It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
What is still unverified is the source material. It was said WTC debris was donated. Do we know for sure what has been tested came from these, nothing has been added, and that they are representative?
Originally posted by esdad71
Please take a read and see that this is not the first time that he has 'submitted' something that the rest of the scientific community thought was bunk.
Originally posted by Nutter
I guess Gallileo was incorrect when he stated that the earth revolved around the sun because all his peers said so?
Oh wait, it wasn't until copernicus' uncle became a Bishop of the catholic church that he was proven correct. Go figure, scientists could be wrong.
en.wikipedia.org...
"he has sought radiocarbon dating evidence of the existence of pre-Columbian horses in the Americas, and has interpreted archaeological evidence from the ancient Mayans as supporting his faith's belief that Jesus Christ visited America."
Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by mmiichael
There were multiple samples, one take within 10 minutes, several taken september 11th, some september 12th. Some taken by residents some taken by scientists. ALL have the same debris, the debris is consistent in all samples.
What is still unverified is the source material. It was said WTC debris was donated. Do we know for sure what has been tested came from these, nothing has been added, and that they are representative?
Greg Swayze USGS - Obtained sample and notid it was highly toxic, sent to EPA
Inspector General EPA - Claimed NCS altered EPA reports warning that the dust was toxic. (co-incidentally lost job)
The chain of custody is intact and can be requested on all 4 samples of the Jones paper.
Other scientists independent of the Jones Study have samples with chain of custody that also mirror the findings of Jones' work.
Originally posted by mmiichael
Gallileo is not Steven Jones and this is the 20th Century.
Originally posted by Nutter
reply to post by conrad x
Nice addition to the thread. Care to back up your statements?
Originally posted by Nutter
reply to post by mmiichael
First of all, Dr. Jones is not the one who started the whole "Jesus was on North America" claim.
BTW, are you Christian? Has there been ANY scientific evidence of Jesus' existence at all?
If you believe in him, then you are a hypocrit for what you just wrote.
But if you want examples of Dr Jones supporting fallacious assumptions, leaving the already discussed Cold Fusion aside.
According to Wikipedia, as a professor at Brigham Young University, Jones, a self-proclaimed 'devout Mormon" has attempted to introduce scientific validation of the belief that America was Christianized 2000 years ago, and that Israelites were a basis for the indigenous population of the continent.
en.wikipedia.org...
"he has sought radiocarbon dating evidence of the existence of pre-Columbian horses in the Americas, and has interpreted archaeological evidence from the ancient Mayans as supporting his faith's belief that Jesus Christ visited America."
There has been no scientific evidence of these claims, which conflict with all archeological and anthropological knowledge. This has not prevented three and a half million followers of the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints from believing them to be true.
Mike
Originally posted by jprophet420
According to legitimate science, a theory may not be considered invalid because of its originators beliefs.
Post evidence or concede, and save some face.
A theory is only a theory until proven.
Originally posted by jprophet420
A theory is only a theory until proven.
What part of "it's thermate" is theory exactly?
While here. As the validity of Jones' conclusions, protocol and methods have not been independently confirmed, it is just a claim at this point. (and confirmation means not among his cronies)
Originally posted by jprophet420
While here. As the validity of Jones' conclusions, protocol and methods have not been independently confirmed, it is just a claim at this point. (and confirmation means not among his cronies)
they've already passed that point in the process, and once they did the publisher came under scrutiny as the main form of "debunking".
Originally posted by mmiichael
Originally posted by jprophet420
While here. As the validity of Jones' conclusions, protocol and methods have not been independently confirmed, it is just a claim at this point. (and confirmation means not among his cronies)
they've already passed that point in the process, and once they did the publisher came under scrutiny as the main form of "debunking".
Peer review journal publishers aren't debunkers. That's conspiracy talk.
Anyway, the act of debunking is what what makes science dynamically self-correcting. Getting rid of more "bunk"
Science is about proving without question and results being reproducible. Ignored by his gushing fans, this is a forensic study, which has special parameters.
On this thread the critic of Jones is the villain with him the hero.
So he wins the neighbourhood popularity contest.
Let's see how he fares in the world of cold hard science.
Mike
[edit on 27-6-2009 by mmiichael]
Jones maintained that the paper was peer-reviewed prior to publication within a book "9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out" by D.R. Griffin[32] The paper was published in the online peer-reviewed, "Journal of 9/11 Studies", a journal co-founded and co-edited by Jones for the purpose of "covering the whole of research related to 9/11/2001." The paper also appeared in Global Outlook,[33] a magazine "seeking to reveal the truth About 9/11"[34] and in a volume of essays edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott.[35]
In April 2008, Jones, along with four other authors, published a letter in The Bentham Open Civil Engineering Journal, titled, 'Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction'[36]. In August 2008, Jones, along with Kevin Ryan and James Gourley, published a peer-reviewed article in The Environmentalist, titled, 'Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: Evidence for energetic materials'.[37] And in April 2009, Jones, along with Niels H. Harrit and 7 other authors published a paper in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, titled, 'Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe'.[38]