Nano-Thermite for the technically challenged?

[Edx]

I think someone like Sunstealer or Ryan Mackay should write a paper that explaines in layman terms whats wrong with Steven Jones' paper. Its often difficult to grasp when you read refutations of it.

I want to see something like simply lists of all the componants he claims are anomalies and then all the things it could have come from ie, office equipment, or that carbon is a paint binder. That kind of thing.

Then if you cant explain the complex stuff without all the equations and technical language start simply and try and move up. If they want to know more they can "go advanced", but this way they have an option of reading an outline.

I think thats the best way to get to people. Often people ask me whats wrong with the nano-thermite stuff and it would be nice to refer to a paper like that. From what Ive read this shouldnt be too difficult to do either. So whatdaya say?

 

[Edx]

bump

 

[Arus808]

nanothermite - beyond that its a made-up term by Stephen jones, you can simply sum up all of his crap with one statement:

"IM a fraud, I made up this crap and hope that everyone who reads it, buys into it, because I'm a souless fraud who needs people to listen to me, wah wah wah wah"

 

[Edx]

heh, yes... but I think that will fail to convince

 

[nicepants]

I think someone like Sunstealer or Ryan Mackay should write a paper that explaines in layman terms whats wrong with Steven Jones' paper. Its often difficult to grasp when you read refutations of it.

At it's very core, the flaw in Jones' logic is the following:

Jones claims that these chips are not part of the WTC paint
He determined this by using paint from the BYU football stadium as a control
Thus, the only thing he proved scientifically is that the chips in the WTC dust were not paint from the BYU football stadium.

Theres that, and then there's the fact that these samples were collected by random people in NY and none were sent to independent labs for analysis (or if they were, Jones hasn't reported the results).

 

[Holler Hoojer]

There's no way in hell any truther is gonna accept any valid argument. I got into a debate on one forum about the use of thermite. Turns out I was the only person in the thread who had ever used thermite and when I said the WTC collapse did not look like thermite, the truthers showed me a Youtube of two hardhats (white hardhats!) in front of a column and announced that proved I was dead wrong. I knew when I was beaten.