It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Jones "Peer - Reviewed" Scientific Journal Found Credible!

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

+57 more 
posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 11:53 PM

Steven Jones Tells 9/11 "Debunkers" to Put up or Shut up!

”What you need to know about "Peer-review"

"Useful information for "non-scientists" about the process of peer-reviewed publishing, such as has been the case with Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction, and Environmental Anomalies at the World Trade Center: Evidence for Energetic Materials ." -

Since the days of Sir Isaac Newton, Science has proceeded through the publication of peer-reviewed papers. Peer-review means a thorough reading, commentary and even challenge before publication by "peers", that is, other PhD's and professors. [color=gold]This paper was thoroughly peer-reviewed with several pages of tough comments that required of our team MONTHS of additional experiments and studies. It was the toughest peer-review I've ever had, including THREE papers for which I was first author in NATURE. (Please note that Prof. Harrit is first author on this paper.) We sought an established journal that would allow us a LONG paper (this paper is 25 pages long) with MANY COLOR IMAGES AND GRAPHS. Such a scientific journal is not easy to find. Page charges are common for scientific journals these days, and are typically paid by the University of the first or second author (as is the case with this paper) or by an external grant.

A peer-reviewed journal is also called a "refereed" journal. Peer-reviewers are almost always anonymous for scientific publications like this -- that is standard in the scientific world. While authors commonly recommend potential peer-reviewers, editors choose the referees and usually pick at least one or two reviewers that the authors did NOT mention -- and that is almost certainly the case with this paper (based on commentary we received from the reviewers). In the end, all the reviewers -- who were selected by the editor(s) -- approved publication. Thus, the paper was subjected to peer review by the editor or editors, and it passed the peer-review process.

It’s time to lay the hard facts on the table! If anyone believes Steven Jones Journal is not peer reviewed as we still see a very few do on ATS, then why would 1,398 “Valid” signers put their name on a list in support of Steven Jones scientific Journal and support it 100%? These are scientists, Architects, Engineers, and professionals.

Why would all these professionals risk their careers, their reputations, and their lives to speak out against the government story of 911?

The fact is none of these professionals would take such an insane risk, if there were no supporting science to Steven Jones Journal. Do the debunkers want educated Americans to think all these professionals are stupid, and that Architects, Engineers do not understand science?

Validity of petition signers crucial to AE911Truth's credibility

Ed: The Verification Team is one of the unsung heroes of AE911Truth. Working diligently behind the scenes, this team provides assurance the petition signers are legitimate, and that their credentials are valid.
The Verification Team is a group of volunteers responsible for ensuring that signers of the AE911Truth petition are real and the information is accurate. All petition signers are verified, whether they are architects, engineers or supporters, living in the US or outside of the US.

9-11 Truth Movement: Publication in a Peer-reviewed Civil Engineering Journal

With publication in an established civil engineering journal, the discussion has reached a new level – [color=gold]JREF’ers and others may attack, but unless they can also get published in a peer-reviewed journal, those attacks do not carry nearly the weight of a peer-reviewed paper. It may be that debunkers will try to avoid the fourteen issues we raise in the Letter, by attacking the author(s) or even the journal rather than addressing the science – that would not surprise me.
Professor Chomsky wrote to several, who passed it on to me:
“You, or anyone who agrees with you, has a very simple task. Since the evidence is so obvious and compelling, submit an article about it to Science, or Nature, or even Scientific American, or more technical journals, say those in civil engineering, where your article can refute the conclusions of the professional society of civil engineers… To date, no one has been willing to submit an article -- at least, after probably hundreds of inquiries to Truth Movement advocates, no one has been able to mention one...”

This is very good read.

Scientists, Scholars, Architects & Engineers respond to NIST

There are a few debunkers on ATS who are still claiming that Jones did not discover thermite in the WTC dust. A vey few of these debunkers are making ridiculous claims that Steven Jones only discovered red paint and nothing else. Yet what is missing is the debunkers evidence to support their claims, there are none. Many people including me have asked for evidence in support of the debunkers claims, we have been given nothing but opinions assumptions and parts of Steven Jones Journal being misrepresented in hoping that we are all to stupid to understand the science. If we are here to understand and learn the truth, then why are debunkers deliberately misrepresenting Jones science?
I have been told by these debunkers how Jones Journal did not go through the same peer review as all other scientific papers have gone through in the scientific community. Well after doing some checking, I can say these debunkers wrong. If these debunkers think it is so easy to publish a paper in Bentham Scientific journals then why don’t all these debunkers (objectors) do their own paper and get them peer reviewed and published in Bentham Scientific journals, since they think it is so easy?

If anyone who is skillful enough to debate Jones journal and tells you Jones journal was not peer reviewed that person is lying to you. Until I see a peer review paper published in the appropriate journal of science against Jones paper I will consider the science behind Jones' paper credible.
I can say with confidence none of these debunkers have a leg to stand on against Jones peer reviewed paper, since no scientist has not done any paper refuting Jones paper. it should be accepted that demolition was the most likly cause that brought down all three WTC.
We can argue who, what, when, where and how until the cows come home, but “what” has been proven by science. Many professionals believe other explosives were used and I support that belief as well. Who or when these materials were put in the WTC may never be proven, however we have enough evidence to demand a new investigation into what really happened at the WTC.

2005: USGS Documents Iron-Rich Spheroids
Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust

Spheroids have shape and chemical composition of aluminothermic residues
Miniscule iron-rich spheroids are one of the main products of the reaction of nano-thermites, conventional thermites producing iron-rich condensate in larger forms. Iron spheroids in the dust were documented in a 2005 USGS compilation of data from dust studies, the Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust, which contains photographs and elemental analysis of three such particles. The size, shape, and chemical composition of the particles match those of the ignition products of nano-thermites.

Aluminothermic Residues
Form and Composition of Dust Particles Indicates Aluminothermics
Not only did Jones and a team of scientists examining the dust sample, find iron rich spheroids, so did the USGS, and it is documented in their report.
So much for proven Jones science a fraud. It is interesting that a part of our own government found the same material that Jones discovered.

Originally posted by an ATS poster

What is settled is that Jones has yet to prove thermite. His experiments are inconclusive as has been pointed out time and again and his theory of the paint chips, as he has extended it, is so untenable as to be disinformation. If that is the case, Jones has effectively kept the rabble roused and on the wrong path. Turbo still doesn't understand any of this and so desperately wants to believe in CD, he couldn't possiby open his mind to the possibility that Jones is wrong. Turbo's explanations and obfuscations are a short course in misinterpretation and misunderstanding. I will say that, if nothing else, all of the Jones supporters are most entertaining, especially when they blather on about "denying ignorance" while drowning in it.
If you still believe Jones baseless theory, I recommend that the two of you celebrate finding your truth by "painting the town red."

The fact is Jones baseless theory is no longer a theory, it is now a proven scientific fact.

The debunkers who are desperately trying to prove Jones Journal is a fraud can only respond back to those of us who dare to question them and the OS with the above nonsense and misinformation. This is apparently all the debunkers have to say since they cannot debunk the given science.

Holmgren ad Hominems
Another important aspect of how disinformation in the 9/11 Truth Movement functions is through the use of attack and vitriol. While all types of people -- professionals, academics and average people -- can resort to nasty or inappropriate personal attacks when defending or promoting theories which conflict, the 9/11 Truth Movement has been packed with such attacks. Not surprisingly, however, most of the individuals who are most vitriolic are attempting to advance the more bizarre ideas such as hologram or no-plane theories. One of the advocates that commercial jets did not hit the WTC towers is Gerard Holmgren. Holmgren recently launched a campaign of attacks against Steven Jones, including a series of articles, real and promised, posted to several Indymedias, LibertyForum, and personal websites. Holmgren's spamming campaign includes public postings of personal email communications between himself and Jones, and an array of Holmgrenesque insults bordering on obscenity. Holmgren has a history of similar personal and vitriolic attacks on researchers who disagree with his positions, so the inclusion of Jones on his list is not surprising. Notably, the news of this posting was spread by "the Webfairy," a similarly hostile Internet persona known for promoting the 'theory' that impact of jetliners into the Twin Towers were simulated using holograms.

The above piece is an example of what we deal with in the 911 threads against posters who stand behind real science.

This is an interesting read:

9/11 Debunkers Hide From Slam Dunk Evidence Of Controlled Demolition
Electron microscope analysis of steel spheres from WTC site proves thermate, proves collapse of twin towers was an act of deliberate arson

Professor Steven Jones presented brand new and compelling evidence for the controlled demolition of the twin towers and WTC 7 recently, but the 9/11 debunkers and the corporate media are loathe to tackle it because it represents a slam dunk on proving the collapse of the buildings was a deliberate act of arson.

Debunkers are scared to even get near this information because the science behind it fundamentally contradicts the official story of what happened on 9/11


I am happy to say, I am glad that most opened minded ATSers do not fall for some of the shameless debunking techniques, opinionated, and yellow journalism, against real science.

To all debunkers: Americans want to see a paper refuting Jones scientific paper, proven with “scientific experiments” from Jones experiments that might prove Jones science is flawed. And for a few of you debunkers your attacks, insults, and opinions are useless against real science.

What are your thoughts?
edit on 28-12-2010 by impressme because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 12:24 AM
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.

+9 more 
posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 01:37 AM
My thoughts are with you and also in the few threads I have debating the resident "experts".

Nobody will touch Jones' paper because they know they can't deal with the science. If they do, they
will admit by science that 9/11 was an inside job.

NIST, FEMA and any other government ageny will ignore that paper until the cows come home.

End of story.

I'm still willing to put up $1000.00 to anyone that can debate the authors of that paper and win
a scientific debate. The loser gives me $1000.00.

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 02:50 AM
Ive got a feeling that the resident 'believers' on this site are not going to touch this thread.
It is up to us to star and flag it so it gets front page.
Make them comment on it.
If they ignore it, we know what their occupation probably is.

Other than that, this is excellent news. Just another step to finding out the real truth.

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 03:51 AM
Sweet ! I love it'
Great post, empressme.
All the experts are quiet ? go figure.
Thank you, and well It pretty much speaks for it'self.


+6 more 
posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 06:49 AM
Steven Jones claims he is in possession of dust samples from the WTC site, and that those samples contain thermite residue. He got his first dust sample from Janette MacKinlay, who is also a member of the truth movement. MacKinlay sent the sample to Steven Jones by mail.

"The provenience of the dust sample used in my study is from an apartment at 113 Cedar St. in New York City. This fourth-floor apartment was the residence of Janette MacKinlay and was approximately 100 meters or so from the closest Tower the South Tower ...(snip)... Janette told me that she had a sense, almost a spiritual or reverential feeling (knowing the origin of the dust) to preserve some of it, which she did, placing dust from her apartment into a plastic bag. My first 9/11-related paper appeared on-line in November 2005, and Janette MacKinlay soon learned from it that I was seeking WTC dust and other samples for study. She contacted me and sent me a small sample by mail."

This dust was exposed to all surrounding conditions for a minimum of nine days before being collected. From MacKinlays writing: “We headed back to our place on Thursday, September 20th”.

It is also important to note, that her boyfriend, Jim Lecce, was a sculptor who possibly worked with metals and welding equipment (see this example from a similarly named sculptor). From the previously linked PDF:

"I (Jannette MacKinlay) moved to New York in September of 1997 with sculptor Jim Lecce to curate art shows featuring both New York and California artists. What was initially going to be a three-month stay turned into four years. Our art loft was directly across the street from the World Trade Center complex."

The dust sample is taken from a household of a man, who was possibly using welding gear to make sculptures. Welding gear can create the iron spheres Jones is talking about. Even the possibility of contamination of the dust samples with dust from his clothing hasn't been ruled out, or even addressed. And this sample was the main piece of evidence he built his theory on!!!!!

Dr. Jones's latest dust update contained a radically different selection of elemental species, none of which are inconsistent with earlier studies such as Lioy et al. It is also worth mentioning, that a WTC-7 special aired by the BBC in the summer of 2008 mentioned that Jones obtained additional dust samples from someone who found it atop a fence in New York City.

Steven Jones has been pushing his theories since 2005. But he gives us only bits here and pieces there without any continuous transparency regarding his tests and methods. And nobody outside his camp has ever had access to his dust and metal samples in order to test or verify his claims.

In his 2008 "Microspheres and Temperatures" paper Jones presented three different spectra of spherical particles (he has found even more spectra not mentioned in the paper). Jones's thermite/thermate theory is effectively debunked by the great variety of spectra of iron-rich microspheres in the WTC dust. This proves the spheres came from many different sources. If some of these sources were present before 9/11, e.g. in construction debris from welding and cutting operations, Jones needs to show us how he can distinguish between such particles and particles produced in the WTC fires.

Steven Jones also continues to ignore all the other, natural explanations for his findings, including:

* Pigments and fillers used in plastics
* Fly ash from the combustion of cellulose-based materials: wood, cardboard and paper
* Welding fume left in the towers from construction activities
* Wear particles from grinding and cutting during construction of the towers
* Iron powder cores from electronics (e.g. transformer cores)
* NYC background levels of particulate from general environmental sources

Instead of considering any of these natural alternatives, he keeps insisting that he has found traces of thermite.

The only certain signatures of thermite would be unfired devices, remains of fired devices (e.g. containment vessels, which have not even been hypothesized), large "pigs" of formerly molten iron, or particular melting failure modes found in recovered steel. Absolutely none of these signatures was found anywhere. And they were looking for them.

Many conspiracy theorists also claim, that there was molten material underneath the piles for weeks or even months, which is proof of thermite being used. The problem with thermite is that it tends to burn all at once. The thermite reaction is characterized by its tendency to burn completely. So, if it was thermite, why would it still be burning months afterward? And in such enormous quantities?

As for Jones' Journal for 9/11 Studies, its co-editors are Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, and Frank Legge. They have described their mission being as follows: "Our mission in the past has been to provide an outlet for evidence-based research into the events of 9/11 that might not otherwise have been published, due to the resistance that many established journals and other institutions have displayed toward this topic. The intention was to provide a rapid acceptance process with full peer review."

However, it has been quite obvious from the very beginning, that most of the so-called peer-reviewers are none other than other members of the same organization. In other words, they are peer-reviewing each others' papers! Independent peer-review? Of course not!

In August 2008 they claimed they have ceased accepting more papers, and released this statement: "It is now our belief that the case for falsity of the official explanation is so well established and demonstrated by papers in this Journal that there is little to be gained from accepting more papers here." This statement is still on their front page.

But come October 2008, and they are once again accepting new papers: "We will continue for the time being to provide a service for researchers who wish to present a new finding or a new point of view but who feel that their contribution would not be suitable for a mainstream journal." They have released an October 2008 issue on their website, a paper by Aidan Monaghan,

Why is this significant? Enter Gregory Urich. One of his papers, titled "Analysis of the Mass and Potential Energy of World Trade Center Tower 1was published on JONES in December 2007. Gregory Urich is a member of Steven Jones group called Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice. But Mr. Urich does not blindly accept everything other members of the truth movement are promoting. He has written three other papers that he wanted to publish on JONES, but they have all been refused.

Here is how Gregory Urich comments the recent developments:

“I consider both my "Open Letter to Richard Gage" and the paper on the meaning of the collapse times to be valid contributions to the discussion of controlled demolition. They have also ignored my paper on load distribution in WTC1. The journal's explanation is that these are not sufficiently ground breaking to spend their time on reviewing. I understand that the journal is understaffed and has no budget, but somehow they found time to review my 43 page paper on the Mass of WTC1 when they were publishing several papers a month. The three papers which they have refused to consider are short and simple and would together require much less effort than the mass paper. I no longer consider the Journal of 9/11 Studies to be a scientific journal but rather a propaganda outlet for a group of activists that has reached erroneous conclusions based on poor science.”

Jones has recently been very proud of his two papers that, quote: "have been published in mainstream peer-reviewed journals: Fourteen Points...[Bentham] and Environmental Anomalies at the World Trade Center: Evidence for energetic materials [SpringerLink]".

Mr. Ryan Mackey has contacted the editors of both of these journals, noting that the papers offer no hypothesis, no new data, and no new analysis; that they ignore previously published and reviewed works that would readily clear up their confusion, were they aware of and competent in understanding them; that their papers lack proper citations and references, and are inherently unrepeatable.

The responses he has received from these publications are very revealing. Here is a summary from Mr. Mackey:

“Officials at both publications have suggested I submit a response paper. At any other journal, this suggestion would be total madness -- one does not ordinarily submit a journal paper entitled something along the lines of "Fourteen Editorial Anomalies of the Recent Paper by Jones et al." -- yet that is exactly what these publications have suggested. However, since that also would involve my paying $700 cash (Bentham) or $3000 cash (The Environmentalist) to do so, I am not particularly surprised at their recommendation.”

Not very scientific journals anymore, are they? If all you need to get a paper published in it is a little cash.

Jones identified the molten metal leaking out the South Tower shortly before it fell as mostly steel. He ignored the far more likely possibility that it was lead that originated in the lead batteries kept by Fuji Bank on the very area of that floor out of which the molten metal was filmed pouring out. Despite discussions with the journalist Christopher Bollyn:
who made the silly suggestion that the thermate had been hidden inside unused lead batteries stored on the floor in question, Jones persisted in interpreting the molten metal as steel for the only reason that it supported his thermate theory. The truth is far more natural. It is explained here. We now have documentary proof from NIST that UPS was, indeed, on the 81st floor of WTC2, making it far more likely that the batteries melted in the office fires, creating a pool of molten metal that found its way out of cracks and holes created in the walls by the impact of the plane on that floor (the 80th & 81st floors had tilted because their floor trusses had failed, so this explains why the metal poured out of the tower).

Jones had to remove a photo showing (he believed) fire fighters peering into a pit containing molten steel when it was pointed out to him that it merely showed them illuminating a hole at night with their lanterns. He had altered the original photo by adding a yellow tint so as to create the impression of molten metal in the hole. That's not just bad science - it's crooked science! Details here

Furthermore, he claimed that photos of angle cut steel columns at the WTC were evidence of thermate being used. No such thing. They were cut during the clean-up. Proof here.

Finally, just how much trust can one put in the scientific reliability of a man who believes that he had found archeological evidence for Jesus Christ traveling across America?

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 07:01 AM
i found it amusing when the debunkers (we know who they are) would claim that Jones' paper was not peer reviewed (since it could not be debunked) and thus it is not science worthy since the government chose not to peer review it. But now that it officially is peer reviewed, I suppose they will have to come out with a half hour long History channel special on how foreign scientists claim ridiculous things to push their pseudo-science.

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 07:19 AM
reply to post by impressme

To all debunkers: Americans want to see a paper refuting Jones scientific paper, proven with “scientific experiments” from Jones experiments that might prove Jones science is flawed. And for a few of you debunkers your attacks, insults, and opinions are useless against real science.

Fine. Please tell me how to get my hands on those samples he tested so that I can send them out to an independent lab.

Otherwise, without those and control samples the "paper" is just a freshman essay.

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 07:27 AM

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by impressme

To all debunkers: Americans want to see a paper refuting Jones scientific paper, proven with “scientific experiments” from Jones experiments that might prove Jones science is flawed. And for a few of you debunkers your attacks, insults, and opinions are useless against real science.

Fine. Please tell me how to get my hands on those samples he tested so that I can send them out to an independent lab.

Otherwise, without those and control samples the "paper" is just a freshman essay.

I'm willing to bet you can still find it in the dust at ground zero. Just stick your hand in the gigantic hole in the middle of New York and take some dust with you.

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 08:35 AM
reply to post by hooper


Having people sign a piece of paper is not the equivalent of the peer review process.

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 08:36 AM
If they feel the paper has enough credentials behind it then why don't they sue the commision?

I'll tell you why. It's because they know it's all BS.

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 09:23 AM
thank you impressme, I am surely impressed. Now we just need to spread the word better. we need to get a PBS special, or frontpage articles, so that the blind may see again. I have faith in the truth, yet so much fear for our future if the truth isnt set free.

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 10:13 AM
What is left to say?
Put up or shut up, debunkers.

Of course they won't. But flapping your soup-coolers won't persuade anyone that you're right.
Jones' work has a very narrow focus. It is a detailed analysis of material from 'ground zero'. That is all it is. It is a noble effort to provide some insight into the events of 911. So, your thoughts on its implications, one way or another are immaterial to the issue. Are his findings true or false?

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 10:23 AM
reply to post by impressme

The only issue I see now is, who is responsible?? The government will deny all accusations and it will be deemed as it was terrorists.....Who might you ask?? I have no evidence to back any "theory" up and nobody will ever be able to conclude on this subject. Good post though, it is nice to know that someone actually used demo charges to flatten the building with many poor innocent souls inside!! Oh wait it was Osama Bin Laden....uh huh
He is the freakin skape goat for any "terrorist" activity in the U.S. Am I saying he is a good man?? NO not at all, am I saying with the HUGE cover-up that it was him who was the mastermind?? Absolutely not, but we can point the finger to keep us overseas, trying to find him (or taking oil back to the U.S.) oops did I say that??
Obama Bin Laden....oops again Osama Bin Laden is the culprit of everything bad...right?? How about Saddam?? One of the highest ranking rulers in the world, hardest to track down, oh yeah we found him pretty freakin quick, and hiding in a floor space....But the #1 terrorist in the world is IMPOSSIBLE to find...COME ON America open your eyes!!!

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 10:23 AM

edit on 28-12-2010 by alien because: - duplicate removed -

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 10:25 AM

edit on 28-12-2010 by alien because: ...duplicate removed...

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 11:00 AM
reply to post by micpsi

Excellent post . I was going to touch upon a couple of key issues with this dust sample , but you have covered it very well and there is no need for me to further elaborate but , there are a couple I would like to address anyhoo .

What type of sculptor was this fellow ? Also , you WOULD NOT need a welder to produce such spheres , you can produce these spheres with a simple brazier's torch , nothing but a lightweight propane torch that is hand-held and convenient . You can get them at Wallyworld or any hardware store . In addition , did this guy work out of his apartment ? That might prove to be a key element . If he did , this would show the possibility of the sample being contaminated due to conditions unrelated to the WTC . If he did not , it would show only that .

What type of bag was used to contain the sample ? What had this bag been used for previously ? Had the sculptor transported items and material in this bag that were work-related ?

Why was this the first dust sample that Jones collected , if he had made it known that he was looking for dust ? There was tons of it to be had . Why did it take him so long to acquire a sample ? Or , did he in fact acquire other samples prior to this ? What did his tests reveal about those samples ?

Why does he not provide a portion of his remaining sample to an independent laboratory to prove that his test results can be verified and replicated ?

Once this has been confirmed , he would still be tasked with proving that his little balls had their origin inside some nefarious government conspiracy .

That's always where the real comedy begins .

Jones also needs to show a comparison between his dust and a larger part of dust from around the WTC , in order to prove that this dust was representative of the whole . Showing that your sample matches three other samples , that are all , somehow , in your possession , proves nothing really , and is in no way scientific .

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 11:26 AM
reply to post by okbmd

Good points and I agree that more testing should be done.
When do you start?

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 12:45 PM
reply to post by okbmd

What would a sculptor be doing with nano-thermite? How would a sculptor have access to military grade thermite?
What independent lab would you like to see test these samples? Would these independent labs be investigated to make sure there was absolutely no connection to any parties accused of foul play in 9/11?
edit on 28-12-2010 by OptimistPrime because: none

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 01:28 PM
The government is like your evil cousin.They will never tell you it was their fault.

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in