couldn't breathe. And now she's just had surgery for a brain tumor because of it (like thousands of others probably).

    I was there when Steve went to her house and she gave him the dust. We have pictures of it.

    And the other samples matched hers.

    As much as one wants to try to brush away the evidence, the issue is not with the evidence itself or the methods used to analyze it or the journal that published it. The issue is psychological and political, not factual.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  8. truthmod
    Administrator

    What was the concentration of thermite in this dust? I wouldn't be surprised if there was a stash of thermite (and every other conceivable substance) stored somewhere in one of the several buildings destroyed on 9/11.

    My point is that whereas you look at something like the below article and none (or very little) of it is even disputed (it's just ignored), everything about CD will be continuously disputed (probably for the rest of our lives). In this case, even if your science is watertight, there will be another, supposedly scientific, person who will come along with a fairly plausible (or simply rhetorical) debunking of it. It is a never ending cycle. No one was there videotaping the CIA guys placing the thermite packages, but there are documentary records on other subjects of what people did and said, and as Mike Ruppert said, we can "PROVE THAT THEY ARE LYING."

    Alhazmi and Almihdhar: The 9/11 Hijackers Who Should Have Been Caught
    http://www.historycommons.org/essay.jsp?article=es...

    The Congressional Investigative Committee has held hearings on the subject of the intelligence failures related to the tracking of 9/11 hijackers Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar. However, as damning as those failures are, what’s being reported is not the whole story. The story of Alhazmi and Almihdhar is worth exploring in detail, because it consists of so many strange and contradictory components that when strung together, demonstrate repeated cases of gross government incompetence at every turn. Why did the government not prevent them from entering the country despite several opportunities? Why do neighbors claim the two men had frequent, brief limousine rides in the middle of the night? How can evidence of the two being at two different places at once be explained? What did Israel’s secret service know about them, and why was their warning to the CIA seemingly ignored? Why have visits by head hijacker Mohamed Atta been denied by all but their neighbors? Why have many major newspapers suggested that Khalid Almihdhar may still be alive?

    By connecting the dots left by previous media reports, it becomes clear that there is much more to these two than has been officially acknowledged. The truth is that the case of Alhazmi and Almihdhar has been a tremendous embarrassment to the Bush Administration—and it could prove even more embarrassing if the media starts asking real questions.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  9. Victronix
    Member

    What was the concentration of thermite in this dust?

    Like I said, it wasn't thermite, it was nano-thermite. The difference is that one is an engineered product that average people are literally not capable of making. Thermite is common, nanothermite is not. You can't buy it on eBay. You can buy thermite on eBay.

    I wouldn't be surprised if there was a stash of thermite (and every other conceivable substance) stored somewhere in one of the several buildings destroyed on 9/11.

    You mean like spent nuclear fuel rods? That's about the analogy you are making. Nanothermite, like nuclear fuel rods, is not available to just anyone and not just anyone can make it.

    Broad statements that evidence doesnt' matter can be applied for everything in this country -- Global Warming, the deficit, the theft by the Bankers, the 9/11 standdown, the put options, the lies in the Official reports . . . on and on and on. It's not really all that dependent on whether the evidence is the bankers actions or nanothermite or the trades documented before and after the attacks. The same principle applies to all of it.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  10. JohnA
    Member

    Broad statements that evidence doesnt' matter can be applied for everything in this country -- Global Warming, the deficit, the theft by the Bankers, the 9/11 standdown, the put options, the lies in the Official reports . . . on and on and on. It's not really all that dependent on whether the evidence is the bankers actions or nanothermite or the trades documented before and after the attacks. The same principle applies to all of it.

    well... there IS a difference in the quality of evidence - isn't there?

    i would hardly compare Dr Jones' paper on nano-thermite to the staggering amount of evidence that global warming exists. We are talking about ONE paper from ONE scientist based on ONE sample.

    Has Jones submitted his paper, along with samples, to independent labs for verification?

    no - he has not.

    Are we to simply take his word - as an article of faith? Many in the movement do. But - if we are having a truly objective discussion on this subject - lets be real here. Dr. Jones' paper has not yet been independently verified. And - claiming it is DENIAL - akin to people's resistance to global warming - is not an altogether intellectually honest comparison.

    Understand: - the COMPLEX nature of his analysis precludes many of us - in fact, disqualifies many of us - from having a opinion. we are simply not qualified. Those of us who are HONEST willingly admit that we do not have the expertise to render an opinion. Does the paper SOUND convincing to the layman? sure. but so do equally complex opinions to the contrary:

    Jones investigates only the red and gray chips and not the entire sample. He has a limited sample size. The chips have a laminar nature which suggests a coating or adhesive but he rules out paint by comparing the effect of MEK on some unknown paint and comparing it to the effect on the red chips. This is either incompetence or scientific misconduct and fraud. He sees that there is an organic fraction but does not analyze it. He uses DSC to measure exotherms but does it in a stream of air so he cannot tell the difference between a reaction and plain combustion of components but claims thermitic reaction. His EDAX shows silicon, aluminum, and oxygen in the same areas of the particle but he ignores this congruency; aluminosilicates are clays and are often fillers in paints and coatings. He does not extract a larger sample of the red and gray chips with a more agressive solvent, such as hot DMF or DMF-DMSO which would allow analysis of individual components. His conclusion that this is a thermitic material is not justified based on the data. JREF

    Now - this is mostly over the heads of 99% of 9/11 Truth activists. That's a fact.

    And those armchair scientists who prance around claiming they KNOW the truth - claiming that the science is indisputable - make us look bad - because it is CLEARLY not the truth. I am not qualified to render an expert opinion on this. And neither is We Are Change. And neither are some of the loudest proponents of Dr Jones' work.

    bottom line - you are asking us to trust Dr. Jones - not based on evidence - but on faith. and that is not very scientific.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  11. Victronix
    Member

    you are asking us to trust Dr. Jones - not based on evidence

    I work in a lab for a living, I write papers and go to conferences and understand science. I'm not armchair, so it has nothing to do with "faith" or "trust". I'm not a chemist, but I followed the process, read the paper closely, know where the samples came from, followed the debate, etc.

    His conclusion that this is a thermitic material is not justified based on the data. JREF

    But you won't see that coming out in a paper anytime soon because they are making false claims. They can critique his method, as anyone can critique any study's methods, but they won't be able to show that it isn't thermitic material. When these claims are published, we can talk about it again.

    Has Jones submitted his paper, along with samples, to independent labs for verification? no - he has not.

    Actually they have. Several different researchers have verified the findings. And publishing in a journal is independent.

    the COMPLEX nature of his analysis precludes many of us - in fact, disqualifies many of us - from having a opinion

    Part of the reason that technical journals exist is so that you don't have to be a scientist to know that there is something to a paper when a journal publishes it. So yes it's a fact that we aren't chemists and nanotechnology experts. But we can read a journal article and it's not a pretend journal, but it's a journal that took a risk.

    It's one thing to not want to support something that you feel you don't understand, but it's another to make claims about it that are not true, or try to undermine those who do support it as not being scientific because you disagree with the analogy.

    The analogy about Global Warming is not ideal because of the scale in several ways -- absolutely -- but it is indeed similar in that it has taken on a political agenda that the media is shaping and which has nothing to do with the science. Presto! The public starts to question Global Warming because of a few emails the MSM dumps all over the world. That's the same as how the "conspiracy theorist" labels work, as we know. Muck up reality to control perception.

    It's difficult to find a perfect analogy because this is science that people have lost their jobs over because of the political ramifications of it, and there aren't many areas like that in the professional world today. If you can think of an extremely controversial scientific study that investigators HAD TO ACTUALLY DO ON THEIR OWN, with no grant funding, please let me know.

    The way the system works is through a peer review process so that you don't have to be the expert. But in this case, parts of that system are somewhat broken -- i.e., the Bazant papers are published but the critiques are held up or ignored, not published for the most part -- so it makes it more difficult and confusing. Nontheless, if you ask someone who does understand nanotechnology and chemistry to look at the paper -- as reporters in Denmark did -- they will confirm it is valid.

    This topic is exactly why Jim H created the essay --

    Thermitic Pyrotechnics in the WTC Made Simple - Three Points of Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe that Anyone Can Understand - http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/thermi...

    The basis and validity of this identification can be grasped quickly by anyone with a working knowledge of physics and chemistry. They need only read the paper's one-page conclusion, and perhaps its section describing the provenance of the dust samples. But what of the reader whose strong suit isn't the hard sciences? Does one have to be an expert to understand the findings and evaluate the many claims thrown up by "debunkers" to dismiss those findings?

    Fortunately, the answer is no. The central observations of the paper can be understood by any intelligent person with some effort. In this thumbnail summary of the paper's findings, I focus on three easy-to-remember features of the red-gray chips established by the paper -- features that undeniably show that the chips are a high-tech engineered pyrotechnic material. Because my description includes some technical language, I have provided a glossary for the benefit of the non-technical reader.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  12. JohnA
    Member

    I know you're not an armchair scientist. But most of us are - and the technical issues being debated here are really outside of the scope of what most of us can discuss independently. So - we must in fact depend upon independent verification.

    They can critique his method, as anyone can critique any study's methods, but they won't be able to show that it isn't thermitic material. When these claims are published, we can talk about it again.

    Sorry - but the onus of proof is on Dr Jones to prove it IS thermitic material. Since it is his study - and his claims - and most importantly his SAMPLES - the onus remains on him to PROVE that termitic materials are present. And if the methodology he is using is flawed (and i am not saying it is) - then 'critics' have evry right to point that out.

    Several different researchers have verified the findings.

    well this is big news! Please point us in the direction of these independent labs that have independently tested samples from the WTC dust. I thought it was only Jones who had done this.

    but - on a final note - i respecfully but vigorously disagree with Jim that "The central observations of the paper can be understood by any intelligent person with some effort." Understanding the 'jist' of a scientific paper - and having the scientific expertise in chemistry and physics that allows the 'observer' to consider alternate possibilities, ommissions, inaccuracies and faulty logic - are two different things.

    but - again - i am indeed interested in seeing the conclusions of those independent labs that verify Jones' conclusions.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  13. Arcterus
    Member

    well this is big news! Please point us in the direction of these independent labs that have independently tested samples from the WTC dust. I thought it was only Jones who had done this.

    This is new to me as well. I'm very much interested in knowing who these other scientists were. I know there were other scientists who worked on the thermite paper, but was unaware there had been independent corroboration.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  14. mark
    Member

    Publishing in a "pay to play" journal based in UAE and Pakistan is not the same thing as independent corroboration, nor does it show any chain of custody for the alleged original material.

    I challenge any supporter of the thermite claims to find one verified example anywhere where this material has been used to knock down a tall building.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  15. JohnA
    Member

    I challenge any supporter of the thermite claims to find one verified example anywhere where this material has been used to knock down a tall building.

    That's not the point. It shouldn't be there. Is is a rather exotic material that should NOT show up in the WTC dust = at all. Period.

    but - yes - an independent verification of Dr Jones' work is absolutely essential. I hope those with a vested interest in promoting Dr Jones' work will not take this as a personal attack or as confrontational. It is constructive criticism and - IMHO - sound advice. You can't run around claiming something this exposive (pardon my pun) without ensuring that you protect your flank against attack.

    and i think it's better that sound advice like this comes from a friend - not an enemy.

    the claim is simply too significant to leave in this scientific state of ambiguity. either we get this thing independently verfied - or it is almost worthless to us.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  16. Victronix
    Member

    on independent confirmation;

    Important features of the research have been independently corroborated by Mark Basile in New Hampshire and by physicist Frédéric Henry-Couannier in France., proceeding from earlier scientific reports on these discoveries (e.g., by Prof. Jones speaking at a Physics Dept. Colloquium at Utah Valley University last year.) AT: http://911blogger.com/node/20998

    Iron-rich spherules were also observed in studies conducted by the RJ Lee company [1] and the US Geological Survey (USGS) [2]. In particular, a USGS report on the WTC dust provides two micrographs of “iron-rich spheres” [3] and a “bulbous” or tear-drop-shaped silicate droplet [4] (see images below). No explanation for the presence of these iron-rich and silicate spheres (which imply very high temperatures along with droplet formation) is given in the published USGS reports. The RJ Lee report also provides a micrograph and XEDS data for iron-rich spheres observed in the WTC dust; for example, their figure 21 (below, left) shows an “SEM image and EDS of spherical iron particle [1].” We likewise observe high-iron, relatively low oxygen spheres (e.g., below right and Fig. 4), which we find are unlike spheres gathered from cutting structural steel with an oxyacetylene torch. http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:38nP...

    RJ Lee and USGS basically confirm the products of nanothermite. You aren't going to find people at those orgs that want to lose their jobs to expose nanothermite. As it is, we only have a handful of people who have been willing to put their careers on the line for this.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  17. Arcterus
    Member

    Thank you for clarifying that, Vic.

    but - yes - an independent verification of Dr Jones' work is absolutely essential. I hope those with a vested interest in promoting Dr Jones' work will not take this as a personal attack or as confrontational. It is constructive criticism and - IMHO - sound advice. You can't run around claiming something this exposive (pardon my pun) without ensuring that you protect your flank against attack.

    I'm inclined to agree. I support the nanothermite findings but I also see the need to be as thorough as possible so that it doesn't blow up in our face.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  18. Victronix
    Member

    on independent confirmation:

    Important features of the research have been independently corroborated by Mark Basile in New Hampshire and by physicist Frédéric Henry-Couannier in France., proceeding from earlier scientific reports on these discoveries (e.g., by Prof. Jones speaking at a Physics Dept. Colloquium at Utah Valley University last year.) AT: http://911blogger.com/node/20998

    These researchers did not publish papers but independently corroborate the findings.

    Iron-rich spherules were also observed in studies conducted by the RJ Lee company [1] and the US Geological Survey (USGS) [2]. In particular, a USGS report on the WTC dust provides two micrographs of “iron-rich spheres” [3] and a “bulbous” or tear-drop-shaped silicate droplet [4] (see images below). No explanation for the presence of these iron-rich and silicate spheres (which imply very high temperatures along with droplet formation) is given in the published USGS reports. The RJ Lee report also provides a micrograph and XEDS data for iron-rich spheres observed in the WTC dust; for example, their figure 21 (below, left) shows an “SEM image and EDS of spherical iron particle [1].” We likewise observe high-iron, relatively low oxygen spheres (e.g., below right and Fig. 4), which we find are unlike spheres gathered from cutting structural steel with an oxyacetylene torch. http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:38nP...

    RJ Lee and USGS basically confirm the products of nanothermite, but they were not looking for it themselves. You aren't going to find people at those orgs that want to lose their jobs to expose nano-thermite. As it is, we only have a handful of people who have been willing to put their careers on the line for this.

    This was an article in Denmark media that is google translated. The journalists tried to find someone to confirm the work and they do confirm that the methods are correct --

    Videnskab.dk have tried to check the content of the article from independent scientists working with nanotechnology.Professor of inorganic chemistry Jens Ulstrup Technical University of Denmark (DTU) know like the other sources not nanotermit, but he did skim through the article and felt that assessments are made on the basis of 'very suitable' test by current standards. http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl...

    Another person in the article doubts the work but admits he does not work with nanotechnology.

    Mostly to me it looks like people on this thread 1) have not closely looked at the paper, 2) don't feel they can evaluate it and therefore reject it, and 3) have an agenda to reject CD in general, so it's not really worth more of my time to do their work for them.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  19. Victronix
    Member

    To sum up, you aren't going to find corporations and government agencies to validate the work because most people lose their jobs who do question the official story. You will find other independent researchers who do validate it. Niels Harrit is not in Utah and did not start off working with Steve. They have different labs and both found the same things. Harrit walks a reporter through his lab in one of the videos, but it's not really fair that I have to spend all my time doing the work to find all the sources for people who cannot even bother to read the paper and who make false claims about it, like saying it is about thermite, instead of nano-thermite. This isn't my job.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  20. JohnA
    Member

    Actually - it IS our job.

    Education starts at home - and if you expect the general public to embrace the scientific findings of Dr Jones you have to be prepared to educate in the movement - point people in the right direction - answer questions - and not take it personally.

    again - the science here is over the heads of 99% of the general public. I think it is disingenuous to blame people for not 'doing the research'

    There is no wiggle room here. There is just TOO much disinformation out there - and i, for one, am not prepared to champion a FACT that has not yet been proven to be a fact by believable, verifiable, independent analysis.

    now FORGIVE me for asking questions. You posted:

    Important features of the research have been independently corroborated by Mark Basile in New Hampshire and by physicist Frédéric Henry-Couannier in France.,

    ok

    So i must ask - didl Frédéric Henry-Couannier write this paper?

    http://www.darksideofgravity.com/marseille_gb.pdf

    Am I misunderstanding his position? Did he write this:

    Trying to confirm the nanothermitic hypothesis

    ●The nanothermitic hypothesis remained to be confirmed by the ignition crucial test : the chips must react at less than 500°C. We had to heat other identical chips (the previously analyzed chip could not be recovered for an ignition test) but... great surprise!: ●- Not even one chip of the same kind in the 7g of dust from our four samples (instead of dozens expected according to the authors of the publi). ● - Instead, dozens of chips showing the same red aspect on both faces,
    aspect and chemical composition difficult to distinguish from the one found in the red layer of the red/gray chips. ● - Some chips already carry light gray deposits with spherical metal particles they can expel when heated.

    These chips dont react even when heated up to 900°C: remain red, burn most of their carbon but other elements remain in the same proportion. Photos, spectra and analyses: ● www.darksideofgravity.com/redreds.pdf Remark: A photo from an independent searcher shows the red layer from a red/gray chip separating from the gray layer: possible origin of red chips. www.darksideofgravity.com/1RedGray2.pdf

    ● Eventually the presence of nanothermite could not be confirmed. The chips of my sample either already reacted on 9/11 (other searchers have found similar chips) or my sample was deactivated to prevent my independent corroboration of a crucial proof .

    Posted 6 years ago #
  21. mark
    Member

    reading this sort of back and forth feels like being in a parallel universe to the discussions of late 2001 and 2002 about establishing foreknowledge by the Cheney White House. That's certainly not as exciting for some people as claiming that the aluminum found near the WTC had no relationship to the aluminum cladding in the towers or the plane fuselages, but focusing on the warnings and wargames does have the advantage of putting the perpetrators and enablers on the defensive, in case anyone thinks that might be a good idea. The debunkers - who referenced this very discussion on "Screw Loose Change" - know that focusing on demolition is much better for them than talking about the warnings flooding in during the summer of 2001 or the plane into building exercise during the attacks. Sadly, most of what's left of the truth movement doesn't seem interested either even though the primary sources for these aspects are from mainstream media sources that are not easily discredited by partisan debunkers.

    Project Censored recently sent out an essay that included the claim that "thermite" is used for controlled demolition. I wasn't surprised that they did not include any footnote to document this claim, and responded to requests for clarification with silence. Previously, they gave Phil Berg a Project Censored award for his first bogus 9/11 lawsuit and also one to Steven Jones, but no awards for Paul Thompson, Mike Ruppert, John Judge, or Nafeez Ahmed for their investigations.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  22. JonGold
    Member

    mark, you sound like you think the idea of Controlled Demolition was introduced to the 9/11 Truth Movement in an effort to hinder our efforts because the idea of Controlled Demolition sounds "crazy" to a lot of people (which is why the 9/11 Truth Movement used to frown upon the idea of promoting CD, and instead focused on things like "establishing foreknowledge by the Cheney White House").

    I tried fighting 9/11 Truth being synonymous with Controlled Demolition for a lot of years, but the advocates for it outnumber me by 100 to 1.

    http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showpost.php?p=81...

    Posted 6 years ago #
  23. JonGold
    Member

    I'm also someone that asked Steven Jones if he could get an independent lab to verify his findings long ago.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  24. JonGold
    Member

    As I've said before, you shouldn't have to be a scholar to understand the need for 9/11 Truth.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  25. JonGold
    Member

    I also think the phrase "Controlled Demolition" is inaccurate based on everything we know. The phrase "bombs in the buildings" probably would have suited us better.

    In my opinion.

    Posted 6 years ago #

Reply »

You must log in to post.