Has Jones been denied requests of dust samples?

[Hornit]

I'm curious. Did Jones ever request dust samples from any agency (which might have it)or is he using dust from his obviously questionable source?

Im back at it debunking again. Its like banging my head against a wall, but it's somehow entertaining and slightly challenging. This place is a gold mine of info!

[Sizzler]

He has 4 independent dust samples.

I like how the rumour of the "welding" bf is still being passed around without ANY support.

The microspheres were found in other dust samples analyzed by non-truther scientists.

You guys need to get ur facts straight before you start trying to debunk Jones.

[CHF]

The microspheres were found in other dust samples analyzed by non-truther scientists.

Funny how none of them are running around screaming "OMG! Thermite!"

[Arus808]

He has 4 independent dust samples.

Please provide the source of these "independent" samples

[LashL]

I'm curious. Did Jones ever request dust samples from any agency (which might have it)

I don't know the answer to that, but I haven't seen anything written by Jones claiming to have made such requests. Perhaps one of our resident twoofers can assist in answering the question.

or is he using dust from his obviously questionable source?

I have only seen Jones mention two dust samples (although on another thread, one of our resident twoofers claims, among other things, that Jones has four "independent" samples, but he hasn't yet provided any evidence to support those claims). The two that I am aware of were obtained by Jones several years after the fact from (1) a woman in California who used to live on Cedar Street near the WTC and (2) an unnamed "PhD scientist" who allegedly collected a sample from the Potter Building in NYC.

Im back at it debunking again. Its like banging my head against a wall, but it's somehow entertaining and slightly challenging.

Indeed. Good to see you again. :)

[Sizzler]

Please provide the source of these "independent" samples

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JZr5FuWytc&eurl=http://911blogger.com/

He doesn't mention where each of the 4 samples come from. In his paper about WTC temperatures he documents the source of 2 of the 4 samples. I'll look around to find a link that notes where all 4 sources are from.

He does have 4 samples though.

[Arus808]

He doesn't mention where each of the 4 samples come from.

then his claims are made fraudulently
If he can't prove that his samples
1) are indeed from WTC towers
2) and were collected on 9/11/2001

then his samples are CONTAMINATED.

the whole basis of his claims are from contaminated sources.

[LashL]

He doesn't mention where each of the 4 samples come from. In his paper about WTC temperatures he documents the source of 2 of the 4 samples. I'll look around to find a link that notes where all 4 sources are from.

He does have 4 samples though.

All he says is that video is, "We're looking at 4 samples." He doesn't say anything at all about their source or sources; he doesn't indicate whether they are from four different sources or multiple samples from only 1 or 2 sources; there is no indication of who "we" is; he doesn't say anything about the "independence" of these alleged samples, etc.

So far, all you've provided as evidence, Sizzler, is, "It's true because Steven Jones says so."

Coming from a guy who also says that Jesus visited America, and who says that a compressed section of a WTC tower clearly showing metal, paper, pipes, etc., is actually "slag"/previously molten metal" and who says that a flashlight shining into a void during recovery efforts is glowing molten metal, you can certainly understand why what Steven Jones says is not sufficient evidence to support your claims, can't you?

So, do you have any legitimate evidence in support of your claims?

[Sizzler]

A US Geological Survey study released in 2005, and a study of dust samples by the firm RJ Lee in 2003 both confirmed the presence of iron-rich spheres in the samples they examined. The Lee study also discovered silicates, glass-like compounds, which had a "Swiss cheese appearance as a result of boiling and evaporation." The temperature required to produce spheres of silicates is roughly 1450C. The temperature needed to vaporize, or boil, a silicate is about 2760C. The Lee study also found evidence of vaporized lead. Vaporization of lead occurs at around 1740C.

One of the more unusual finds came about through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the US Geological Service for data regarding the 2005 results the USGS had published. Not published with the original data are micrographs showing spheres of molybdenum, a metal with a melting temperature of 2623C, over one thousand degrees hotter than that necessary to melt iron. Finding spheres of molybdenum in the dust of the WTC collapses is evidence that temperatures, by some mechanism, may have reached at least 2623C.

those are the two "non-truther" discoveries of micropsheres

[Sizzler]

All he says is that video is, "We're looking at 4 samples." He doesn't say anything at all about their source or sources; he doesn't indicate whether they are from four different sources or multiple samples from only 1 or 2 sources; there is no indication of who "we" is; he doesn't say anything about the "independence" of these alleged samples, etc.

So far, all you've provided as evidence, Sizzler, is, "It's true because Steven Jones says so."

Coming from a guy who also says that Jesus visited America, and who says that a compressed section of a WTC tower clearly showing metal, paper, pipes, etc., is actually "slag"/previously molten metal" and who says that a flashlight shining into a void during recovery efforts is glowing molten metal, you can certainly understand why what Steven Jones says is not sufficient evidence to support your claims, can't you?

So, do you have any legitimate evidence in support of your claims?

In video Jones says "4 principle samples".

prin·ci·ple (prĭn'sə-pəl) Pronunciation Key
n.
A basic truth, law, or assumption: the principles of democracy.

1.A rule or standard, especially of good behavior: a man of principle.
2.The collectivity of moral or ethical standards or judgments: a decision based on principle rather than expediency.
3.A fixed or predetermined policy or mode of action.
4.A basic or essential quality or element determining intrinsic nature or characteristic behavior: the principle of self-preservation.
5.A rule or law concerning the functioning of natural phenomena or mechanical processes: the principle of jet propulsion.
6.Chemistry One of the elements that compose a substance, especially one that gives some special quality or effect.
7.A basic source.

So let me retract and rephrase.

Jones claims to have 4 independent samples of WTC dust. 2 of which he provides details on their source and times of collection in his new paper about WTC temperature.

[LashL]

those are the two "non-truther" discoveries of micropsheres


Those studies are not news to anyone, nor are they evidence in support of your claims.

[Sizzler]

Those studies are not news to anyone, nor are they evidence in support of your claims.

I claimed non-truther scientists found microspheres. These studies support that claim:)

[LashL]

In video Jones says "4 principle samples".



So let me retract and rephrase.

Jones claims to have 4 independent samples of WTC dust. 2 of which he provides details on their source and times of collection in his new paper about WTC temperature.


You are correct that he says, "4 principal samples" but how do you get from there to "4 independent samples"? Is there some particular meaning that you are attributing to the word "independent" that you care to share, since you have used it several times now?

The sources and times of collection of the only 2 samples that Jones has identified comes from second hand information (at best) without any corroboration whatsoever. In one case, Jones says that he got the dust from Ms. MacKinlay, who says that she collected the dust at a particular time and location in 2001, but Jones did not obtain it or even know of its existence until at least 2005. In the second case, Jones does not even identify the person who allegedly collected the sample, so it's an anonymous source, second hand at best (and it could be third or fourth or fifth hand for all we know), again obtained many years after the fact.

Not very compelling from the perspective of evidenciary value so far, is it?

I haven't seen anything at all from Jones about the origins, location, timing, method of collection, identities of collectors, sources or others whose hands the alleged samples may have passed through, with respect to the other two alleged samples, have you?

At present, with regard to all of the alleged samples other than the one from Ms. MacKinlay (a Bush-hater and "truther"), you are still left with nothing but, "It's true because Steven Jones says so."

[LashL]

I claimed non-truther scientists found microspheres. These studies support that claim:)

Your claim was not simply that others found microspheres. Your claim was:

The microspheres were found in other dust samples analyzed by non-truther scientists.
In context, the word, "the" in your claim refers, obviously, to the same microspheres that Jones claims to have found.

I have not seen any evidence that the microspheres described in those studies are the same as those that Jones claims to have found. Please provide evidence of that claim. (You might want to read more about this subject, and read carefully, before doing so.)

[Sizzler]

Your claim was not simply that others found microspheres. Your claim was:


In context, the word, "the" in your claim refers, obviously, to the same microspheres that Jones claims to have found.

I have not seen any evidence that the microspheres described in those studies are the same as those that Jones claims to have found. Please provide evidence of that claim. (You might want to read more about this subject, and read carefully, before doing so.)

Same as in, similar size, shape, and elemental content?

Just want to be clear before you play on my words again.

[LashL]

Actually, Sizzler, our discussion is slightly off-topic to this thread (which is about whether or not Jones ever requested samples from agencies who might have such samples) and is probably more appropriately to be had in the other thread. We should probably confine it to the other thread to the extent that it is about your claims made there, 2 of which you repeated here.

It's bothersome to have to repeat things in two separate threads, after all, and it's really not fair to the OP to let his or her original question get lost in this related but slightly off-topic discussion.

Just a thought.

[Sizzler]

Actually, Sizzler, our discussion is slightly off-topic to this thread (which is about whether or not Jones ever requested samples from agencies who might have such samples) and is probably more appropriately to be had in the other thread. We should probably confine it to the other thread to the extent that it is about your claims made there, 2 of which you repeated here.

It's bothersome to have to repeat things in two separate threads, after all, and it's really not fair to the OP to let his or her original question get lost in this related but slightly off-topic discussion.

Just a thought.

Yes good idea. Lets transfer over there. I will address all 4 claims you posted.

[LashL]

Same as in, similar size, shape, and elemental content?

Just want to be clear before you play on my words again.


Oh, stop it. I am not playing on your words. I simply cited your own words because you subsequently said something entirely different than what you initially wrote. Now, how about my suggestion that we confine this to one thread, the one where it originally began?

[LashL]

Yes good idea. Lets transfer over there. I will address all 4 claims you posted.

Excellent.

[Bob Blaylock]

You guys need to get ur facts straight before you start trying to debunk Jones.


People who are not even smart enough to spell a simple, common word, such as “your”, should stay on MySpace and FaceBook, and leave the rest of the Internet to those of us who possess at least basic levels of intelligence and literacy. Such people certainly shouldn't be presuming to cast any aspersions on the knowledge or intelligence of anyone who is literate.

[Sizzler]

People who are not even smart enough to spell a simple, common word, such as “your”, should stay on MySpace and FaceBook, and leave the rest of the Internet to those of us who possess at least basic levels of intelligence and literacy. Such people certainly shouldn't be presuming to cast any aspersions on the knowledge or intelligence of anyone who is literate.

Oh god, the grammar/spelling police are at it (first time on JREF though (I've seen), congrats!!)

Obviously I know how to spell "your". My use of "ur" is hardly a point to raise and is certainly off topic.

Back to ur hole please.

[CHF]

Sizzler,

why aren't the non-truther scientists claiming to have found thermite?

[rwguinn]

snip>>
The sources and times of collection of the only 2 samples that Jones has identified comes from second hand information (at best) without any corroboration whatsoever. In one case, Jones says that he got the dust from Ms. MacKinlay, who says that she collected the dust at a particular time and location in 2001, but Jones did not obtain it or even know of its existence until at least 2005. In the second case, Jones does not even identify the person who allegedly collected the sample, so it's an anonymous source, second hand at best (and it could be third or fourth or fifth hand for all we know), again obtained many years after the fact.
I know that when we clean house after a dust storm, we always keep samples of the dust we picked up. Ya gotta keep 'em (in sealed containers) for at least 7 years, in case somebody needs to find out what is in them...




Not!


Not very compelling from the perspective of evidenciary value so far, is it?

I haven't seen anything at all from Jones about the origins, location, timing, method of collection, identities of collectors, sources or others whose hands the alleged samples may have passed through, with respect to the other two alleged samples, have you?

At present, with regard to all of the alleged samples other than the one from Ms. MacKinlay (a Bush-hater and "truther"), you are still left with nothing but, "It's true because Steven Jones says so."
Absolutely...

[Almo]

Oh god, the grammar/spelling police are at it (first time on JREF though (I've seen), congrats!!)

Obviously I know how to spell "your". My use of "ur" is hardly a point to raise and is certainly off topic.

Back to ur hole please.

Using "ur" to me doesn't indicate a lack of spelling skill. Just a certain amount of laziness, as in not wanting to make 4 keystrokes in the interest of spelling. That in itself isn't even really an issue. But it does give the impression of laziness, which is something I think would be good to avoid when thoroughness of investigation is being questioned.

[Sizzler]

Sizzler,

why aren't the non-truther scientists claiming to have found thermite?

Good question. In answering this question I think it is important to note that Jones has not confirmed the presence of thermite yet. He found chips that are composed of the same chemicals (one side of the chip) found in thermite and the chips react to high heat in a manner much like thermite.

Now if we assume that the chips are actually thermite, why didn't the other studies report them? Well, I'd say they weren't looking for thermite. And, unless they tested the chemical content of said chips, how would they know it was thermite, and not just a paint chips or something?

It's tough to discuss the possible thermite chip discovery by Jones and related questions because it is far from conclusive.

[CHF]

Now if we assume that the chips are actually thermite, why didn't the other studies report them? Well, I'd say they weren't looking for thermite.

I agree: Jones analyzed the dust looking/hoping to find thermite.

That certainly explains a lot.

[Sizzler]

I agree: Jones analyzed the dust looking/hoping to find thermite.

It certainly explains a lot.

I'm not exactly sure what it explains. Could you be a little more specific.

And on this line of reasoning I beg the question, where could I find supposed thermite chips if I was specifically looking for thermite? In other words, what other source would have similar chips?

[Dave Rogers]

I'm not exactly sure what it explains. Could you be a little more specific.

Jones took dust samples from a building made in large part from iron and aluminium and surrounded by oxygen, and looked in those samples for the presence of iron, aluminium and oxygen. Is it all that surprising that he found them?

Having found them, he then claimed they indicated the presence of thermite. That's called confirmation bias.

Dave

[kookbreaker]

I'm not exactly sure what it explains. Could you be a little more specific.


Are you aware of a psychological phenomenon where if one looks for something too hard, then they will find it even if it is not there?

[Bob Blaylock]

Using "ur" to me doesn't indicate a lack of spelling skill. Just a certain amount of laziness, as in not wanting to make 4 keystrokes in the interest of spelling.


It certainly causes the writer to come off very poorly. When I see that kind of writing, my gut reaction is to assume that the person who wrote it must either be stupid; or worse, lazy. I see it as a symptom of a tragic “dumbing down” that seems to be infesting the net, and society as a whole.

The “Y” and “O” keys are right there close to the “U” key. If what you have to say isn't worth the effort to hit those two more keys that it takes to make the difference between looking like someone with at least normal intelligence, or looking like an illiterate retard; then why should anyone suppose you could possibly have written anything that is worth the trouble of trying to read it?

[parky76]

Um, dont get me wrong, but shouldnt there still be dust samples in the soil around the WTC? Would the rain have washed it all away by now?

Why didnt the 9-11 deniars take samples from the soil 2 years, 4 years, 5 years after 9-11? I guess that would have required too much work.

[Sizzler]

Um, dont get me wrong, but shouldnt there still be dust samples in the soil around the WTC? Would the rain have washed it all away by now?

Why didnt the 9-11 deniars take samples from the soil 2 years, 4 years, 5 years after 9-11? I guess that would have required too much work.

Dust samples exist. This thread is silly because it assumes Jones is looking for more. He already claims to have 4 samples, and has presented some of his research pertaining to 2 of them.

Why would anyone be searching for dust in soil? Talk about contamination!!

[Arus808]

He already claims to have 4 samples, and has presented some of his research pertaining to 2 of them.

which he has not provided documentation as to when and whom he got them from (its known that HE did not collect them himself) and his claims says that he "got" them 4 years after the fact.

[MIKILLINI]

He has 4 independent dust samples.

I like how the rumour of the "welding" bf is still being passed around without ANY support.

The microspheres were found in other dust samples analyzed by non-truther scientists.

You guys need to get ur facts straight before you start trying to debunk Jones.

Have you ever made an attempt to debunk Jones? Or just considered the possibility he may be wrong? Just askin.

[Sizzler]

which he has not provided documentation as to when and whom he got them from (its known that HE did not collect them himself) and his claims says that he "got" them 4 years after the fact.

he documents the chain of custody for 2 of the samples he has in his latest paper.

scroll up for a link.

[Sizzler]

Have you ever made an attempt to debunk Jones? Or just considered the possibility he may be wrong? Just askin.

I haven't seen any convincing "debunking" of his claims about "high temperatures" (~1500 or more). His claims about therm?te are not conclusive so don't hold any water yet.

I do believe that his therm?te theory could be wrong.

[beachnut]

those are the two "non-truther" discoveries of micropsheres
oops, rock wool has lead on it! darn debunked

[Sizzler]

oops, rock wool has lead on it! darn debunked

I don't get it.

[beachnut]

I don't get it. That is indicative or your general understanding of 9/11.
Do some research, and make sure it goes back to the 70s.

[Sizzler]

That is indicative or your general understanding of 9/11.
Do some research, and make sure it goes back to the 70s.

You win my predictability award. You never fail. Good job!

[Arus808]

he documents the chain of custody for 2 of the samples he has in his latest paper.
scroll up for a link.

you and Jones both dont understand how chain of custody works in this situation.

what does dust samples gotten from a known kook and a anonymous source, 5 years after the fact, prove?

that jones is a fraud.

[beachnut]

You win my predictability award. You never fail. Good job!
Oh?, you got some evidence to go with Jones's always new "smoking gun"!? (no you don't) You got me, yes, it is easy for me to see Jones made up thermite, I actually know the difference between fiction and the lies he tries to imply vs. reality. Do you?
What is not predictable is Jones' new smoking gun. What will it be? Happy Dale has a place for Jones' ideas.

Where are the piles of iron from thermite reaction at the WTC? Not any!
Where are the devices to cut the steel columns with thermite at the WTC? Not any!
Where are the people who planted the thermite in the WTC? In Jones' head (there is plenty of room in there)!
Why did Jones start an online Journal of woo? Because no one would publish his false political tripe.

You could answer you own questions if you would do some basic research. Why are all 9/11 truth members allergic to doing research?

[Sizzler]

which he has not provided documentation as to when and whom he got them from (its known that HE did not collect them himself) and his claims says that he "got" them 4 years after the fact.
(bolding mine)

Appendix
Provenance of dust samples analyzed in original work reported here.
Sample 1 was collected from inside the Potter Building located at 38 Park Row in New York City. It was collected by a Ph.D. scientist on 9/14/2001, just three days after the 9/11/2001 and before any major steelcutting operations had begun at ground zero. Rescue operations were on-going at the time of sample collection.
Furthermore, the building is located about four blocks from ground zero and the sample was collected from dust that had worked its way inside the building, landing on an interior window sill. Thus, contamination from steelcutting operations at ground zero (which can produce molten steel spheres) can be ruled out with a very high degree of confidence. The iron-rich spheres collected in sample 1 are evidence of high-temperature melting and violent fragmentation during the WTC destruction and dust formation.
Sample 2 was collected by Jeannette MacKinlay about a week after 9/11/2001, from inside her apartment at 113 Cedar St./110 Liberty St., New York City. WTC dust entered her apartment through two windows which broke as the South Tower collapsed. The holes in the windows were approximately 0.5 m X 0.8 m, and the apartment was on the fourth floor. In both samples, elements besides iron are often present in the spheres which yield chemical signatures distinct from that of structural steel (such as Al, Si, Cu, K, S; see Figs. 3 and 4). These chemical signatures provide additional evidence that the spheres did not result from steel-cutting operations during clean-up. We have recently obtained a WTC dust sample acquired within twenty minutes of the collapse of the North Tower, near the Brooklyn Bridge, which also shows spherules like those shown in Figs. 1-5. These spheres cannot have originated from the later clean-up operations. Further results from our on-going investigation will be presented in future papers. Probing alternative chemical reactions which could have produced these spherules is beyond the scope of this paper; but further analyses of these contaminants may provide important clues regarding the processes which generated the observed iron-rich spheres and concomitant high temperatures.

This of course is not a proper chain of custody document, but it does answer the who, when, and where.

In addition, microspheres were found by other scientists, so Jones discoveries aren't that hard to accept.

[eeyore1954]

I don't know how you could possibly call sample that were held by people for several years independent. Did you ever ask yourself if it was odd that this lady found Dr Jones as the one to give the sample to? How many non hard core truthers would have even heard of him back then. Do you think it is possible these samples could be either tainted or tampered with.

If he was interested in the truth he would be attempting to find more reliable sources of dust and he would have given samples of the dust he has with independent labs for analysis long ago.




I am curious if anyone knows if these samples given to him after he was looking for thermite?


Originally Posted by Sizzler
You win my predictability award. You never fail. Good job!

Beechnut may be predictable to make harse (yet truthful) rematks but you are even more predictable in what side you will come down on in most 9/11 arguments regardless of what the evidence points to. Odd for someone who claimed to be agnostic about 9/11 .

[Apollo20]

eeyore1954:

Are you seriously suggesting that Ms. MacKinlay deliberately added iron-rich microspheres to a WTC dust sample and then gave it to Jones knowing he would find the spheres and would argue that they supported his thermite theory?

My oh my, that is the best conspiracy theory I've heard in a long time!

[eeyore1954]

eeyore1954:

Are you seriously suggesting that Ms. MacKinlay deliberately added iron-rich microspheres to a WTC dust sample and then gave it to Jones knowing he would find the spheres and would argue that they supported his thermite theory?

My oh my, that is the best conspiracy theory I've heard in a long time!

I am suggesting it is not an independent sample whose chain of custody is known