Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths
So, I think I will respond to another status of your in a new forum thread so that I will have enough room to deal with this important subject that truly does deserve its own forum thread. If I had tried to respond by posting a new original status of my own, I would have been severely limited as to number of characters.
Those of us who have been listening to Dr. Jones' rhetoric since he came on the scene in 2005, have already been lectured on a number of his "hard science" areas of expertise. He has lectured us on "peer review", quantifying the size of the dust particles, the scientitic method (which Dr. Fetzer says Dr. Jones leaves out a major standard step in the scientific process) and a host of other issues.
911blogger has been a rotten disinfo site from its beginnings. It has clutched on to the Steven Jones production and has kicked off their 911blogger site anyone who suggests there is much more to look at than what Jones dictates we focus on.
My theory that I am developing is that Dr. Jones and Richard Gage (and of course all of the older phony 9-11 "truth" sites) are all derived from the same Zionists people who planned and perpetrated 9-11 and who have completely taken control of the CIA, the FBI, the political process, and all aspects of USA society, including "science." They have never been about truth and they have never been about science. They have only about taking over the truth movement and in true authoritarian fashion tightly clamped down on all truth seekers who won't be their lemmings.
Do not be impressed by Jones' words. Look at his what he has done and what he has failed to do.
When I suggested that Kevin Barrett and Dr. Griffin had also latched on to the Jones/Gage thermite train, Craig McKee and maybe Dr. Barrett rejected my VeteransToday post. Showed I hit on a very sensitive issue to the folks at that website and that they are not open to all politely tendered comments. That is why I will not go to VT anymore and do not think much of Craig McKee.
The Bentham Journal IS a vanity journal. Andrew Johnson wrote on that extensively on his site. Jones had to pay about $800 to get his "study" published somewhere. None of the quality standard academic journals would touch it. When the woman who was the head of Bentham Journal saw that the study had been published without her permission which was required there, she quit. So some shenanigans was pushing Jones' study to publication without going through the proper channels, and that made Bentham Jouranl even lower than a vanity journal.
There are many good scientists who have waged some strong legitimate negative criticisms of Steven Jones work. A whole book could be written about his method of obtaining dust samples, which samples were not obtained randomly.
The unactivated thermite that is supposed to be in those red grey chips was never tested in a most important and logical way. They should have been blown up in the laboratory to see if they indeed were explosive and how explosive they were and to do a full scientific description of the red grey chips. Harritt said no, they did not do that obvious simple test that they should have done.
As for "Peer reviewed". Anybody can get a bunch of their buddies to rubber stamp their study. They're all in on the scam.
I doubt if you will get far on this site in defending Steven Jones. We have been asking that guy to put up or shut up for seven years and all we get is tap dancing.
I personally will take logic, open discussion, and reasoning over peer-review anytime. Believe it or not, nonpedigreed thinkers
can make useful contributions too. An open mind is a terrible thing to lose. That said, I do have respect for honest scholarly
scientific discourse. The discovery phase of 9/11 truth has to be open to new ideas, and ready to change with new discoveries
openly discussed in plain English. I removed all 911truth.org and 911blogger links from my website a long time ago. They
are both disinfo in my opinion.
Looks like I hit a sore spot here among the members of this site. Exposing the Thermite in the dust is the best thing he has done although I do not believe it is the main source of destruction of the towers. I do not know why he has not seen mini nukes as the most reasonable explanation for their destruction.
Getting published overseas is common sense what with the MSM monitoring their owned scientific journals where they peer review everything - no chance for publication success in the USA. Make sense to publish overseas and to pay for it.
That is most common sense in m mind, as a scientist knowing the MSM will not allow publication in their journals.
that is simpe logic to me....
What does Jones know that we do not know to push so hard for his views?
I still do not see Jones as avillian. He is a fallible scientist, just like all of us scientists who can make errors.
Is he really misleading us, intentionally? Why he has not seen nukes, I do not know.
Is he really a misdirecting shill???????????????/
I am not yet convinced as he may just be in error. I wish I could talk with him on a scientist to scientist level to see where he is really coming from and why he persists in advocating his views...
I do not yet feel the animosity that others are expressing...
Sounds like you are being critical of me or my postings.
What is your point? Not easy to decipher...
Seems clear to me. You are defending a Government lackey, not some friendly misguided scientist. Even a slight amount of research shows Jones showing up to try to discredit anything that might hurt the MIC, such as cold fusion or DEW. He is not in error; he is a well calculated misleader.
Jim Fetzer has been clear on this for 5 years [quoting http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/07/is-911-truth-based-upon-fal... ]:
"Perhaps my strongest critique of Steve’s work occurred by accident. On May 17, 2007, my scheduled guest on "The Dynamic Duo", Don Paul, was a no-show and I had to wing it for two hours. So for the first part of the show, I talked about my collaborative research on the death of Sen. Paul Wellstone and on the assassination of JFK. During the second part, however, I focused my attention on a new paper he had just published, “Why indeed did the World Trade Center buildings completely collapse?” A copy can be found on the Journal of 9/11 Studies 3 (2006), which I suppose is a close facsimile of the paper I discussed, although Steve has sometimes revised his work on-line without formal notice. In my critique, I pointed out that the title was wrong, since the buildings had not “collapsed” and that he was talking about the Twin Towers, but my more serious criticisms concerned his deeply flawed conception of the scientific method and what I regarded as inadequate support for his thermite/thermate/nanothermite theory, “On the Manipulation of the 9/11 Research Community”. Here are a few passages for the flavor:
“Don’t forget that eleven hundred bodies were never recovered. Eleven hundred bodies were never recovered. Those were bodies that were turned into very fine dust. Never recovered. That’s completely inconsistent with a “collapse”. Even involving explosive, you would expect to find body parts, even if they were detached from bodies. And you’d find lots of skulls and torsos and arms and legs, but here we’re talking eleven hundred bodies, no parts of which were recovered. This is stunning stuff. And it certainly implies that something was going on here far beyond the use of any merely conventional explosives.
“But what’s going on in the research community is an attempt to constrain research that would actually have the capacity potentially to explain what's going on.[emphasis mine - Shallel] By reaching beyond conventional weaponry in to the range of unconventional weaponry, such as lasers, masers, plasmoids, mini-nukes. I mean, who knows in advance of actually conducting an investigation that theories or hypotheses about the use of lasers or masers or mini-nukes are wrong? You can’t know that without investigation. And I’m going to suggest that a gigantic hoax is being perpetrated on the research community by the claim that [the] scientific method supports this very narrow definition of the use of thermite and thermate . . . .
“. . . where I have now taken a look at the latest paper of the leading proponent of that view, Steven Jones, and it doesn’t add up. I mean it may be impressive to those who are naïve about the nature of science and who are incapable of reading a paper that has the least degree of technical sophistication to it, but I’m going to suggest to you as we go through this paper that what we have here is a rather elaborate “snow job”, where the most important points made are actually concessions that the evidence he has found is merely consistent with the use of thermite or thermate but doesn’t prove it was produced by thermite or thermate, where, provided that there are multiple alternative possible explanations, he has not done the job. And I’m going to claim that he has not done the job because he has a commitment to a conception of scientific method that is hopelessly inadequate. Hopelessly inadequate. And that while he talks a lot about science, he is, alas, not practicing it.” "
The TwilightPines link ,( “On the Manipulation of the 9/11 Research Community”) in Shallel's post does not work for me, though a search may find it elsewhere. That article is based upon the 4 postings I did recently on this forum.