LDS Freedom Forum

BlueMoon5 wrote:

Rob wrote:

BlueMoon5 wrote:If their paper was of such importance to the scientific community, and if it had any validity, why did Jones (and the other authors) settle for a second-rate science publisher? Did they even try to have it accepted by a top-ranked journal?

: I'm not sure, but going after the reputation of the publishing company instead of debating the science in the paper is ad hominem. Can't argue the science in the paper? Fine. Moving on.

The "science in the paper" is precisely the point. Apparently, it was not good enough, not credible enough, not well-grounded enough to be acceptable to the best chemical/civil engineering/mechanical engineering
journals. Hence, Jones & Company apparently had to settle for second best.

Abstract
Investigators monitoring air quality at the World Trade Center, after the September 11th attacks, found extremely high levels of volatile organic chemicals as well as unusual species that had never been seen before in structure fires. Data collected by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency indicate striking spikes in levels of benzene, styrene, and several other products of combustion. These spikes occurred on specific dates in October and November 2001, and February 2002. Additionally, data collected by researchers at the University of California Davis showed similar spikes in the levels of sulfur and silicon compounds, and certain metals, in aerosols. To better explain these data, as well as the unusual detection of 1,3-diphenylpropane, the presence of energetic nanocomposites in the pile at Ground Zero is hypothesized.

SempiternalHarbinger wrote:Dr. Jones, thanks for for hard work and perseverance! Truth is Bluemoon isn't concerned with the truth and neither are most respected peer reviewed journals. The Scientific establishment is truly a joke. The facts will be staring at them right in the face and they turn a blind eye putting the attack dogs on notice. So you shouldn't concern yourself with him. Just my opinion. I can't even believe bluemoon is still around.

DrJones wrote:

: Hi, this is Dr. Jones. It saddens me to hear such nonsense -- that is not the reason at all, anonymous bluemoon5. Your insinuation is insulting -0- and untrue. . . . We did our best on the analysis and answering all the peer-reviewers questions, and selected a journal that would publish our complete line of data -- including MANY color photographs and data-plots, and make these available on-line to people around the world. Such a journal was NOT easy to find!

I accept and appreciate your explanation, even though you tacitly admit that Bentham was probably not your first choice. Had the paper been of stellar quality, prestigious journals would have jumped at the chance to publish it, worldwide, with "many color photogaphs and data plots."

: Investigators monitoring air quality at the World Trade Center, after the September 11th attacks, found extremely high levels of volatile organic chemicals as well as unusual species that had never been seen before in structure fires. Data collected by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency indicate striking spikes in levels of benzene, styrene, and several other products of combustion.

BlueMoon5 wrote:

DrJones wrote:

: Hi, this is Dr. Jones. It saddens me to hear such nonsense -- that is not the reason at all, anonymous bluemoon5. Your insinuation is insulting -0- and untrue. . . . We did our best on the analysis and answering all the peer-reviewers questions, and selected a journal that would publish our complete line of data -- including MANY color photographs and data-plots, and make these available on-line to people around the world. Such a journal was NOT easy to find!

I accept and appreciate your explanation, even though you tacitly admit that Bentham was probably not your first choice. Had the paper been of stellar quality, prestigious journals would have jumped at the chance to publish it, worldwide, with "many color photogaphs and data plots."

: Investigators monitoring air quality at the World Trade Center, after the September 11th attacks, found extremely high levels of volatile organic chemicals as well as unusual species that had never been seen before in structure fires. Data collected by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency indicate striking spikes in levels of benzene, styrene, and several other products of combustion.

I believe you, but the presence of those chemicals in no way proves your controlled demolition theory.

BlueMoon5 wrote:
I believe you, but the presence of those chemicals in no way proves your controlled demolition theory.

Army Of Truth wrote:It proves the existence of thermate which is used to melt metal which was seen at the site. There are plenty of eye witnesses and photographic evidence to prove molten metal was at the site. Therefore this is circumstantial evidence that can be proven in any court of law. Too bad most of the steel evidence was quickly shipped to China and India. And on top of that, these facts were never mentioned in the 9/11 'Omission' Commission. If the government has nothing to hide, why are they HIDING EVERYTHING??

It also dis-proves that the towers fell down 'due to fires' like the official conspiracy theory story.

Army Of Truth wrote:[quote}: It proves the existence of thermate which is used to melt metal which was seen at the site. There are plenty of eye witnesses and photographic evidence to prove molten metal was at the site. Therefore this is circumstantial evidence that can be proven in any court of law.

BlueMoon5 wrote:

Army Of Truth wrote:[quote}: It proves the existence of thermate which is used to melt metal which was seen at the site. There are plenty of eye witnesses and photographic evidence to prove molten metal was at the site. Therefore this is circumstantial evidence that can be proven in any court of law.

Please note that circumstantial evidence is not definitive proof. "It only provides a general idea of what occurred at a crime scene. . . . Circumstantial evidence requires that a judge and/or jury make indirect judgments or inferences about what transpired. . . ." ("Crime Scene Forensics - Direct vs Circumstantial Evidence," Fabiola Castillo)

InfoWarrior82 wrote:

: Sure it does! How do you suppose it doesn't?

BlueMoon5 wrote:

InfoWarrior82 wrote:

: Sure it does! How do you suppose it doesn't?

You don't know the quantity of each chemical/gas found, nor do you know anything about the possible existence of other, unidentified chemicals/gases. ) Consequently, you cannot conclude with certainty that the source of the chemicals/gases was thermite. ) I understand your eagerness to believe that the source was thermite, but you are speculating at best.

BlueMoon5 wrote:

InfoWarrior82 wrote:

: Sure it does! How do you suppose it doesn't?

You don't know the quantity of each chemical/gas found, nor do you know anything about the possible existence of other, unidentified chemicals/gases. Consequently, you cannot conclude with certainty that the source of the chemicals/gases was thermite. I understand your eagerness to believe that the source was thermite, but you are speculating at best.

BlueMoon5 wrote:

Col. Flagg wrote: You're essentially telling Scientists that they don't know what they are talking about or discovering under electron microscopy. :ymapplause: Allow me to introduce to you... nano-thermate...

You missed my point. Dr. Jones stated that investigators monitoring air quality at the WTC after Sept. 11 found extremely high levels of volatile organic chemicals and some unusual species. He also said the EPA found striking spikes in levels of benzene, styrene, and several other products of combustion. He added that researchers at the U. of Calif. (Davis) found similar spikes in levels of sulfur and silicon compounds, and certain metals, in aerosols. Then he made this pivotal statement: "To better explain these data, as well as the unusual detection of 1,3-diphenylpropane, the presence of energetic nanocomposites in the pile at Ground Zero is HYPOTHESIZED."

I responded by saying that the presence of the aforementioned chemicals does not prove that they were the products of thermite (choose your variety). I might have added that they do not prove that they were the products of controlled demolition explosives.

A hypothesis is an assumption. Hence, Dr. Jones agrees with me.

BlueMoon5 wrote:I accept and appreciate your explanation, even though you tacitly admit that Bentham was probably not your first choice. Had the paper been of stellar quality, prestigious journals would have jumped at the chance to publish it, worldwide, with "many color photogaphs and data plots."

shadow wrote:If all else fails start calling people names B-)

BlueMoon5 wrote:
You missed my point. Dr. Jones stated that investigators monitoring air quality at the WTC after Sept. 11 found extremely high levels of volatile organic chemicals and some unusual species. He also said the EPA found striking spikes in levels of benzene, styrene, and several other products of combustion. He added that researchers at the U. of Calif. (Davis) found similar spikes in levels of sulfur and silicon compounds, and certain metals, in aerosols. Then he made this pivotal statement: "To better explain these data, as well as the unusual detection of 1,3-diphenylpropane, the presence of energetic nanocomposites in the pile at Ground Zero is HYPOTHESIZED."

I responded by saying that the presence of the aforementioned chemicals does not prove that they were the products of thermite (choose your variety). I might have added that they do not prove that they were the products of controlled demolition explosives.

A hypothesis is an assumption. Hence, Dr. Jones agrees with me.

The questions that arise from looking closely at the events that preceded the attacks are dwarfed by the volumes of unanswered questions about the attackers, the collapse of the buildings, and the financial gains that resulted from the event.

When presented with these troubling questions, most Americans will respond, “Do you really think the government would lie to us and deliberately kill innocent Americans for an agenda?”

The American invasion of Iraq, an undeclared act of war, began with the claim that Iraq was a threat due to their possession of weapons of mass destruction. It was found that these weapons did not exist and any ties between the 9/11 terrorists and Saddam Hussein were also found false. As of April 2010, more than 31,000 US troops had been seriously injured and over 4,300 soldiers had died.

Unclassified documents reveal that the United States has planned and engaged in a number of false flag attacks throughout recent history.

On August 4, 1964, the Vietnamese were accused of engaging in two unprovoked attacks on the USS Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin. This incident became a pretext for a war that resulted in over 58,000 US soldier deaths. Nearly 140 top-secret documents declassified by the federal government in 2005 revealed that the second Gulf of Tonkin attack, which catalyzed the US into the Vietnam War, never took place. Similarly, in 1898 Spain was accused of destroying the USS Maine. However, evidence is clear that the naval ship was not attacked by Spain but likely exploded due to a coal fire or an external mine. Although the reason for the Maine’s explosion was unknown at the time, newspapers and American industrial magnates were quick to blame Spain knowing that a war would likely result, and their financial interests in Cuba would be protected from the Spanish. The propaganda of this time may be best represented by the slogan ‘Remember the Maine- To Hell with Spain.’

In 1962, the Pentagon created Operation Northwoods, an effort to build public support for a war against Cuba with the goal of ousting Fidel Castro from power. These plans included destroying a naval ship, hijacking planes, and committing acts of terrorism within US cities that would result in the deaths of innocent citizens. These plans were kept secret for nearly 40 years. Comparably, principals in US foreign policy under the Bush administration created plans in the late 1990s, which clearly stated their intent to invade Iraq for the purpose of “regime change.” In their documentation they openly state that the public and Congress would not accept their agenda therefore transition would be slow “absent a catalyzing and catastrophic event like a new Pearl Harbor.”

Rahm Emanuel, White House Chief of Staff under President Obama is quoted as saying, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste — and what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things that you didn’t think you could do before.” It is clear that the events of 9/11 opened the door for the degradation of Americans’ civil rights, unprecedented intrusions into citizens’ private lives, as well as undeclared and unjustified war. What is not clear is how an event as catastrophic as 9/11 was permitted to happen. If the mainstream media continues to be our source of information, we will certainly never know the answers to such questions.

The majority of Americans have failed to look beyond the television news, radio, and newspapers of major media outlets for information about 9/11. Many have adopted the views of these sources without critical analysis or any outside research.

After all, why think for yourself when you can gather your thoughts and opinions from the evening news? In our culture, we have been trained to believe rather than think. The obvious is rejected and the fictitious is accepted. We, the people of this great nation, need to interrupt the transmission of disinformation and demand answers. Do your own research; dig beyond the news presented by the mass media. Although it remains unpopular to ask questions about September 11th, we must summon courage, for, as Thomas Jefferson once said, “All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.”

Dedicated to the lives lost on September 11th, 2001.

DrJones wrote:

BlueMoon5 wrote:"To better explain these data, as well as the unusual detection of 1,3-diphenylpropane, the presence of energetic nanocomposites in the pile at Ground Zero is HYPOTHESIZED

I responded by saying that the presence of the aforementioned chemicals does not prove that they were the products of thermite (choose your variety). I might have added that they do not prove that they were the products of controlled demolition explosives.

A hypothesis is an assumption. Hence, Dr. Jones agrees with me.

NO, I did not agree with you. In the same post that I quoted the abstract for this paper (which you re-quoted back), I noted that in subsequent papers we demonstrated (or proved) the hypothesis of that paper!

InfoWarrior82 wrote:

: Why don't you do us all a favor and read the research papers that proves the opposite of what you're claiming. K thnx bye.

Col. Flagg wrote:Bluemoon isn't interested in the science, physics or facts - just ad hominem attacks that are desperate attempts to keep his belief in the official story alive. Either that, or he/she is engaging in this debate for kicks. Either way... sad.