9/11 Conspiracy Thread (There can be only one!)

You are indeed mistaken

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. Since you may not believe truthers saying so, here is an official story believer saying so (search for barium nitrate):
http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/1528/33345.aspx

However, Steven Jones seems to believe that the thermate used did indeed have barium nitrate. He states:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf, page 81

He continues, saying:

So clearly he is claiming that barium was indeed found. You go on to state that barium is not barium nitrate. Headspin responded saying:

You then say:

If he were being paid by the government to study these things, he might indeed have had the time and the tools to do these things. As it is, this isn't happening. Remember, however, that there were some anomalously high concentrations of certain trace metals, including barium. He ends off by saying:

Studies that were perhaps cut short when he was put on paid leave, while university officials were apparently examining whether they should terminate him, perhaps because of such studies. He retired before they could make up their minds. More later...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So he needs to prove that there should have been no barium in the WTC. From where does he collect his samples? How many replicates? And so on. This data needs to be presented.

Anyway: unsurprising they kicked Kenny off the Troofer forum. They prefer Troof to truth, so I can imagine his arrival would have been poorly received.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, only that the levels that were there were 'anomalosly high'.

I would imagine he's done it, but I don't have it on hand right now.

They suspended his account for 14 days, because in 1 post he managed to insult people within the forum 3 times (they have a 3 strike rule there). He regularly insults people here too, but so do truthers. Everyone who's been here a while knows that the rule/regulation/recommendation (they don't specify which is which) is a nebulous clause that, if it is ever enforced, is only done so when the admins feel like it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I haven't really looked at his evidence for jesus visiting america, but as I've mentioned before, many people and enormous religions believe things that have little if any evidence. It is for this reason that I believe we should separate his religious views from his articles on 9/11, which have been peer reviewed on the Journal for 9/11 studies site. I haven't seen him use anything but evidence to sustain his 9/11 claims, but if you feel he has written a passage in his writings on the subject where this is not so, by all means bring it to my attention.

No, he didn't. This is what Headspin said:

He said nothing of the sort. He only said that he didn't remember if the US Geological Survey found the barium or Jones himself did.

 

'Significantly' high?

I'm referring to Jones' analysis, not Jones himself here.

So locate it. Bring your proofs if ye are truthful.

Do Troofers get banned? Only the obnoxious ones, I bet.

 

The term he used was 'anomalously high'. I'll quote the paragraph where he uses it:

www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf, page 27 in pdf document, 81 on page.

Being truthful and having proofs for every single counter official story believers have are entirely different things. Unlike certain NIST individuals, I'm not being paid to research these things. But if I come across the information requested, I see now reason why I wouldn't put it up here.

I haven't done an in depth study on the subject. But feel free to begin one ;-).

 

This claim of NIST has been shown to be spurious. 911research.wtc7.net points out their flaw:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/index.html

Given the fact that the melting point of aluminium is 1220.58 °F (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium), about twice as hot as the steel should have gotten by fires alone in the building, I believe this whole argument is doomed to failure. But I'll give it another push in that direction by showing a video wherein NIST attempts to support their theory:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQdkyaO56OY

 

So, not significantly so?

 

Geoff, don't you think that if he didn't think it was significant, he wouldn't mention it?

 

I'm a scientist. Anomalous doesn't mean much to me; significance is important. And yes, I think he would.

 

He is published on the Journal for 9/11 studies. From their site:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/

 

What's your field of study?

Well, you're free to believe whatever you like.

 

Genetics. As such, significance is my issue.

 

Scott perhaps you could read post 921 before you repeat this again.

I have done some searching and found other tests where the steel temperature was not very far behind the atmosphere temperature.

 

It's not clear from the quote I read whether or not her was talking about thermite or thermate. I want to read from a reliable source that is not from a truther website or some guy on a forum. Wiki would do. Is a thermate reaction possible without barium nitrate being a byproduct?

This is irrelevant anyway since Steven Jones doesn't report finding barium nitrate.

As usual, I will state that Steven Jones found nothing that wasn't already in the WTC with or without thermate. The fact that Steven Jones could not check for compounds leaves him without evidence.

The bottom line is that he didn't find these things he was desperately looking for. The fact he couldn't even tell elements and compounds apart means that he has no business making any of these claims, particularly when all the elements he describes as suspicious had a more mundane explanation for being present.

 

Scott, you need to stop putting external sources as quoted text from your hand-holder Headspin and Steven Jones, because it makes it more difficult to reply.

I understand that the mere presence of the elements doesn't spell out evidence thermite if you would expect those elements to be there without thermite.

Zzzz... you've fallen into the habit of posting urls without giving me excerpts again.

Same as above.

I'd like to know the context here - something truthers are not always willing to provide. Did this NIST experiment work previously? Did it work afterwards? Was this just a single failed attempt? The fact that they are doing it for the cameras tells me that they would have known from previous experiments that it worked.

Ahhh. So basically he is published and peer-reviewed on conspiracy theory websites, but no respected scientific journal? Everyone on a conspiracy theory website is going to agree with him regardless. He has to try and convince experts in the relevant fields who are skeptical of his claims. The scientific process is without bias, so how about he shows some courage of his convictions and submit it to the relevant sources?

I shouldn't have to tell you why that just won't do it. That's like saying biologists write papers supporting creationism and are 'published' on a creationist website.

 

Geneticists concentrate on 'significant genes' right? Those 2 words in quotes bring lots of hits on google anyway. But semantics aside, I have seen nothing that would lead me to believe that Steven Jones would bring up anything that he felt was not significant.

 

Sometimes I wonder if you're incapable of refraining from personal attacks. Anyway, it's clear that you haven't read the document thoroughly. He said (and I quote):

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june07/overpass_05-10.html

I have never argued that the WTC buildings didn't reach those temperatures and neither has any serious 9/11 truther that I know. I have only argued that the fires in the WTC buildings couldn't have done it, and many experts hold this view as I have already stated.

 

I'll ask the loose change forum regarding this.

Again, I'll ask the loose change forum concerning this.

Once more, I'll ask the loose change crew.

 

REPORTED!!!!