More From Steve Jones

In reviewing some of the information postulated by Professor Jones of BYU, I noticed that he has made yet another change to the on-line version of his paper. (he is up to Draft 3.0)

Note: Prof. David Ray Griffin has written a complementary paper on this topic, available at:
911review.com...

David Ray Griffin is professor of philosophy of religion at Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University. I am not sure how this qualifies him to write a “companion article” to Steven Jones’ claims.

Further google of David Ray Griffin uncovered this little gem of a CAT FIGHT.



My favorite part:

"Through a long participatory process, a new Earth Charter has been proposed for promoting change for a sustainable future. We give our most sincere and profound support for this new Earth Charter. We endorse its principles and pledge ourselves to teaching them and living our lies consistently with them.”

Mr. Jones is now up to draft version 3.1

Scheduled for publication in The Hidden History of 9-11-2001, Research in Political Economy, Volume 23, P. Zarembka, editor, Amsterdam: Elsevier, forthcoming in Spring 2006.

It is still not a peer reviewed publication, unless you consider Marxist theory essential to the design of tall buildings.

Hey Howard, idea:

Instead of mocking the man, address his material.

Just a thought.

I'm waiting for it to be submitted for a real peer review.

By waiting, you mean... creating a thread about him in which you can mock him all you want without addressing any of his paper. Discredit the man, so no one will take what he says seriously. That's some real honest denying of ignorance there, Howie.

I found out a long time ago that mocking/character assassination is one of the many tools of the devil, I mean of the official 9/11 story supporters.


"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." -- Arthur Schopenhauer

Yea. It's funny how on all the corporate media outlets whenever someone comes forward with a plausible theory about 9/11 an inside job all they do is mockthem and call them a conspiracy theory nut.

Like #ucker Carlson and the physics professor. All Tucker did was mock him and interupt him. Didn't even really give Jones a real chance to fully explain his theories and findings in detail.

Then they cut to commercial rather quickly.

How much are they paying you Howie?

god forbid someone edits their comments based on newly found evidence; which appears to be constantly coming out these days little by little.

Hey, I have no problem at all if we wishes to refine his “presentation” but he frankly hasn’t helped his cause much by linking to Griffin and Fetzer.

And once again, I ask:

What kind of “peers” reviewed the paper for publication in the magazine that specializes in Marxist economic theories?

From a BYU NewsNet article released December 5th,

“My paper was peer-reviewed and accepted for publication before being made available on the Web with the editor’s approval,” Jones said. “The reviewers included a physicist and an engineer, I now understand. The review has not been shown to have been inappropriate and I believe it was appropriate.” Still, Jones said he willingly submitted his paper to another publication, where he is confident it will pass peer review a second time.

This thread needs to be relocated to BTS, at least. It's nothing but an attempt to discredit Jones. Howard, or whatever/whoever is behind him, obviously feels threatened by the fact that an honored physicist has come forward against the official story, and thus this thread exists.

This thread has nothing to do with Jones' actual paper, as Howard won't address that. He's just personally attacking the man, post after post.

Originally posted by bsbray11
From a BYU NewsNet article released December 5th,

“My paper was peer-reviewed and accepted for publication before being made available on the Web with the editor’s approval,” Jones said. “The reviewers included a physicist and an engineer, I now understand. The review has not been shown to have been inappropriate and I believe it was appropriate.” Still, Jones said he willingly submitted his paper to another publication, where he is confident it will pass peer review a second time.

How does an electrical engineer qualify to review a structural engineering issue?

Furthermore, Jerry Russell is hardly what I would consider and objective reviewer.

Furthermore, It is not up to Jones to pick his reviewers. That is not how the process of peer review works.

As for the second paper, I’m sure the Arctic Beacon will have no problem accepting it for publication after Greg looks it over. If that fails, there is always Rense.


[edit on 27-12-2005 by HowardRoark]

Originally posted by HowardRoark
How does an electrical engineer qualify to review a structural engineering issue?

This is a straw-man. The issue of the WTC collapses is not an issue of structural engineering. It's an issue of physics. Structural engineering operates on principles of physics, and not the other way around. And the problems with the collapses were physics problems, not necessarily structural engineering problems. Structural engineers design buildings to stand, anyway, not fall, and MacMerdin has pointed out on several occasions. The collapses are not within the expertise of structural engineers.

This stuff is in the realm of basic physics and maybe demolition engineers, but least of the three comes structural engineers.

The basic physics problems do not take a physicist to address, either. A physicist has addressed it, as Jones is a physicist, and an honored one at that, but anyone who has graduated from any college should be able to pick up the problems. Or even those who knows basic physics from high school courses, or even middle school or elementary sciences.

For example, the momentum of no object can be infinite based on known laws of physics. When encountering resistance (an unbalancing force, as Newton might say), a body will lose momentum and its speed will slow.

Do you really need a physicist to tell you that? Or anyone?

If you do, then you shouldn't be here debating anything anyway. Or, if you're here for the $$, same thing. It's really sick, man.

Howard, if we start saving up and send you a monthly check for more than they're paying you now, will you drop all this disinfo crap? Seriously. Would that work? Just tell us how much they're paying you and we'll see if we can't tack on a couple hundred bucks or so a month for you.

Same old standard shill tactics, attack the credibility of the messenger and hope the content gets ignored, blah blah conspiracy wackos blah blah... It's pathetic, really.

Howard, I'm sure you're not supposed to make it so painfully obvious that you are a paid debunker. For Pete's sake man! Show some pride and subtlety in your work!!

Just for fun, somebody please start a credibility attack thread for that donut-chomping fatso, Thomas Eagar. And I'm pretty sure he's a materials engineer, not a structural engineer, which according to Howie means he doesn't know diddly-squat. He's certainly proven that with all the laughable errors he's made. What was that one about 10 second collapse, and 8 seconds for freefall from the top of WTC1? Priceless! He's also into some crazy alternative welding techniques, and has a site somewhere I found once with wacky cartoons of squirrels welding stuff...very bizarre. :shk:

[edit on 2005-12-28 by wecomeinpeace]

doityourself.com...

Oh the irony! Sorry, back to the topic

The Art of Disinformation ... HowardRoark, it seems you have almost mastered it, will you be my sensei?

SwearBear, if you have a specific comment regarding the subject of the this thread, then please do.

For example, you can try to substantiate your claims.

Or you can try to show how Prof. Jones arguments are part of a valid scientific paper.


Otherwise, just posting pointless comments adds little to the value of the discussion, and is generally frowned upon here at ATS.

HowardRoark For example, you can try to substantiate your claims.

Or you can try to show how Prof. Jones arguments are part of a valid scientific paper.

Hey, good idea. Why don't you go ahead and substantiate your claims, in order to try to show how Jones' arguments are not part of a valid scientific paper? In case you're wondering, that means pointing out where he errs scientifically, not pointing out how his friends are a bunch of whackos and stuff.

Besides, SwearBear's posts hardly constitute material to open an entire thread with, yet they were interesting and as such hardly out of place. In fact, I'd like to hear your reasons for chosing the nick HowardRoark now.

OK, here is a classic case of “bad engineering” from Mr. Jones’ paper

Symmetry: did the building collapse straight down (nearly symmetrically) – or did it topple over?

Do I even have to go into why this sentence indicates that he has no concept of basic engineering principles?

Yes, that would be in order. After all you're trying to attack a scientific paper on scientific grounds, no? Last time I checked, mimicking the Oracle of Delphi wasn't enough for that.

Or did Jones say: "I quote: "Fires brought down the building" - need I say more?" to make his case?

[edit]

HowardRoark...has no concept of basic engineering principles

Jones is a professor of physics. The "basic engineering principles" are...wait for it...physics. Classical mechanics, to be precise, pretty fundamental stuff actually.




[edit on 3-1-2006 by Lumos]