Submitted by juandelacruz on Mon, 2010-03-01 02:51.
Jones still looks good in this poll. I do wish other truth advocates would retest his samples or other samples to independently verify his findings of nano thermite. On top of that someone should test for conventional explosives as well.
On the whole however I give him the benefit of doubt to be an honest man.
Submitted by kate of the kiosk on Mon, 2010-03-01 03:49.
and so have we to seriously put him in some cointelpro suit. if he goes, so do the rest, and i cannot believe that there would not be a good theologian, physicist, and engineer out there slugging away~~~
There are at least two independent labs running tests on the dust samples in order to verify (or not) the findings of Dr. Jones, et al.
Note that these scientists are not connected to the 9/11 truth movement in any way and they plan on publishing their results in peer reviewed journals (which can sometimes take way too long, but that's just the way it is).
Dr. Jones told me this about a year ago so I expect these papers will be published sometime in 2010 or early 2011.
As far as testing for more conventional explosive residues, I will see what I can find out on this as it is a legitimate question and we deserve an answer. However, it is quite likely that the different formulas of nanothermite were sufficient to produce the observed results (i.e. explosive and incendiary formulas).
The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.
Submitted by juandelacruz on Wed, 2010-03-03 14:03.
Thanks LeftWright,
That's great news! I just hope this testing is done transparently with good documentation that covers the sample collection, chain of custody and testing.
The rationale to test for conventional explosives is so self evident that I cannot think of any reason not to do it, except if we fear the results. But what have we really got to lose. Whatever the cause of the WTC7 going down, it could not have been office fires.
but at this point we cannot assume any test performed by ANYONE is 100% credible, since there is not yet mass awareness of the sort that would make the conseuqences of falsifying results a bad idea...
these poll results are not scientific. registered users can vote twice (as their registered identity and as anonymous), and I can go in and edit the poll results any time I want. I don't of course, but if you're going to suspect me of doing it you'll pretty much have to acknowledge that ANY poll conducted by ANYONE can be very easily falsified.
9/11 TV News Archive Streaming video of all major network news coverage on 9/11/01
Dr. David Ray Griffin A website documenting the work of the most credible and widely respected author on the truth about 9/11.
9/11 Unveiled by Enver Masud Free PDF of an excellent and concise book summarizing the case against the official story.
David Chandler's YouTube Channel Must watch videos analyzing the explosive demolition of the twin towers and WTC7, produced by high school physics teacher David Chandler whose work forced a revision to NIST's final report on the WTC.
Center for an Informed America Excellent analysis by Dave McGowan on 9/11 and other controversial subjects. This link is to McGowan's 2004 analysis of 9/11 and the state of the truth movement at that time.
Council for the National Interest Group founded by Congressmen Paul Findley and Paul McCloskey to promote pro-American (instead of exclusively pro-Israeli) middle east policies in the U.S. government.
Popular Mechanics: "Debunking 9/11 Myths" The most often cited critique of 9/11 Truth, or defense of the official version of events. Fails to address most real concerns adequately.
Money Masters Documentary on the corrupt money system
Jones still looks good in
Jones still looks good in this poll. I do wish other truth advocates would retest his samples or other samples to independently verify his findings of nano thermite. On top of that someone should test for conventional explosives as well.
On the whole however I give him the benefit of doubt to be an honest man.
yeah..he's come so far
and so have we to seriously put him in some cointelpro suit. if he goes, so do the rest, and i cannot believe that there would not be a good theologian, physicist, and engineer out there slugging away~~~
if not them then who?
i miss Lazlo!
so sorry he was in the midst of loss when we lost him.
FTR -
There are at least two independent labs running tests on the dust samples in order to verify (or not) the findings of Dr. Jones, et al.
Note that these scientists are not connected to the 9/11 truth movement in any way and they plan on publishing their results in peer reviewed journals (which can sometimes take way too long, but that's just the way it is).
Dr. Jones told me this about a year ago so I expect these papers will be published sometime in 2010 or early 2011.
As far as testing for more conventional explosive residues, I will see what I can find out on this as it is a legitimate question and we deserve an answer. However, it is quite likely that the different formulas of nanothermite were sufficient to produce the observed results (i.e. explosive and incendiary formulas).
The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.
BTW -
That was me, it was late and I didn't realize that I wasn't logged in until after I submitted the comment.
Just to set the record straight.
The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.
Thanks LeftWright, That's
Thanks LeftWright,
That's great news! I just hope this testing is done transparently with good documentation that covers the sample collection, chain of custody and testing.
The rationale to test for conventional explosives is so self evident that I cannot think of any reason not to do it, except if we fear the results. But what have we really got to lose. Whatever the cause of the WTC7 going down, it could not have been office fires.
right on
but at this point we cannot assume any test performed by ANYONE is 100% credible, since there is not yet mass awareness of the sort that would make the conseuqences of falsifying results a bad idea...
in the interest of full disclosure
these poll results are not scientific. registered users can vote twice (as their registered identity and as anonymous), and I can go in and edit the poll results any time I want. I don't of course, but if you're going to suspect me of doing it you'll pretty much have to acknowledge that ANY poll conducted by ANYONE can be very easily falsified.