Dr. Steven Jones & Dr. Judy Wood

There were a lot of great points made during this discussion.

Thanks for expressing your opinions everyone.

Hopefully more evidence comes out soon to help make it clear what the truth is.

Thanks for discussing,

-Abe

[edit on 17-3-2010 by PookztA]

The video I posted above about Dr. Jones and his role in the Cold Fusion cover up was recently removed from YouTube only a few days ago.

Here is a replacement video which covers similar information:



[edit on 18-3-2010 by PookztA]

here's more information that relates to the Directed Energy Weapons used to bring down the towers:

Boyd Bushman, a Senior Scientist of Lockheed Martin, on The Hutchison Effect:


Boyd Bushman, a Senior Scientist of Lockheed Martin, on Anti-Gravity Technology:


Colonel Tom Bearden on Military Energy Weapon Technology (1985) similar to The Hutchison Effect:


Directed Energy Weapon Technology was used on 9/11:
video.google.com...#


[edit on 19-3-2010 by PookztA]

Even if directed energy weapons do exist, it doesn't necessarily mean they were used to bring down the twin towers.

The smear campaign against Dr. Steven Jones continues, I see.

And I have to say that the "evidence" being mustered in the thread is still unconvincing - the pictures in particular do not support the DEW theory.

Personally I find it hard to believe that rational people genuinely find her and her theories credible. When she was asked in the interview if she'd done any calculations about the energy needed, she dismissed the question. That's not, imo, remotely scientific.

It is very odd, though, that the people I find most likely to be disinfo people (Wood, Lear), are the very ones bringing court cases. Could it be they're being encouraged to do so in order to set appalling legal precedents?

Originally posted by rich23
Even if directed energy weapons do exist, it doesn't necessarily mean they were used to bring down the twin towers.

I respectfully disagree.

In my honest and professional opinion, Dr. Jones is covering up the truth about 9/11 just like he helped cover up the truth about Cold Fusion.

Just my opinion.

-Abe

Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez
M1 Medical Student
B.S. Biology / Neurobiology

to see a fully updated version of my letter, with information about suppressed technologies such as Cold Fusion & Energy Weapons, please check an updated version here: mindoutpsyde.com...

Originally posted by PookztA

Originally posted by rich23
Even if directed energy weapons do exist, it doesn't necessarily mean they were used to bring down the twin towers.

I respectfully disagree.

So, respectfully, you're saying that if DEWs exist they must have been used to bring down the Towers? By disagreeing with my statement, that is, necessarily, what you're saying.

I hope you're not saying that, because it's ludicrous. I was making a point of logic.

Here's the same logical argument rephrased.

Just because you can fly to a destination doesn't mean you can't get there by train.

This shows me that you can't differentiate between points of logic and points of evidence.

I'm quite happy for you to look at the photographs you've posted and say, "I think this is evidence of a DEW". That's interpreting the evidence differently. But if you can't see that the logical point I made is irrefutable, that suggests that your education is not anything like as rigorous as you think.

In my honest and professional opinion, Dr. Jones is covering up the truth about 9/11 just like he helped cover up the truth about Cold Fusion.

Just my opinion.

-Abe

Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez
M1 Medical Student
B.S. Biology / Neurobiology

You know, there are a lot of well-informed, clear-thinking people posting on this board, none of whom see the need to quote their qualifications. Indeed, some, like myself, see it as a sign of insecurity and, in fact, a fallacious appeal to authority.

And putting "JMO" after the words "my honest, professional opinion"... just compunds the error of judgement.

As I've said, I've looked at the evidence against Steven Jones re the cold fusion thing and found it unconvincing. It looks more like a smear campaign to me. And if you think you know what the truth about cold fusion is, then I'd suspect you display more certainty about this than most of the decent scientists involved in the field itself.

As always, I'm reminded of Yeats -

The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity

reply to post by PookztA


You know what? I've just wasted several minutes of my valuable time giving you (or, really, Judy Wood) the benefit of some doubt. I actually started to read this article i reached through a link from your post above.

I have to say, if you've seen nothing wrong with this article, and if you've paid a lot of money to get these qualifications that you keep waving in people's faces, you should go and demand your money back.

I'm just going to take one little paragraph and tear it apart. Really thoroughly. Treating the rest of the article like this would simply take too long, but this one paragraph exposes once and for all the smear-ridden and utterly slipshod "thinking" prevalent throughout the entire article. If I'm sounding cross, I am: not because I give a fig about Steven Jones, but because this kind of sloppy nonsense makes me fume in the first place, and then finding people being gulled by it compunds the crime.

Here we go:

Jones poses a revealing question-and-answer:

Q: "What data finally convinced you that 9/11 was not just by 19 hijackers?

A: Molten metal, yellow-hot and in large quantities…" [pdf (7/19/06) p. 45]

This statement raises two problems: first, Jones gives credence to the loony OGCT that "19 young Arabs acting at the behest of Islamist extremists headquartered in distant Afghanistan" were involved or caused 9/11.

This is so blatantly a misrepresentation that it almost beggars belief.

The question is pretty clear - Jones used to believe the OS: what was the first piece of evidence that made him discard the OS? He's not giving credence to the theory, he's simply admitting, like so many others, that he believed the OS at first. Personally, I didn't believe it for a moment, but that doesn't mean that I think everyone who did is a complete idiot or agent provocateur.

But the worst of it is... the reference to the 19 hijackers was in the interviewer's question, not Jones' answer! So simply by answering a question politely (rather than challenging its terms aggressively), Wood and Reynolds convict him of propping up the OS.

It makes no sense to embrace parts of the government’s unproven story without independent proof.

Now, see, this is really sneaky. What the authors (who have already admitted bias against Jones) are trying to insinuate is that, in the above statement, Jones is propping up the OS. This is, simply, putting words into his mouth that were never there.

If a scientist falsifies his data, his career is over. Why not the same standard for government liars?

This is an article that is labelled "a peer review of Steven Jones' research". First, this is not language that is worthy of the label "peer review". This is invective. Second, we've gone from misrepresenting Jones' position, to trying to blur the interviewer's question with Jones' answer, to putting words in Jones' mouth, to accusing him of falsifying data without adducing any evidence to back that up.

Like I said, this is not the language of peer review.

Second, with so many compelling facts like near free-fall speed, symmetric disintegration in their own footprints, almost no concrete left, and many others, it is folly to rely on molten metal as the strongest evidence for demolition, especially flowing from windows in manipulated videos.

If you can't see what that paragraph does... like I said, your much-vaunted "evidence-based scientific training" has done you no good at all.

Got it yet?

OK. The question was not, "what's the strongest evidence?" The question was, "what data finally convinced you?" In other words, what was the thing that took you, Steven Jones, from being a believer in the OS to being a skeptic of the OS? That was the anomalous data that changed Jones' mind, and to equate that question with "what's the strongest piece of evidence you would present to others about 9/11?" is utterly meretricious.

If you cannot see that that last excerpt is intellectually dishonest, I really can't help you.

And, finally, there's that little line about "manipulated videos". This assertion of manipulation has NO evidence to back it up, and certainly, none is adduced in the article.

I've seen debunkers try to poke holes in Jones' tests on the thermite, and I have to admit they did a far better job than Wood and Reynolds because they stuck to technical issues and if they were being sneaky, they were doing it at a level that only someone who does a lot of technically complex chemical testing would understand.

This is just stupid, shallow, dishonest bilge: and its authors calling it a "peer review" is as stupid, shallow and dishonest as its contents.

reply to post by rich23


Very well said, Rich. Great analysis. If you've ever looked at the "no plane at the WTC" or "tv fakery" disinfo, they use the same exact tactics. They purposely lie, blatantly deceive. They manipulate images and then say "see, proof!" Manipulating images and perpetuating it as "proof" is creating the disinformation.

Doing what Judy Wood and the no-plane disinfo cult does by purposely lying and deceiving is also creating disinformation. That's why I call them disinfo artists. They create the disinformation that they peddle.

If the "space beam" camp and the "no-plane" camp all use the same exact tactics, that proves to me that all these disinfo "theories" are coming from one source: people working for the government who's mission is to discredit the 9/11 truth movement with these ridiculous "theories".

I made a thread about these disinfo "theories" and it has several articles critically analyzing or debunking the space beam disinfo as well as the no-plane disinfo. You can view my thread here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

How can you say she is disinfo when the evidence on her website speaks for itself? Have you even looked through all the evidence on her website before concluding that she is 'disinfo'? This is a very harsh claim are making, and it's not an evidence-based claim either.

If you have proof Dr. Wood is disinfo (which she is not), then please provide it. You have said she is disinfo like 10 different times and not once provided proof of her being disinfo, not even at your link you always post.

-Abe

Originally posted by PookztA
How can you say she is disinfo when the evidence on her website speaks for itself?

Speaks for itself? Then how come the whole entire world isn't jumping all over it then? How come the entire 9/11 truth movement neither supports her nor her "theories", and most go even further to call it disinfo?

Originally posted by PookztA
Have you even looked through all the evidence on her website before concluding that she is 'disinfo'?

Um, yes, as well as many others. Hence my other thread with critical analyses and debunks of her disinfo.

Originally posted by PookztA
This is a very harsh claim are making

Not a claim, just facts. The 9/11 truth movement has been professing those facts for years. I don't see any end in sight to those facts being reversed.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Thank you very much for the compliment, bonez. From you, it's really appreciated. You might remember administering a bit of a spanking to me here because I'd come across the NPT, hadn't really looked at it, and started a thread asking "does the NPT buy us anything?"

Though the question was posed with honest intent, I now totally appreciate why you had a bit of a go at me. If you'd been dealing with this lot, any thread with those dread letters would, I'm sure, make the steam come out of your ears.

Funnily enough, I've just started on a forum for a UK cable channel, edgemediaTV, and they've just done a programme featuring DEW theory. (I really like the channel because they feature a lot of ATS-type stuff, but they're not terribly discerning and the forum is pretty woeful, to be honest.)

There was a guy called Andrew Johnson posting there on behalf of Judy Wood, and after a few direct questions (and I re-did the analysis you liked, actually) he seems to have disappeared.

If you want, you can look at the thread here.

Originally posted by PookztA
How can you say she is disinfo when the evidence on her website speaks for itself?

How can you say it's not disinfo when I exposed her dishonesty several posts ago?

And yes, the evidence they post speaks for itself. It says, "this is rubbish".

Have you even looked through all the evidence on her website before concluding that she is 'disinfo'? This is a very harsh claim are making, and it's not an evidence-based claim either.

You do like bandying about this "evidence-based" phrase, but as shown earlier, you can't distinguish between points of logic and points of evidence. And if you google "wtc dust" you'll find a surprising amount of evidence backing up Steven Jones' findings of nanothermite.

If you have proof Dr. Wood is disinfo (which she is not), then please provide it.

In this instance, "proof" is a subjective thing. I've demonstrated fairly conclusively that Judy Wood is intellectually dishonest. You seem immune to this or not able to appreciate the finer points of my post.

Originally posted by thesneakiod
Then why then isn't your theory of a controlled demolition being shouted from the rooftops? And with all your "proof" as well. That must be a stickler eh?

I've just Googled "wtc dust".

911research.wtc7.net...
www.globalresearch.ca...
www.prisonplanet.com...
rawstory.com...
911blogger.com...

Rawstory, Prisonplanet and Globalresearch are all sites with large followings and some respected contributors. The evidence of thermite use is making better progress than the DEW (evidence-lite) theories.

Plus, respected commentator Paul Craig Roberts, who was at one time in Reagan's cabinet (he's come a long way) has got on board with Jones' evidence, as shown in these two articles:

www.informationclearinghouse.info...
vdare.com...

So, actually, people are beginning to shout from the rooftops.


There's also this page, which is rather useful:
pubs.usgs.gov...

You may notice there's an image showing the distribution of ferrous materials. I'm not going to leap to the conclusion that that must equal thermite dust, but I'm not going to rule it out, either.


[edit on 25-3-2010 by rich23]

Originally posted by thesneakiod
According to you, no one is allowed any belief in DEW or support the no plane theory.

Not according to me. The research organizations in the truth movement dictate what theories they will and will not support. And no 9/11 research organization supports NPT or DEW. That is clearly outlined in my thread.

Nice try though.

Originally posted by rich23
Rawstory, Prisonplanet and Globalresearch are all sites with large followings and some respected contributors. The evidence of thermite use is making better progress than the DEW (evidence-lite) theories.

Listing a bunch of sites who reference the same paper doesn't necessarily make it any more factual. Just like listing a bunch of sites who support the OS, it doesn't make it true.

I agree with PookztA in his presumption that whoever planned 9/11, also planned the truth movement. Therefore, I think everyone should be held to the same scepticism. This is also why I think it would not be wise to think that just because a theory is accepted by major "truth networks", it should be regarded as fact.

I agree that the statement you linked is a rather absurd misrepresentation of a quote. There are many people who initially believed the OS (including me), and that doesn't make them stupid (well, maybe a little bit ). I do agree with many of the points you raise.

I'm not saying I fully subscribe to Wood's theories, but I don't have a lot of faith in Steven Jones' either.

I'm just hypothesizing here, but consider this. If the "planners" of 9/11 also planned the truth movement, they would do whatever they could to stop the truth being revealed. So if they could capture the majority of "truthers" in a theory which seems quite plausible, but could never be properly proven, they'd be doing a great job. Especially if the true methods were unknown to the general population, and seemed 'implausible' or 'crazy'.

This is purely speculation, of course, but something I think deserves some thought.

Cheers.

Originally posted by Curious and Concerned
I'm not saying I fully subscribe to Wood's theories, but I don't have a lot of faith in Steven Jones' either.

Although there are those that like to say otherwise, Dr. Jones' results are only preliminary. They are not 100% proof-positive. His findings require further testing and analysis. But at the same time, his findings are rather interesting and damning.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
reply to [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread549489

Doing what Judy Wood and the no-plane disinfo cult does by purposely lying and deceiving is also creating disinformation. That's why I call them disinfo artists. They create the disinformation that they peddle.

If the "space beam" camp and the "no-plane" camp all use the same exact tactics, that proves to me that all these disinfo "theories" are coming from one source: people working for the government who's mission is to discredit the 9/11 truth movement with these ridiculous "theories".

I agree that those "camps" are completely off the deep end. At the same time, I and others don't draw a distinct line between those "theories" and other "theories" the 9/11 Truth Movement promote, including all the "demolition" theories going around.

From the perspective of skeptics of 9/11 Truth Movement it is really just a matter of degree: we see no positive evidence for any of the claims and we show you why they are not acceptable to us.

In that light, I don't see the Judy Woods and no-planers of the movement as government disinfo agents. There is no coherence, intellectual and evidential, to any of the claims, no standards, anything goes. There is no need for any disinfo agents.

To there be any effective theory there must first be that all parties agree on the standards by which evidence and claims are evaluated. You can't agree within your movement. We skeptics agree amongst ourselves that the scientific method is the only standard, but your movement does not agree with us and does not adhere to it in their own claims, IMHO.