Rehabilitation of Steven Jones at 911Blogger Continues
On the nanothermite FAQ thread, Aidan Monaghan comes through for Dr. Jones, suggesting that the nanothermite evidence is iron-clad (meaning in essence that Dr. Jones' credibility is iron-clad, since only he can vouch for the integrity of the dust samples he allegedly acquired and allegedly did not tamper with) and that we should unite behind it...
Scientific method on this needs to re-awaken the world..
Thanks for more insight on the study of the nano-thermite samples, principles on its manipulation for a classified grade explosive, and other observations. This and AE911Truth FAQ #6: What’s Your Assessment of the Directed Energy Weapon (DEW) Hypothesis? needs to be distributed to help us unite behind a scientific and criminal inquiry on what the evidence tells us on what happened on September 11, 2001. I will update this for Flyby News' resource page on this topic: New 9/11 Investigation vs New World Order, Thank you Professor Jones.
Submitted by jonathan mark on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 6:32am.»
- Login to post comments
- 3 votes
Presence Of Materials In NYC Subject To State Environmental Laws
While the “Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth” and “Remember Building 7” organizations are pursuing investigations of the suspect collapses of the World Trade Center buildings, another potential “back door” means of obtaining an investigation into the origins of the nano-thermite evidence contained within the World Trade Center dust samples and which seems to be within the scope of the “NYCCAN” organization’s mission, might be to seek having New York state environmental laws applied to its presence within the World Trade Center. The dust and all of its contents can be definitively tied the World Trade Center buildings. It can therefore be simply and effectively argued that evidence implies that these hazardous nano-thermitic materials were unlawfully present within the World Trade Center towers in violation of environmental laws or other laws, without having to bear the burden of proof that they were present in order to demolish the buildings (even though they apparently were) and having to overcome the potential official resistance to this view. It could be plausibly posited, that these nano-thermitic incendiaries contributed to the fires already present in both buildings and therefore potentially contributed to a loss of life and that discovering why they were present would be in the public interest.
Consider the following contained with the website of the New York State Attorney General’s office:
"Human health and the environment can be endangered by a variety of unlawful activities, such as the illegal use or disposal of hazardous or toxic chemicals or materials. ... The Environmental Protection Bureau of the Attorney General's office seeks to prevent or remedy harm to the environment and violations of the State's environmental laws. If you are aware of any activities or conditions which may violate environmental laws or significantly impact the environment adversely, we would like to hear from you."
http://www.ag.ny.gov/bureaus/environmental/about.html
"... scientists can engineer nanoaluminum powders with different particle sizes to vary the energy release rates. This enables the material to be used in many applications, including underwater explosive devices..., However, researchers aren't permitted to discuss what practical military applications may come from this research." {Gartner, John (2005). "Military Reloads with Nanotech," Technology Review, January 21, 2005; http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=14105&ch=nanotech }"
Indeed, it has been difficult thus far to obtain FOIA records from agencies known to be researching and developing nano-scale energetic materials, regarding their military applications.
Submitted by Aidan Monaghan on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 7:06am.»
- Login to post comments
- 2 votes
Excellent point, Aidan.
"The dust and all of its contents can be definitively tied the World Trade Center buildings. It can therefore be simply and effectively argued that evidence implies that these hazardous nano-thermitic materials were unlawfully present within the World Trade Center towers in violation of environmental laws or other laws, without having to bear the burden of proof that they were present in order to demolish the buildings (even though they apparently were) and having to overcome the potential official resistance to this view. It could be plausibly posited, that these nano-thermitic incendiaries contributed to the fires already present in both buildings and therefore potentially contributed to a loss of life and that discovering why they were present would be in the public interest."
Submitted by ProfJones on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 9:32am.
Ventura puts a knife in the truth movement
We all wondered why Ventura was getting so much mainstream media attention. He was filling in for Larry King, showing up on The View when other celebrities were banned for saying the same sorts of things on the same show.
I wrote to Jesse on his blog a months or so ago. Since I wrote the "insider trading" article in the book he made so much money off (and I didn't even get a copy) I wondered if he could help me understand something.
That is, Cathal Flynn was commander of UDT-12 about the same time Jesse Ventura was there. Flynn was Canavan’s predecessor at the FAA. Both Flynn and Cnavan were the hijack coordinators. Flynn, Canavan and Ventura were all special ops (apparently). What's up with that?
Submitted by Kevin Ryan on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 6:04pm.»
- Login to post comments
- 6 votes
post around
It's good that Gregg R et al did get the AE911 debunking up just recently. Worth posting around wherever you see people promoting DEW and in response to emails or debates. He's got most of the links debunking her claims in there.
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/505-ae911truth-faq...
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth Reject Judy Wood's "Space Weapons" Claims
"We do not support the DEW (directed energy weapon) hypothesis because it is not supported by the available evidence. In contrast, the explosives/incendiaries hypothesis for the WTC destruction is well supported by the evidence. . . . Based on what we know today, it is our opinion that the destruction scenario that best addresses the evidence is some type of explosive demolition using some combination of thermitic incendiaries and explosives that were placed inside the structures."
Submitted by Victronix on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 6:15pm.»
- Login to post comments
- 2 votes
Ah -- glad to see this at AE911Truth
Thanks Vic for the pointer, and thanks Gregg for the post!
Let's remember that AE911Truth has over 12,000 signees including about 1500 A&E's -- this is making a huge difference in the world, IMO, to promote the factual truth about 9/11.
"Factual Truther" -- I could live with that. To distinguish from the Wood/Fetzer types... ;) (camp #3 I spoke of above)
Submitted by ProfJones on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 6:30pm.»
- Login to post comments
- 2 votes
woh...
Very interesting connection indeed...
Thanks for the info.
Submitted by CD67 on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 7:41pm.»
- Login to post comments
- 4 votes
If that's the case
...then that's pretty disturbing and unsettling. Not only the link to JV, but the very fact a man who led an "Underwater Demolition Team" functionally related to the Navy Seals, i.e. special ops... becomes hijack coordinator for the FAA. You could say that's because they're point men for the job because of their expertise, but at the same time you have a possible mole installed. How far back did this tradition go, anyway? Did you mention this in your latest article? (I did read it)
Jesse V. is also a big tenter... but after his recent book I thought he was going the other way. I guess I was wrong.
Submitted by SnowCrash on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 2:25am.
Pure theater.
- gretavo's blog
- Login to post comments
Fake Truther Snow Crash has had it with Fake Truther Jones!
Why, I'm so confused! It's almost as if someone is deliberately fracturing the (fake) truth movement! Fracturing it EVEN MORE, that is! Is this Sunstein's "cognitive infiltration" at work? Ask yourselves: Who decided that 911blogger was the "official" site of the truth movement? Who are the people who have posted there regularly for years, playing along with every new flash in the pan alleged truther before claiming to regretfully withdraw their support from them? What is 911blogger, except for a source of disinformation and attempts to influence our thinking about 9/11 in unproductive ways?
Incidentally, what is your goal in all this?
Just to pounce on anyone who steps out of line, in your view?
Or is it to seek for a new life, where we are FREE from the control of those who would control us, control food supplies, the grid and energy supplies, even finally our speech?
Please
see here.
I withdraw from this discussion, and I also withdraw my support for your work, to my great regret. Good luck in life and work, prof. Jones.
Pure theater.
Fake Truther Vullich also disowns Fake Truther Jones
and tries to indict David Ray Griffin along with him. Too bad, otherwise this comment is pretty good!
The perpetual motion machine
The perpetual motion machine is science fiction, and so is the ridiculous notion that earthquake inducing technology might be used by "those who seek to control us". I thought you were a legit researcher, but I guess we are still waiting. I too withdraw all support for you and your research, and encourage others to do so as well. Here's a challenge for the truth movement, can we find professionals willing to help us who will not at some point appear at an event like conspiracy con, or talk about fake phone calls, or speculate about the NWO? It shouldn't be that hard. If nothing else let's learn from this, these people are not the leaders of this movement we are, all of us. We are the ones we have been waiting for, let's do this ourselves and not risk a bad association.
oh ho HO, "Vullich" seems to read WTCD!
He's starting to think, eh? And when the shit hits the fan and Steven Jones goes the way of Jesse Ventura and aligns himself with the Judy Wood (insane clown) Posse, and tons of WTC dust is produced showing no red/gray chips, and Jones is found to have had access to nanothermite, will WTCD get any credit for being right? Nope, it will simply become "mainstream" at 911blogger to dismiss Jones as a charlatan, and to dismiss everything but the lamest LIHOP for fear of "looking crazy"...
But wait... it's getting better
The moment someone really starts calling the "thermite distraction" into question, they all rally around the "nanothermite" paper and accuse me of being a fake "truther" because I leave comments on this blog.
That's all it takes these days.
"The nanothermite paper is undebunkable and Willy Loman is a fraud from WTCD." Snowcrash
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-05-10/jesse-goes-space-beams#comment-249...
I can't tell if I'm doing this site harm or the other way around. Guilt by association is so hard to define these days.
Sitting Bull put it this way:
"Vulich, you show the same reactionist behaviour, you are willing to lend even this guy who is totally discredited in the movement (because of the things he said) an ear, just because you want to and it fits to your agenda." Sitting Bull
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-05-10/jesse-goes-space-beams#comment-249...
Of course he doesn't offer any examples of "the things I said"... I guess that would be my review of Jim Hoffman's "1.8 million ceiling tiles bombs" theory or my ongoing distrust of Steven Jones' more than odd behavior, which seems to be rather acceptable now a days, even from my detractors like Snow Crash.
meh
Perhaps they just want to make sure that no one reads my suggestion that we need to test that dust for high explosive residues that must be there. Who knows. But apparently Snow Crash claims he isn't going to support Jones' research anymore while making sure he damn sure supports Jones' research, no matter how obvious Jones makes his attempts to discredit the movement.
Oh the tangled webs we weave...
Anyway, I thought I would let you know I have brought shame upon your site. Sorry. Apparently I am such a pariah for "the things that I have said" just a mere comment from me is enough to taint any site, anywhere.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth. JFK
I think it's the other way around...
...I think they're suggesting part of the reason you're discredited is because you have been known to post here and not shun WTCD as part of the "untouchable" caste. And the reason we're bad is because we call out fake truthers and ruin the illusion they are trying to create...
Nice write up by you linked to on that thread...
Just wondering since it wasn't totally clear, though, isn't part of the problem that the RJ Lee (and other) studies of the dust made no mention of any red/gray chips though they had no problem mentioning the microspheres of previously molten metals...
Steven Jones Continues to Demo Truth Movement
I hadn't focused enough on that fact, but you are right...
I just re-read Composition and Morphology and as you say, there is just no mention of "nanothermite" anywhere. You would think such a unique marker would have been mentioned a time or two, but no, not a peep. I can see where that might be a little problem for Jones et al.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth. JFK
more 'support'
Back from an extended hiatus, John Bursill drops this turd:
"Even though I fully understand the fear of this [overunity] research becoming public by way of the the MSM, the argument and data Prof Jones presents makes sense to me and appears well grounded.
I felt compelled to support Steven after reading this thread.
As you know I am a small tenter, but I fully understand the reason Prof Jones is expanding his research, as it is his nature.
Kind regards John
PS - As a movement we are sunk anyway so get over it...sorry that's from the heart. We are simply now so corrupted, confused and diluted why does it matter if Prof Jones wants to push more boundaries?"
See ya!
LeftWright also makes it back to offer his support for Jones' shenanigans.
Seems like they are attempting to conflate three things...
1. Overunity or perpetual motion.
2. Energy from an as yet unknown physical force.
3. 'Alternative' energy sources.
1+2 are Judy Wood/John Hutchison territory, while 3 is trivial.
What they've realized is that once they started ....
... the implosion of Jones' credibility, what naturally would follow would be questions about his "nanothermite" distraction and Vulich and SnowCrash saw that first hand in the earlier discussions which involved me.
The absolute LAST thing they want is Truth advocates asking themselves "well if it wasn't nanothermite, what did demo the towers?" because that simply brings us right back to 2005 and us looking at RJ Lee's evidence of thousands of melted trusses and metal spheres littering the dust. Of course what follows after that is a push for testing dust for high explosive residue.
So that might have been a bit of a miscalculation for them and suddenly the Jones bashing has to take a bit of a softer tone. that would explain SnowCrash's transition and the return of the Bursill and LeftWright
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth. JFK
Hey willyloman
What do you make of Jones' recent comments regarding explosives testing?
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-05-10/responses-questions-regarding-ther...
Have you tested for conventional explosives?
>>>>Are you now saying that nanothermite was used instead of thermate, or was the only explosive material in the operation?
Dr. Jones: "No, never said that. On the contrary, I have consisently noted that more conventional explosives may very well have also been used in the destruction of the WTC skyscrapers."
Have you tested for conventional explosives, Dr. Jones?
Isn't there a lab test for a whole panel of conventional explosives that we can do? Many people have assumed that conventionals were already tested for and ruled out, but my understanding is that they were never even tested for.
So who's going to do the legwork?
Let me put it this way -- there must be a way, yes, to test for conventional explosives (without TAGGANTS, we must assume they're not stupid) -- and I would like to hear of a lab that can do this. So we have WTC dust and debris -- the stuff actually has fairly large chunks of concrete and glass and rock-wool in it (NOT "dustified" as some erroneously claim, who have evidently never held/beheld the actual "dust" as I have). In it there may be, I expect, small fragments of unexploded conventional explosive (without taggants).
So you tell me -- how do we proceed? And I'm not playing with you. What lab can take the dust/debris and sort it in such a way as to find these low-concentration fragments of unexploded conventional explosive (without taggants)?
With the red/gray chips and iron-rich spheres, we were "lucky" in that these were attracted by a strong magnet, and I was able to concentrate them fairly easily. Then I had access to scanning-electron microscopes with attached XEDS equipment -- and we nailed it and published our results.
Such equipment will however NOT find fragments of organic conventional explosives (do I need to explain why not?).
So you tell me -- how do we proceed?
Prof Jones
I have a different question:
Have you ever attempted carbon-dating the nanothermite, since the chips contain carbon?
I've had BETA Analytic labs do
C-14 dating for me before, good lab. Here's a sample report and you'll likely see the problem:
http://www.radiocarbon.com/carbon-dating-results.htm
The date is given with an error bar of +/- 40 years, for an object 720 years old. Now they may be able to get that down to +/- 10 years for a modern object, but that's not good enough (is it?) That would mean, say 1995 +/- 10 years. Would that do us any good?
But call them (link above for starters) -- maybe their methods have improved since I worked with them. (I'd be very surprised if they could get the error bar down below +/- 5 years.) And ask the cost while you're at it. I'm curious what they're charging these days for AMS.
Thanks for the response
Too bad... I had hoped this would give us some handle on the 'when' besides the 'who'. Regardless of the error margin though, you don't want a result? Maybe you could compare such a result with other carbon-containing WTC construction materials to see if there's any correlation, and thus simply establish that these materials are 'newer'? Maybe a fundraiser could be organized on 911blogger..
How about the rate of decline in the integrity Al - Fe2O3 - C structure? Harrit has alluded to the chips degenerating over time. Perhaps this degeneration could be transformed into some kind of model with polynomial regression, thereby enabling you & your peers to trace the graph back to t=0? Just some wild thoughts, which perhaps make little sense, but I wanted to share them nonetheless, otherwise it never gets mentioned.
A lttle primer on C-14 dating...
may be in order. As long as a plant or animal is LIVING, it takes in CARBON from the environment -- the air, grass, etc. The air has a steady supply of C-14 (produced by cosmic rays). When the living thing dies, it stops taking in "fresh" radioactive carbon-14, and the clock begins. (C-14 begins to decay with a known half-life, allowing for dating the matter.)
But the carbon in the red material would be from some chemicals "on the shelf" -- this is not the same as dating a plant or animal that has died. For example, how long has the chemical sat on the shelf in a bottle? etc.
I don't see how C-14 dating will help us here, the more I think about it.
But -- keep thinking creatively!
A remark
Because it bothers me: when I typed: Al - Fe2O3 - C, I used the wrong HTML tags resulting in the numbers being in the wrong position, superscript instead of subscript. I obviously meant subscript.
C-14 only works for organic manterial between 50-55,000 yrs
Although the nanothermitic material is probably best datable by its technological stamp--that is, what labs were making this stuff back in 2001? Kevin Ryan has done some revealing work in this area, as you are probably aware.
There's also the question of why large amounts of the raw materials in question could remain undocumented. I mean, if LLNL was indeed involved in the manufacture of large quantities of this (or similar materials), then there MUST be a paper trail.
But then, LLNL has a long history of being part of the DOD's black budget weapons laboratory, so it would require some exceptional sleuthing to pull an invoice from them or their partners. It would be worthwhile for someone living in the CA area, who has the time and inclination to examine LLNL's manufacturing partners or consultants in manufacturing nano-scale metal oxides.
EPA- Method- 8330A
Alpha Analytical labs can do both the EPA-Method-8330 and EPA-Method-8330A that could test for an array of conventional explosives. Only cost about $216 per sample. According to a Chemical Engineer who you are familiar with.
I sent you an email with more information to your: ProfSJones@gmail.com
Best,
R.L. (Robert McGee)
Great follow-up effort, Robert, and much appreciated.
Wonderful news. Count me in -- I'd love to see this analysis done for an array of conventional explosives. Does he have enough dust sample?
Sample Quantity
How much is required to do these tests?
I have access to over an ounce of white dust taken from the interior of a core column that NIST removed a "coupon" from.
kawika7777@hotmail.com
The FBI lab
can do it. But before asking them, everyone should be aware of the strange case of the FBI's best explosive expert, Frederic Whitehurst, in the investigation of the 1993 WTC bombing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederic_Whitehurst
http://www.public-action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/death/tscr/whitehur/fw...
(sorry there is no better link!)
Maybe it's logical to ask him, as he has the ability to examine it and with his personal story no reason why he shouldn't do it.
SUPPOSE WE ALREADY HAD
a set of test results, (from a conventional demolition site) with a very detailed listing of compounds. What would one look for to indicate the presence of explosives other than nanothermite?
Does the presence of PAH's (polyaromatic hydrocarbons?) indicate anything of importance?
How about a statement such as "extraordinary concentrations of pyrogenic PAH's"?
Thank you very much
Hi jameson. I have had that exact conversation with...
Steven Jones already. That EXACT conversation. It was in an email discussion back in 2008 and then again in 2009.
Jones tried the same distraction technique with me... "taggants". He knows full well, as I certainly told him, that the commercial high explosive industry was excluded by law from putting taggants in their conventional explosives. Taggants are only used in identification of non-exploded materials. Notice that Jones mentions ONLY testing for unexploded materials, and NOT residues of high explosives that have been detonated (until MacGee mentions "EPA-Method-8330 and EPA-Method-8330A" both testing methods used by a testing company I suggested to Jones 2 years ago). I don't think he mentions that ONCE in the exchange above except to claim he supports the idea (just like he said to me after I did research like MacGee did... then Jones got Roberts to reject the idea for him)
This is what I wrote in an article about this very subject based on email communications between me and Jones back in 2008 and 2009.
Notice that I answered these VERY questions that Jones is asking yet again to another Truth advocate and I was puzzled at why someone with the educational background and access to a lab would even need to ask such a question of me back then. Clearly Jones has seen the answers to the questions he asks of RL Magee and others:
"... Back in May of 2008, my conversations with Jones moved beyond the 911 Blogger thread that I put the article up on. In an email response to me, he expressed an interest in looking into this further, but then he referred the matter to Greg Roberts and my discussion about the subject went forward with him.
At long last, after being told that they were really more interested in pushing for political or legal action, Greg Roberts told me something quite amazing in one of his last emails to me.
“However, our detractors could be counted on to do their best to use a negative result against us for P.R. purposes. They would say that we have a non-scientific belief, since a negative outcome from an experiment fails to shake it. ;-) Thus, the potential costs of doing what you’re proposing and coming up empty-handed, or worse, must be considered.” Roberts
... But all that aside, what this thing really comes down to is this;
Why haven’t you tested for explosive residues in the samples of WTC debris that you have in your possession?
I asked you that question in the emails again this week, and what did I get in return?
You suggest I tell you how to run tests for trace elements of PETN. I should tell you?
I didn’t even finish college and I should tell this scientist how to test for PETN residue?
“Jones earned his bachelor’s degree in physics, magna cum laude, from Brigham Young University in 1973, and his Ph.D. in physics from Vanderbilt University in 1978. Jones conducted his Ph.D. research at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (from 1974 to 1977), and post-doctoral research at Cornell University and the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility”
Now how odd is it that I should be the one to explain to a Ph.D scientist in possession of actual Ground Zero evidence, how to run scientific tests? A scientist, by the way, currently working at a leading university with an outstanding chemistry department from what I understand.
I am supposed to tell you how to run the tests?
Well, I did. 4 times and I gave him 3 options…
“I responded 3 times you your question about how to test for these explosive
signatures.
1. I sent you PDFs and links to a place where you can purchase a registered
testing kit that uses a reagent process.
“Sirchie – Explosive Residue Test Kit – cat ERTT10?
2. And I sent you links to a company that you can send the materials off to
in order to have them test the samples in their labs.
“Leeder Consulting: Explosives Residue Analysis”
3. And I also sent you detailed information on how to use the Griess reagent
process, not only how to use the process but detailed information on the
preparation of the reagent itself.
“The key to selective and sensitive explosives trace identification by TLC
lies in the visualization reagent. Griess reagent, in a number of versions,
has proven to be the most popular means of visualization.”
One question, three clear and precise answers.”
The original emails I still have. All of the correspondence I still have. Each of the processes I list above in one of my last emails to Steven Jones, I gave him carefully laid out details as to the process. Each email included PDFs and images from either websites of suppliers of the testing equipment to the links to companies he could send a sample off to… I even researched forensic investigation text books and sent him links to the chapter on the Griess reagent test they could do in the lab themselves without anyone knowing."
this is the link to the article I wrote on April 7th 2009 called "Some Straight Forward Questions For Steven Jones on the Subject of his Research"...
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/02/17/some-straight-forward-questio...
For Dr. Jones to pretend now that he still doesn't understand the difference between standard tests for residues of high explosives and taggants and for him to continue with the pretense that he doesn't know how to run tests for such residues is EXTREMELY dishonest.
Not only have I informed him and Roberts of the need to run these tests, but Jones and Roberts BOTH have criticized NIST for not running these very tests in their "nanothermite" paper as well as in multiple lectures and videos since then.
Dr. Jones knows exactly which tests need to be run and knows exactly how to run them and as I have pointed out, both Jones and Roberts have made it clear that they do not want to run them and that is the ONLY explanation as to why they haven't run them as I and others requested years ago.
Seeing Dr. Jones run the same kind of obfuscation on Blogger that he tried to run with me years ago is frustrating and disappointing.
I would ask you, if possible, to find someone who has not yet been banned by the moderators at Blogger and please, if you can and you don't mind being banned as well, please copy this reply and put it up on that thread in response to Dr. Jones' dishonest comments on that thread. The people of Blogger need to see this for what it is.
BTW - I wrote out an entire proposal for testing procedures. I would hope that someone at Blogger who is serious about running tests of this nature would at least read this proposal. I think it is comprehensive and would result in tests that are admissible in future criminal litigation: "Proposed Testing Procedure for High Explosive Residues in Ground Zero Dust"
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2011/04/11/proposed-testing-procedure-fo...
I am glad you asked me about this. It's frustrating seeing Jones using the same old tired attempts to distract the movement, but I would rather hear about it and attempt to expose it than to have missed it altogether. Thanks.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth. JFK
As you say
in the second link there
"Considering the fact that no official entity has attempted to run these tests, entities that have worked diligently to avoid the conclusion of a controlled demolition, and considering all the hard work and scores of evidence compiled by previous researchers, positive results of these tests are almost a foregone conclusion."
Indeed, if testing was certainly not going to find explosives, why wouldn't NIST have performed tests?
I've contacted the only unbanned person I know from 911 blogger, I think they will post if they get the mail (it's been a while). Or maybe someone else will?
LeftWright...?
open letter missing
The link to the open letter on the first page is dead, here's the version on 911B..
http://911blogger.com/news/2008-05-25/open-letter-steven-jones-subject-d...
Apart from yourself, I only noticed the user 'ahey' raise this question over there..
http://911blogger.com/news/2009-09-01/exchange-emails-march-2009-robert-...
Testing for explosives
Hi Dr. Jones,
Have you tested your WTC dust samples for explosives? -- RDX, HMX, PETN ?
I admire your work -- and actually met you at the Alex Jones LA Symposium several years back -
our group only pushed your work at several public free screenings regarding this issue....although defunct now, we are keeping at it.
We just did an AM radio show last weekend -- and would really like to get you on or another member of your group on air to further discuss your most current findings. The AM radio station listenership is definitely not the "choir" - and would like to reach them with a very measured scientific approach.
But yes - to the question - would like to know if you and/or others within the group have done the tests we know NIST/FEMA/FBI won't even attempt...
Thanks in advance!
and also here...
http://911blogger.com/news/2009-11-09/pentagon-pouring-your-money-afghan...
CD theories
yeah, the CD theories make both forensic and visual sense to pursue -
but why won't the 911 truth movement at large test for explosives in the WTC dust which they have had in their possesion for over 3 years?
who's pressuring them not to do it?
Everybody thinks the CD theory is pursuable --- wouldn't a great 1st step be testing the dust for it?
ie: Testing all the "popular flavors" in the CD world....
Someone told me via email from AE911 truth that testing for explosives was "high on the list" and a "priority"
I wonder when they will get to it ?
should they be on a world tour talking about thermite paint chips or in the lab testing for what blew the buildings to dust and pieces?
I'm sure others are out there like me --- hanging on every word since '06 and the 1st thermite theories ---- to put it mildly I was very shocked to find that Jones and company are not testing for PETN, RDX, HMX -- and all the other flavors ---- they are also not responding to emails regarding these inquiries.
Interesting...
Do you mean
something like this?
http://www.aatl.net/products/frontline.htm
I remember being puzzled at the time why I was the only one to respond (with the results of a google search).
LeftWright or 911ARTISTS?
Doesn't anyone with an account at Blogger think willyloman's comments make sense?
Has almost everyone been banned?
LeftWright.. I notice you commented on Jones' blog post above but not about testing for explosives.. don't you think this is important? The discussion on the page seems to have fizzled out..
I remember, back in the day, ProfJones talking like he had loads of dust. How much does he actually have? Are there still only four sources?
Hey, Jameson.
I don't know what's going on here well enough to respond to your question. I got a little busy talking to Mr. Syed and a few other good people over the past couple weeks.
http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=50233#post50233
http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=10455
Paul
http://www.911artists.com/
http://www.911truther.com/
Dust
I'd like to know who's got some (supposed) dust, where they got it from, and how much they've got.
It's hard to believe that nobody has tested for conventional explosives, at least for their own curiosity!
Should people contact new source kawika7777@hotmail.com asking him to not give his ounce of dust to Steven Jones?
I wonder how hard it would be to 'hold/behold' some dust, as Steven Jones has? RJ Lee... USGS... has Steven Jones kept a list of who he has sent dust to? Is it possible to obtain dust directly from his sources?
I sent Kawika an email asking that very same thing...
... the very same day I saw this thread. I also sent her/him a copy of my proposed testing procedure but I never heard back from him.
I simply warned him that if anyone asks him for that sample, that he should not give it to them, that he should hang onto it himself and when the tests are run, there will be one less link in the custodial chain, therefore one less possibility of sample corruption.
I fear that I never heard back because Jones or Roberts already contacted him and requested the sample and he may have sent it. I certainly hope not.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth. JFK
Yes..
you beat me to it, I'd just clicked 'edit' to change 'him' to 'their' but it came back unauthorized.
Subconscious sexism aside though, I'm embarrassed it's taken me so long to realise how dodgy this all is.
Extraordinary concentrations of pyrogenic PAH's
kawika almost seems to be hinting their dust sample has been tested and that it contains "extraordinary concentrations of pyrogenic PAH's"... would that be evidence of explosives?
Not really...
... pyrogenic PAH's can be a signature of a combustion related event, but that combustion is often in reference to burning fossil fuel such as gasoline, diesel fuel, or coal.
"The most common pathways for PAH production include
petrogenic and pyrogenic. Petrogenic PAHs are
formed through slow, long-term, moderate temperatures
(100?300°C), and are associated with fossil fuels
(petroleum and coal). Pyrogenic PAHs are formed through
rapid, high temperature combustion (>700°C) of motor
(automobile), bunker (shipping), and power plant (coals
and petroleum) fuels."
source (PDF): http://www.exponent.com/files/Uploads/Documents/EF%20Notes%20Vol%204.pdf
Could be distraction or it could be a measure of the residual elements of some of the diesel fuel that burned in the lower floors of Building 7.
Testing for residues of high explosives usually center around the presence of very specific nitrates which are not formed by burning fossil fuels.
What it also implies is the use of a home made device similar to something that was used on the Oklahoma building (I know, not really home made, but made to look home made) as that they use a combination of diesel fuels and nitrogen rich fertilizer (or so I am told). That would imply someone other than a commercial high explosive demolition company, and once again, we are back full circle to "the terrorists did it"
So if that is what Kawika is now saying, my guess is Kawika didn't reply to my email because he/she is nothing more than a sock puppet
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth. JFK
In fact that could be the next distraction...
Remember the "thermite" theory was designed to keep us from looking for residues of high explosives used to bring down the towers and also to explain what the RJ Lee Group found in their "Composition and Morphology" study (molten metal and plastic spheres)
With the recent demise of the "nanothermite" distraction develoing, they may be trying to float another distraction (Beta testing if you will) and that would be that someone used a "Timothy McVeigh" type device to bring down the towers.
anything to keep us from looking at what probably did bring them down.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth. JFK
Hey, Willy, what do you think of this interview?
Guns and Butter with SJ on earthquakes, HAARP, etc. I found it a little strange that he goes out of his way to make the point about man-made earthquakes, citing different instances starting with Tesla; but then, when he briefly touches on HAARP conspiracy chatter, of which there has been plenty, neither he nor Bonnie Faulkner explain exactly WHAT HAARP is or what it does or is capable of doing, except to say that it is radio waves and radio waves cannot penetrate the earth deep enough to induce earthquakes, a weakly argued dismissal at the very least..
when you have a chance:
http://noliesradio.org/archives/34434
Where do I begin with this...
I guess at the beginning.
Right off the bat Dr. Jones starts reading the material he brought in to discuss with Bonnie, which involved a lengthy article about Tesla's statement that he nearly brought down a "steel framed" (Jones made sure to hit on that point) building in New York.
He goes so far as to point out that it was a "small machine that could fit in your jacket pocket" and that outside, as the building began to crack and vibrate, there was commotion with people running around and ambulances showing up.
Sound familiar?
Now check this out. It's a blog taken over by Judy Wood in June of this year titled "Judy Wood's Science: a blog about the Tesla weapon that brought destroyed the World Trade Centers"
http://drjudywood.blogspot.com/2010/03/more-analysis-of-steven-jones-blu...
The article I am linking you to is from March of 2010 when they suggest that Jones nearly admits to being involved in the Tesla attack on the Twin Towers.
Jones says in the interview about this story and the "earthquake table" he made, "I'm sure it's quite true"
Then he says "the natural frequency of the building is matched by the frequency of the driver"
That's not an "earthquake", what he is clearly doing is talking about building demolition. "You exceed the elastic limit of the structure, it's natural ability to find stability"
What do I think about it when someone who used to work with Judy Wood and who ran a distraction campaign for 5 years starts promoting Judy Wood's theories in public on Guns and Butter?
This is just another attempt by a guy paid by the neocon university BYU to distract the unofficial investigation into the demolition of the Twin Towers.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth. JFK
Your question promted me to write an article about this...
as per his talking about HAARP, notice that he brings it back directly to discussing effects on buildings.
"In the Company of Laymen – BYU’s Latest Distraction Campaign: Steven Jones and the Telsa Weapon"
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2011/06/17/in-the-company-of-laymen-byus...
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth. JFK
If ever the truth becomes
If ever the truth becomes widely accepted and justice returns to the US, I hope very much that there will be severe consequences for disinformation agents like Steven Jones.
Life in prison...
...would be as severe as I would like.
Good read and this pretty much says it:
"It’s pretty hard to imagine that an institution that believes God will hold you responsible for hindering Bush’s “Global War on Terror” would finance and support a leading Truth advocate and his “research”."
and then there's this, what do we make of this?
http://presscore.ca/2011/?p=1624