How did Professor Jones violate every ethical code, and what did he deliberately lie about?
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

?

Gotta love people brave enough to slam someone elses efforts but too chikkenshit to put his name next to it.
Face it, the research he has done and the questions he asks has you guys really scared huh......lmao.
I would be too.

Using your Great and Wonderful powers of deduction..... what the heck are you going on about Chain of Evidence for Prof. Jones, when you should be asking the very same f'n thing about that bullcrap 9/11 report?

Get your priorities straight, wind-bag.

"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.

Rumsfeld has a three billion dollar PR budget a large part of which is directed at influencing public opinion on the internet.
The attacks on Steven Jones from his PR shills....your tax dollars at work.

The chain of custody arguement doesn't mean jack. We have the collapse time and the collapse characteristics on film. Those are enough to prove demolition. Besides, crime scence evidence goes through multiple hands before it reaches specialized forensic analysts. You don't think someone who has to do PCR actually gets their hands on DNA first do you?

I don't see how you can make the arguement either that somehow our scientific credibility is on the line. In science sometimes you have to change your hypothesis to better account for observations. Since when did the movement's entire case rest on the pieces of potential ground zero thermite? Obviously you need to do some more reading.

So how would you propose the buildings came down at near freefall speed if not by demolitions(I could use a laugh, go ahead and say the "planes did it!")?

"... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1564 - 1642)

Whitey, you are the ONLY person who took the time and trouble to respond with a scientific comment about my comment, "Questions about Former Professor Steven E. Jones." THANK YOU! Everyone else tried to play "Kill the Messenger."

Your comment about my Chain of Custody argument is very good -- if and only if the other persons in the Chain of Custody are known to Dr. Jones. But Dr. Jones does NOT know who all these persons are, and therefore Dr. Jones does NOT know whether his Thermite test samples really came from Ground Zero.

Of course, the planes and the jet fuel did NOT DISINTEGRATE the WTC towers. However, Dr. Jones and others have said that Thermite is the PRIMARY cause for the disintegration and "collapse" of the WTC towers. The Thermite Theory of Controlled Demolition is now the gospel of the 9/11 Truth Movement on how the WTC towers were brought down. The Thermite Controlled Demolition Theory is endlessly promoted at 911 Blogger and at the 9/11 Scholars site (and elsewhere).

What happens when other well-known scientists appear in the mainstream media and say that former Professor Steven E. Jones has no idea about the SOURCE of his test samples that supposedly prove that Thermite DISINTEGRATED and brought down the WTC towers at the speed of gravity?

Dr. Steven E. Jones has NEVER really shown that his test samples came from Ground Zero. In addition, Thermite appears to have been used in the clean-up operation at Ground Zero after 9/11. So, even if the Jones test samples came from Ground Zero, the question is: Was the Thermite introduced before or AFTER 9/11 (i.e., during clean up)?

In addition, can Thermite DISINTEGRATE the WTC towers in the manner that we saw on 9/11? Is Thermtie an explosive? Or does it just melt and cut steel? If Thermite ONLY melts and cuts steel, then how do we account for the fact that BOTH the concrete AND the steel DISTEGRATED on 9/11? What was the source of all of the ADDITIONAL energy that would be required to DISINTEGRATE the steel and concret in the WTC towers on 9/11? I don't know. Do you?

IT GETS WORSE. Former Professor Steven E. Jones says that ONLY his Thermite Theory can prove the Controlled Demolition of the WTC towers. See "Steven Jones Trashes the Demolition Research" at http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/jonestrashesdemolition.html (discussing how Dr. Jones trashes all other research about Controlled Demolition -- except for his Thermite Theory).

If Dr. Jones has answers for the above issues and questions, then maybe he should tell us. So far, he has not. Maybe someone else should ask him about these issues on a regular basis.

So, is former Professor Steven E. Jones BOTH the achilles heel AND the straw man of 9/11 Controlled Demolition? What happens when the mainstream media demolish our ONLY 9/11 scientific truth hero, Dr. Steven E. Jones? I don't know. Do you?

Just remember that if controlled demolition did happen, there are hundred of thousands of tonnes of irrefutable physical evidence just waiting to be tested. The debris piles at the local dumps contain the rubble from the buildings. This rubble would have the chemical residue of explosives. The rubble is not going anywhere fast and it can be tested in a year, ten years or a hundred years.

.

Nothing overshadows truth so much as authority. ~ Leon Battista Alberti

It is not by the sword or the spear, by soldiers or by armed force that truth is to be promoted,
but by counsel and gentle persuasion. ~ Saint Athenasius

Truth isn't always beauty, but the hunger for it is. ~ Nadine Gordimer

If you speak the truth, have one foot in the stirrup. ~ Turkish proverb

Truth for a Change:  You may be right about some WTC rubble being taken to the local landfills.  However, I would be interested in knowing where you got the figure of several hundred thousand tons being taken to the local dumps (if I understand your comment correctly).

In addition, what proof do we have about how much steel was scrapped & taken to China & elsewhere?  And what happened to pulverize all of the concrete into 100-micron-sized powder?

IF there is Thermite residue on the WTC Ground Zero debris at the local dump (if & when you dig it up), and IF Thermite was used during the clean up of Ground Zero, then finding such Thermite residues on the steel at the local dump may still NOT prove anything.

In addition, Thermite is NOT an explosive.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite.

The questions are:  What definitive proof of explosives or Thermite do we have NOW?

Yes, we do have SOME proof of Thermite on test samples supposedly taken from Ground Zero; however, what proof do we have that either explosives or Thermite could have caused the WTC steel & concrete to disintegrate & be pulverized in the manner that we saw on 9/11? 

The figure of a hundred thousand tonnes has been used by someone here on this blog. I just used it as an example. But now that you mentioned it, with all or most of the steel gone I’m sure it would be much much lower. You got me on that. I’m not sure how one would determine what the weight of all the concrete and contents of the towers and building seven would be. My guess would be that it is hundreds or thousands of tonnes would be a better way to say it; but yes, not hundreds of thousands. Thanks. If anyone has an estimate on what the rubble would weigh, I’d love to hear it.

I agree that we have no idea how much steel was shipped overseas. But I’ll bet that a lot of the rubble was put in dumps, even some of the steel. There are reports that said that everything was blasted to little pieces and dust, all these little pieces and dust add up to a lot, they had to put somewhere. I’m not sure how one would find out where the rubble was dumped. I guess word of mouth could find people that drove the dump trucks. I don’t think they could have scrubbed all the rubble of evidence.

Well, I’m not sure what caused all the concrete to be pulverized. Maybe it wasn’t all pulverized, maybe most of it could have been pulverized by the impact of the upper floors hitting the lower floors. If it was pulverized because of conventional explosives, the explosive residue would clearly still be intermingled in the dust and rubble. I can understand that if conventional explosives were used on the towers it would have been brought down from the top down, to avoid the risk of it toppling over, that seems reasonable. This would cause all the contents to be pulverized. But how many times have we heard, “what about building 7”? It looked like a conventional implosion and if so, conventional explosives would have been used. Therefore the contents would not have been pulverized like in the towers because it would have been pulled from the bottom..

I agree that if only thermate was used, that finding the residue may still not prove thermate was used. If conventional explosives were not used, then all the talk about beams being thrown horizontally, the puffs of smoke from the sides of the buildings, the pulverization of everything would have to be caused by something else.

I agree that thermite is not an explosive and I’m not sure thermate alone could bring down all the buildings as observed?

I don’t think we have any proof of explosives or thermite NOW, except common sense. There are indications, as listed above and also, freefall speed, building’s footprint, visual observation and many more. It has been reported that sulfur was found, that‘s another indication. Also the pieces of beams or columns that were eroded or burnt away in a way not consistent with a gravity collapse. In the movie “Improbable Collapse” there is a photo of pieces like this. Pieces that were obviously burnt through.

The proof in the debris is threefold; first, the chemicals and elements there from thermate and conventional explosives; second, the pieces of the devices used as detonators for the thermate and explosives, they would have had to use a lot of detonators; and third the pieces of columns and beams that were burnt away. If thermate was the only thing used, there would be remnants of the detonators and burnt through columns and beams. If both conventional and thermate was used, then you would have chemical proof, burnt through coulmns and pieces of the detonators.

Either way, a close examination of the rubble would reveal this proof, if there. Do I have proof that it is there? No, I don’t have proof, only way to find out would be to dig it up.

The real question then becomes how do you create an independent investigation? The politicians and the military would have to be excluded because they are suspects. Therefore, I just can’t see how an independent investigation could be created. If it’s true that it was politicians and military, they are not going to let a truly independent investigation happen. But over the very long haul, over many many years, that proof will still be there, if indeed it exists in the first place.

.

Statistically one hundred percent of the shots you don't take don't go in. ~ Wayne Gretsky

The injury we do and the one we suffer are not weighed in the same scale. ~ Aesop

To be wronged is nothing unless you continue to remember it. ~ Confucius

Be happy while you're living, for you're a long time dead. ~ Scottish proverb

I actually don't think this criticism is totally counterproductive, and I'm a Stephen Jones fan! It's true that if you can't verify the source of the material it's not going to stand up in court. We're all conspiracy-minded: what if a disinfo agent delibrerately gave him thermite encrusted hunk of metal to throw him off and to make Jones look foolish later and bring down the whole movement?

The thing that worries me about the truthers (though I consider myself one) is there isn't a lot of source verification. Theories grow based on bad new reporting in the first place and then catch hold, so that when the news is later debunked it's too late. For example, Atta's supposed girlfriend who spoke of his decadent lifestyle has now admitted she never knew Atta. But how many truthers are still going to use the story that he was not a devout muslim to argue with. I really liked the Tarpley book at the time, and think his logical trails are reasonable, but he doesn't exactly give you sources for his "facts".

I think it would be in everyone's interest to make sure the story is airtight before continuing. I believe those Loose Change are in earnest, but they come across as young and foolish and many of their theories are crap. I don't buy the Pentagon missile story anymore (though I used to follow it). It's just too absurd and will bring the whole movement down when the gov. releases more footage and autopsy information. The hypothesis of a missile is based on what's NOT there and that's ridiculous.

If there are other cautious truthers out their who agree with me, you might want to take a look at breakfornews.com. I know, I know. Dunne can be abrasive and it's hard to get past the outing of supposed CIA disinfo agents. But the 3i Investigation forums breaking down everything we can verify can be a great source of information.

I just want to say that I think you have a very valid point regarding the reliability of the test results. Quite frankly, I've never heard about this whole chain of custody issue but I believe it's very important because, as you say, we are only as strong as our supporting evidence.

You have a point when you state that we should not hitch all our wagons to one scientist, that's true. However, there are other scientists out there with variant theories regarding how the demolitions were conducted. It's all a lot of speculation, because they do not have physical evidence to look at. With the exception of Dr. Jones, as you pointed out. So this does indeed raise some questions in my mind (but only about Dr. Jones and his research).

The one thing we can all agree on, however, is that demolitions did indeed occur: whether by thermite or some other unknown explosive. The visual evidence and outlandish probability of 3 steel-framed buildings crashing in on themselves within the space of a few hours is too overwhelming to buy into official version.

Isn't it enough that vermin like you led to his early retirement. Unfortunately for the likes of you, Dr. Jones will now have more time to devote to 9/11 truth!

oooo Staurday disinfo...love it...we got em workin overtime boys!!

Is this some kind of joke? It takes courage to SPEAK your mind in the midst of ridicule. (My courage for standing up to whoever posted this is irking him/her this moment.) Dr. Jones has spoken out even though he risks being called a "terrorist" for even suggesting that the plane theory may not even be true. This has already HAPPENED on the O'Rielly Factor. Dr. Jones is to be commended for his courage to slam the jokes the US Gov't calls "reports."

The fact that Dr. Jones was put on leave because the research he can properly SUBSTANTIATE his claims with concrete physical evidence is "of questionable value" tells you the direction in which our education system is going.

Instead of the shameless name-calling, could any of you who slam anti-9/11 doctors substantiate your claims that "they're frauds?" You should do that instead of criticizing someone who can substantiate an idea that conflicts with your perceptions.

It's not rocket science. TELL me the "true" temperature at which steel melts. Tell me at what temperature jet fuel burns. Tell me how much jet fuel is needed to level an entire building. Tell me how an entire steel core can be leveled by a fire. Can you show me a history of other steel structured buildings that have come down due to fire? Or even further, a history of buildings that came down sympathetically with buildings brought down by fire? Could you explain the WTC7 phenomena? Since when do buildings collapse on their own? If Dr. Jones is wrong, then you need to tell me how's just wrong, instead of begging me to take your word for it that "he's just plain dishonest."

Political arguments aside, chemical and physical fact, is chemical and physical fact. The rules of nature weren't magically bent to accomodate the 9/11 attacks. Dr. Jones' research proves that airplane fuel fires couldn't have brought the WTC towers down, if not that the buildings were brought down by an internal controlled demolition, but anyone with a general knowledge in physics could have told you that.

Could you please post the link to your paper where you discredit all the points of his paper as he asks?

LOL "Particle Beam-Team" hahahaha, loving it!