Today was perhaps the last summer sunday of the year, so I was outside and enjoyed the sun and played a little game of bare-footed football (the English sport that is actually played with your feet and with an actual ball) with some friends, until I stepped on a wasp and was stung. Result: I am not in the mood to research and reply at length tonight.
Just four quick remarks.
1. ProfJones writes "Does payment motivate your efforts to defend the “official story” of 9/11?
I trust that anyone who thinks about that question for even 10 seconds will realize that it is not the kind of question that actually expects to retrieve information, but rather a passive-aggressive, insinuating, suggestive statement. ProfJones, please retract that question
, even though I already answered it. It is insulting. As you perhaps know, insults inform us about the character of the insulter, not the insulted.
Besides, whether my arguments are valid or not depends in no way, shape or form on whether I am payed for anything by anyone. Please address the argument, not the arguer.
2. ProfJones writes: "this anonymous Oystein fellow ... why does he hide behind anonymity? ... will you identify yourself in the interest of transparency and truth?
First, I am not entirely anonymous. Coincidentally, your (ProfJones's) appreciated
supporter Sitting-Bull wrote in his blog just yesterday
: "Mein Fazit: Wenigstens traut sich „Oystein“ aus der Anonymität heraus, gibt seiner Gegenrede einen Namen und ein Gesicht, ich bin überzeugt, er meint es ernsthaft und aufrichtig, auch wenn ich vieles von dem, was er schlussfolgert, in keinster Weise nachvollziehen kann und ihn bestenfalls als „verrannt“ bezeichnen würde (was er sicherlich im Gegenzug auch von mir denken wird)
" (my emphasise). Partial Translation: "My conclusion: At least Oystein dares to step out of anonymity, gives his opposing speech a a name and a face...
". Sitting-bull repeated this at 911Blogger
: "Oystein is not anonymous, at least I met him and know his name. You can see a picture of him and me in my latest blog entry
Now to answer you: No, I will not disclose my real name publicly. The reason is rather mundane: While you are already retired and enjoy retirement benefits you can't lose, I am self-employed and still have at least 20 years of career ahead of me. My name is very rare - I don't want potential future business partners, who may google my name, give the impression that this hobby of debunking the false science of 9/11 CTs is what I am all about. However, on the condition that my name remains off the public record, I'd have no problems talking to you directly and using my real name and standard email address. Just one other condition, to build a measure of minimum trust: Take back the question whether I get payed or not.
I just don't know at this time how to contact you privately.
Besides, whether my arguments are valid or not, whether my claims are true or not, depends in no way, shape or form on my name, face, education or your knowldege of these. Please address the arguments, not the arguer!
3. You are arguing with unpublished experimental data with which you don't seem to be really familiar. It is nonsense to expect me to respond to your statements about Pb in the TEM data, if I don't have the TEM data. Please see to it that it gets published ASAP. Have you asked Dr. Farrer (or any other collaborator that may have unpublished data) to commit to a due date to publish it all? If not, please do so now! We are waiting for the FTIR, TEM and XRD data!
4. ProfJones writes "I say, do the experiment and let us know what you find!
Unnecessary. I fully accept the data of the experiments already done, by your team, by Marc Basile, by Dr. Millette. Each set of data taken alone suffices to come to the conclusion that the chips are likely various paints and probably none are thermitic. Taken all data that's already on the table together, that conclusion is inevitable. There remains no trace of prima facie evidence that there is thermite in these chips. I trust that when you and your collaborators have published all your data, including the FTIR, TEM and XRD results, that conclusion will become clear to many who so far believed you: You have not found any significant elemental Al. With that finding, thermite is off the table. No further experiment is necessary.
 ProfJones wrote on 09/08/2012
: "I appreciate people like you, sittingbull and others, who have the time and stomach to deal with the debunkers.
" (my emphasise)