9/11 Poll

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

These guys are unpublished and don't have their work peer reviewed. Don't even mention their pseudo peer review 9/11 journals website, because that is very much in-house. They are famous for not having their pseudoscience peer reviewed as you well know. So we can pretty much rule them out of science as far as their work on 9/11 goes.

I'm well aware of Kevin and Steven. They are proven liars, just like you.

Not only are they just 2 people, but they have nothing but transparent claptrap which isn't going to impress me or people of science.

Irrelevant. If they have good evidence, they would gain some notoriety with me, the media and science. The only people they struck a chord with are NWO types such as yourself. That should tell you all you need to know.

It's amazing how you can hinge your entire belief on the firing of two people. You forget the amount of independants, or people who are retired. Not to mention that people can work on 9/11 conspiracy claims on their own time whilst using a legal discimilar to note that his work and opinions on 9/11 are his and his alone and not adopted by XXX company. Thats what NASA scientist and official story follower Ryan Mackey does.

Then clearly you underestimate science. Perhaps your cherished NWO beliefs don't take place in the real world. The only enemies of science are no these imagined authoritive figures, but they are people like you, who undermine it at ever opportunity and try to distort the truth based on your own irrational emotions.

Again, this is another person who doesn't have anything to offer. His work is debunked even by non-experts, just like I debunked your cherished AE911truth claims of hallmark signs of demolition.

Is it getting through yet? You got nothing.​

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Back in post 193 Scott said:

This was in reference to photos of concrete.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So here is a close up of the mass showing that the 'fused' material has paper in it. The paper is not charred. There is a lot of brown fibrous material there.

Didn't pay much attention to the photo before. Now I find a close up. SO now I get to answer the question "How much energy is required to do that, do you know?" Looks like a gravitational collapse since the caption for the photo says,

Is this yet another case of misrepresentation?

 

Their work is published and viewable on their web site free of charge for anyone who's interested to see. Their work is definitely peer reviewed by such aclaimed scientists as Steven Jones.

Nothing pseudo about it. Just because you can't recognize greatness takes away nothing from their excellent work.

I assume you got that nonsense from some official story supporter; I think you may even have mentioned it was Ryan Mackey, the guy who allegedly is paid to do.. what exactly? Buy things for NASA? Perhaps he's really paid to support the official story by coming up with reams of plausible nonsense. Who can say. Anyway, you want to believe such types, be my guest.

 

Well obviously their work is online, but was it ever actively submitted for peer review in an independant journal? If not, why not?

Haha, you are just trolling now.

Name me a single independant peer review journal that Steven Jones' 9/11 work has appeared in.

Ryan Mackey is a research scientist at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, specializing in vehicle autonomy and Integrated Systems Health Management for aircraft and spacecraft. He is a graduate of the University of California, Santa Cruz and the Graduate Aeronautical Laboratories at the California Institute of Technology (GALCIT). He has authored sixteen NASA Tech Briefs and Technical Reports, and received two United States Patents for his original research. He has contributed to numerous projects including the Joint Strike Fighter, NASA’s New Millennium Program and Project Constellation.

It's amazing how you can say that with a straight face. You even entertained the notion that *I* was a government agent... That's how moronic you are.

And what is 'nonsense' about his debunking of conspiracy theories? I'm guessing you don't have the first notion of what he has said on the matter.

I will believe ANYONE over dishonest NWO types. You and your idols bring new meaning to being irrational, paranoid, delusional and dishonest.

 

You mean other than their own independent journal? As a matter of fact, they have:

Steven Jones, Frank Legge, Kevin Ryan, our very own Anthony (Tony) Szamboti, James Gourley have published their paper Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction in The Open Civil Engineering Journal.

Kevin Ryan, James Gourley and Steven Jones have published their paper Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials in The Environmentalist

Finally, Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, Frank Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James Gourley and Bradley Larsen have published their paper Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe in The Open Chemical Physics Journal.

If anyone is trying to get an emotional response, it's you. Quit using belittling insults and stick to the issues at hand. If you can't defend your logic, have the decency to say so instead of sinking to these lows.

Look at the tortured wording you have to use in order to discredit Steven Jones. Other than the fine journals that I've just mentioned, he's also published in Scientific American and Nature, perhaps the most prestigious peer reviewed journals on the planet. It's probably because of his determination to get to the truth despite upsetting the status quo on such controversial topics as warm fusion that persuaded Cynthia Mckinney to send him a sample of the WTC dust.

Alright, so he clearly knows a few things on technology, which leads me to believe that he may well be in on the deception, as is NIST. Perhaps, due to his unofficial nature, he's been given more leeway to make up his spurious claims, which people such as Jim Hoffman have conclusively debunked.

Hardly. What's amazing in my view is that you haven't considered the possibility.

I'm reporting this post. Perhaps that'll teach you some manners. If I have suspected you to be a government plant or you suspect me of being an "NWO type", that's one thing. But quit trying to get a rise out of me with your insults; -that- is trolling.

Not only do I have a 'good notion' of a few of the things he's said, but I myself have verified that some of his stuff is nonsense. Jim Hoffman's article Maintaining the Mirage:A Foray Into the Fallacy Factory of the Demolition Deniers deals with him handily.

Caps locked words? Must you really resort to such childish forms of expression? I'd argue that it's the -real- NWO types that you should realize are the dishonest ones.

You score high on the insults. Next time, you may want to focus a little more on content.

 

.
So when the plane hit the south tower didn't the mass in that region of the building affect how much damage the plane could do? So what has Mackey said about the quantity of steel in the area?

You people focus on WHO to BELIEVE instead of comprehending on the grade school Newtonian physics. The schools have trained everbody to accept what they are told. Different people choose different experts to believe.

psik

 

cynthia mckinney does not know what she sent jones came from WTC.
"a sample of WTC dust" in this regard is essentially a lie.
"what she believes to be WTC dust" would be more appropriate.

 

According to Ryan Mackey:
The Bentham paper was not peer reviewed. It was greenlit solely by Mr. Mahmood Alam of Pakistan, who has no discernible expertise in any relevant discipline, operating in defiance of the Journal's editor-in-chief's directives, for the sum of $600 US. And, again, even if we overlook this shocking irregularity, it does not contain or even claim to contain evidence of thermite.

Regardless of all of this, is there any references proving that it has actually been peer reviewed? What are his peers supportive or critical of in the paper?

The internet journal? Um.. Also what does thermite have to do with Earth science? What expertise do they have to critique the paper? Who peer reviewed the paper?

Again, if you are unable to show reviews or ratings of these papers by their peers, it merely amounts to a vanity publication and certainly can't pass for being peer reviewed.

Scott, in light of your proven dishonesty, I don't know why I should be giving you undue respect.

No, they are not. And I am still waiting for evidence that even these vanity publications have even been peer reviewed and what response the papers got.

They are indeed prestigious journals, however this work had nothing to do with 9/11.

You should be lucky that you can make such serious allegations of renound scientists on a science forum and not be banned.

Not only are you obviously clueless about any work Ryan Mackey has done on 9/11, you probably haven't even read Jim Hoffmans response to it. It's simply enough for you to see that someone has "debunked" it. I could say with complete confidence that if Ryan Mackey played a prank on truthers by writing a paper supporting conspiracy theories filled with junk science, you would be creaming your pants in support of him... except for a week later when he reveals it was a prank and proves how dishonest the truth movement is.

I'm not the type to be throwing around baseless serious accusations. I'll leave that to conspiracy nutjobs.

Report away. If I get banned you will still be a moron/liar.

Coming from a terrorist apologist such as yourself, who drags respectable scientists and science itself through the dirt… that is rich.

But you ARE an NWO type. It’s not trolling if it is true. Calling me a government plant and “NIST types” spooks IS trolling.

Why don’t you post something in your own words that shows you have even a vague understanding of anything Ryan Mackey has said. I will take it from there.

 

Steven Jones goes into detail as to the evidence for the origin of the dust in his paper Revisiting 9/11/2001 --Applying the Scientific Method. From page 22 of said paper:

The provenience of the dust sample used in my study is from an apartment at 113 Cedar St. in New York City. This fourth-floor apartment was the residence of Janette MacKinlay, and was approximately 100 meters or so from the closest Tower, the South Tower. During the collapse of the South Tower on 9/11/2001, the windows of this apartment broke and the apartment was flooded with dust. About a week later, she re-entered the apartment and began clean-up and preserved some of the dust in her apartment.​

 

Wow. You should at least try to sound rational Scott.

 

Janette MacKinlay's apartment was on the fourth floor so any argument that cleanup operations could have somehow spoiled the samples would not be very powerful.

As for the apartment not being attended for a week, if it can be shown that it was unlikely to have been disturbed, as none of the residents were allowed back, that would provide a measure of trust in the bonifides of the sample.

The other three samples were taken the same day as the collapses. One within ten minutes of the collapse of the North Tower and well before cleanup operations commenced. The two others were nearly a half mile away so cleanup operations were unlikely to have any effect on them.

All of the dust samples had the same characteristics.

It could be shown by a preponderance of evidence that the dust used in the study came from the WTC buildings and not the cleanup.

 

pay close attention to the fact she left her apartment and was gone for a week BEFORE collecting her sample.
she CANNOT say this dust came from WTC.
to say she "sent samples of WTC dust" is essentially a lie.

 

There is no evidence that the floors actually pulled in the perimeter columns. The NIST needed a 40 plus inch induced sag of the trusses to generate enough inward pull on the perimeter columns to cause any problem, could not physically duplicate anywhere near these figures during severe fire testing of the floor truss assemblies.

The photos allegedly of sagging floors are not clear. We do know that near the impacts there was floor sagging and none of the perimeter columns were pulled inward.

Very little horizontal bracing was severed in the core. You need to see the NIST report on this. We know the wings of the aircraft could never have made it to the core in the case of WTC 1.