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.

 

Jones "Peer - Reviewed" Scientific Journal Found Credible!

page: 4
96
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 

Now I see why certain Moderators allow debunkers get away with the constant insults and smear campaigns against the truth movement.

FACT: Your “assumption” and assertions have been proven wrong by science.

I cannot believe you are a Moderator? It is my opinion that you are not opened minded.


Thats all it is though, a theory. It proves nothing. It may very well be wrong.


Can you prove it wrong?
Has anyone proved Jones Journal wrong by providing real science?


Just because some people may think things looked wrong, it doesn't mean that things were wrong. Up until 9/11/2001 no one had flown 767 airliners at 400mph+ deliberately into the Twin Towers.


We are not in here to discuss Boeing 767 or who was flying the airplanes to begin with. Perhaps, they were flown by remote control technologies we don’t really know.

I suppose I will be banned by you, just because I confronted you on your nonsense.
“Might be, or maybe,” are not facts are they? The ignorance being posted by some intelligent posters really boggles’ my mind.



edit on 28-12-2010 by impressme because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


Small? Really? Judging by the amount of members here, the amount of conspiracy websites, and the countless television shows of the subject, the nutty group of theorists couldnt possibly be that small. Better get your facts straight. Then again, they (as in trusters) seem to ignore the facts, and rely on hearsay.
edit on 28-12-2010 by OptimistPrime because: none



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 06:38 PM
link   
I don't know if this video of Jones doing an hour and a half video lecture on his new peer review has been posted yet, if not perhaps it deserves it's own thread. If so my apologies, I just gone done watching it, and it is straight to the point, and hits on some very important subjects.

Anyhow here it is, again sorry if it's been posted and if it hasn't, (the video only has 100 views or so, so it's VERY recent) perhaps it does deserve a thread of it's own.


edit on 28-12-2010 by Nola213 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


How many would want to risk their careers and thus expensive homes, cars, credit rating, holidays, private school tuition for their kids, college funds, retirement funds etc by association with a subject that has led thousands into 'disrepute' already?!

Let's get some perspective here - in terms of what makes the world go round, and who's in charge. The US government/s (actual and shadow) are being blamed for 9-11 in Jones' work and that of the 'Truth Movement' - to be associated with him is therefore a fine way to get yourself on the list of 'people who may never work again'.

Secret handshakes, favors for favors. Standing up against a corrupt government is a fine way to terminate your prospects in an industry strongly associated with masonry (no pun intended) - think of all the good and bad things that can entail...



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Again with this "conspiracy theorist" label.


If the shoe fits...


I'm going to ask you again, what in the hell is that supposed to mean? Are you saying since you perceive Jones as a "conspiracy theorist," you're more qualified of a scientist than he is now, even on the subject of chemistry?


I'm saying he's biased. Based on your responses and underlying tone you seem to believe you are superior to me somehow, so I'm surprised someone as awesome as you couldn't figure that much out.



This IS an independent team of scientists!


Wow, do you *really* believe that? Are you that blind? I thought you guys wanted the truth, and to ask questions and all that stuff. But you all seem to just accept this junk science and horrible process like it's absolute and infallible.

Let's take a look at the definition of 'independent' , shall we?



in·de·pen·dent (nd-pndnt)
ADJECTIVE:

Free from the influence, guidance, or control of another or others; self-reliant: an independent mind.

Not determined or influenced by someone or something else; not contingent: a decision independent of the outcome of the study.


And we already know that Jones believed fully that them*te was what he thought brought down the towers, he said so in public years earlier. He has a stake in the conspiracy and do A&E who get their money it as well.



So you have nothing to say about the fact that the stuff produced iron spheres, something that combustion can't do?


There isn't anything to say until a true independent team of scientists who gather samples and test them properly. Why don't you guys want this? Ask yourself what you're afraid of? If you're so confident this is all correct, why in the world would you NOT want it verified?



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by OptimistPrime
Small? Really? Judging by the amount of members here, the amount of conspiracy websites, and the countless television shows of the subject, the nutty group of theorists couldnt possibly be that small. Better get your facts straight. Then again, they (as in trusters) seem to ignore the facts, and rely on hearsay.


Small. Really. Yes.

And we weren't talking about the members here, or conspiracy websites we were talking about A&E. I'll defer you to neformore's post, since there's no better way of putting it.

Before you accuse someone else of getting there facts straight please make sure you understand what is being posted first.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


Your argument is petty and childish. Investigation done by "independent" scientists simply means from those used in the official investigation. I figured you may have come with something substantial, but alas, its Occam's Razor, you are here to troll and not to add anything factual to your side of the debate.
If you were referring to just A&E, you would have stated so, instead of just conspiracy theorists.
edit on 28-12-2010 by OptimistPrime because: none



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by OptimistPrime
Your argument is petty and childish. Investigation done by "independent" scientists simply means from those used in the official investigation.



No it does not. Please read the above definition of "independent" that *I* provided.

Please try and understand the material before accusing someone of being petty and childish, which is actually what you are doing by refusing to understand what is written.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


So now instead of providing a debate on the subject at hand, you take the argument to a definition of a word. Troll much?



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by micpsi
 


You are ignoring all the other evidence and focusing on one aspect to the point of obsession. Look! Look! There's a chance the bag was contaminated! Because the people involved are religious they can't be trusted!

Watch the video linked here as posted by another member on page 4 of this thread, then consider the facts in totality - not just the ones you think you can make a big show of.

Your post is a STRAW MAN, and you are quite clearly poisoning the waters of Jones' work and ignoring the genuine concern of the professionals referenced in Jones' work. There is no way that the official story holds water, a fact that becomes more obvious with each passing day, and it's highly frustrating to see such a 'carefully controlled' post as yours appearing so relatively quickly on this thread.

The work of Jones and others like him show without a shadow of a doubt that the OS is a load of bunk - we are aware that people are paid to keep a lid on this thing. Not saying you are personally, but it's looking 'iffy' from over here.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by OptimistPrime
 


With you all the way on that - Soloist is seeking to get the thread off-topic and into the realms of massive mod editing, in order to dissuade people from posting and getting involved.

Having reviewed some of Jones' material I am convinced that he acts with integrity, and that the Ethics Centre hosted his presentation means quite a lot.

Here's a bit of background on Dr Steven Jones:

EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE: Graduated from Bellevue High School, Bellevue, Washington, with 4.0 scholastic average (A=4.0) in 1967. B.S. in Physics, Mathematics minor, magna cum laude with honors, from Brigham Young University in 1973, retaining the Presidential (David O. McKay) Scholarship. Ph.D. in Physics, Mathematics/Electronics minors from Vanderbilt University in 1978, retaining full Tuition Scholarship and Research Fellowship (1973-1978). Ph.D. research conducted at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (1974-1977); course work completed at Stanford University. Post-doctoral research conducted at Cornell University (CESR) and the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility. Conducted research at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, EG & G Idaho, Idaho Falls, 1979-1985 (Senior Engineering Specialist). Joined BYU Department of Physics and Astronomy, faculty, 1985. Principal Investigator for experimental muon-catalyzed fusion 1982-1991 for the U.S. Department of Energy, Division of Advanced Energy Projects. Spokesman for LAMPF Experiment #727 and co-spokesman for LAMPF Experiments #963 and #1151 (1982 - 1993). Collaborator in several other experiments, including experiments at TRIUMF (Vancouver, Canada), The National High Energy Laboratory, KEK (Tsukuba, Japan), Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory (Oxford, U.K.), and Kamioka, Japan. Associate Director, Brigham Young University Center for Fusion Studies, 1989-1994 Search for fusion in condensed matter and deuterium, research for U.S. Department of Energy (May 1986 - December 1991) and for the Electric Power Research Institute (April 1990-June 1993). Seminars on 9/11/2001 research at BYU, Utah Valley University, Utah Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters, San Diego State University, University of California, San Diego, Sonoma State University, University of California, Berkeley, etc. (Sept. 2005 -- present)




AWARDS David O. McKay Scholarship at Brigham Young University, 1968 National Merit Scholar, 1968 Tuition Scholarship and Research Fellowship at Vanderbilt University, 1973-1978 Outstanding Young Scholar Award (BYU), 1989 Best of What's New for 1989 (Popular Science), 1989 Creativity Prize (Japanese Creativity Society), 1989 BYU Young Scholar Award (BYU), 1990 Annual Lecturer BYU Chapter of Sigma Xi (1990-1991) BYU Brigham Award, 2003 BYU Alcuin Award and Fellowship, for excellence in teaching, for 2005 through 2008 (cut short)



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

I'm going to ask you again, what in the hell is that supposed to mean? Are you saying since you perceive Jones as a "conspiracy theorist," you're more qualified of a scientist than he is now, even on the subject of chemistry?


I'm saying he's biased. Based on your responses and underlying tone you seem to believe you are superior to me somehow, so I'm surprised someone as awesome as you couldn't figure that much out.


I'm failing to see how being labeled a "conspiracy theorist" means he had some prior reason to start making these accusations in the first place, other than because he sincerely believes what he is showing. What exactly do you think he's biased towards?



This IS an independent team of scientists!


Wow, do you *really* believe that? Are you that blind? I thought you guys wanted the truth, and to ask questions and all that stuff. But you all seem to just accept this junk science and horrible process like it's absolute and infallible.

Let's take a look at the definition of 'independent' , shall we?



in·de·pen·dent (nd-pndnt)
ADJECTIVE:

Free from the influence, guidance, or control of another or others; self-reliant: an independent mind.

Not determined or influenced by someone or something else; not contingent: a decision independent of the outcome of the study.


And we already know that Jones believed fully that them*te was what he thought brought down the towers, he said so in public years earlier. He has a stake in the conspiracy and do A&E who get their money it as well.


So I'm blind to what here, exactly? That Jones and the others are all going through all of this just to get money from AE911?

That he had suspicions before he did the study to confirm it? Does that mean science is only legitimate when discovered by accident?

And how in the hell is someone supposed to ever be "independent" in your mind when as soon as they voice these kinds of statements, you immediately label them "conspiracy theorists" and say they're "biased" and so don't count? You want your cake and to eat it too; ie, you want to ask for independent scientists but then claim they're all biased as soon as they speak up. That is where the blindness is.



So you have nothing to say about the fact that the stuff produced iron spheres, something that combustion can't do?


There isn't anything to say until a true independent team of scientists who gather samples and test them properly. Why don't you guys want this? Ask yourself what you're afraid of? If you're so confident this is all correct, why in the world would you NOT want it verified?


That is exactly what this is. Tell me exactly what you would consider an "independent" team of scientists. Someone who already agrees with what you think? If they agree with Jones, are you going to call them all "conspiracy theorists" and ignore them too? The way you sling around "conspiracy theorist" as if it's an insult, that's what it looks like to me.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by OptimistPrime
Your argument is petty and childish. Investigation done by "independent" scientists simply means from those used in the official investigation.


No it does not. Please read the above definition of "independent" that *I* provided.

Please try and understand the material before accusing someone of being petty and childish, which is actually what you are doing by refusing to understand what is written.


All you've "written" is that Jones and all the other people involved with this paper are in it for AE911's money (can you prove they've received any money at all from that organization, by the way?), or some other "bias" that you haven't even elaborated on.

You just want to claim these guys aren't independent because you don't agree with what they say, so you make up agendas and influences and all these things that are really nothing but your own misunderstandings and intolerance of dissenting opinions to the official story. That makes you a conspiracy theorist.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


And how in the hell is someone supposed to ever be "independent" in your mind when as soon as they voice these kinds of statements, you immediately label them "conspiracy theorists" and say they're "biased" and so don't count? You want your cake and to eat it too; ie, you want to ask for independent scientists but then claim they're all biased as soon as they speak up. That is where the blindness is.




I agree,
just as the 911 Commission report and the NIST Report after one reads their report it is clear these people were biased, biased against the truth. Both reports were proven a fraud by science.
We know A&E helped prove the NIST Report was a fraud by proving it with simple science, that the NIST science was terrible flawed. The debunkers completely ignore this fact, and yet some still defend these lies.




edit on 28-12-2010 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 



"I am Steven Jones, firstly I think that thermite may have been used to bring down the towers, but I will conduct this experiment and see what I find."

OR

"I am Steven Jones and because I think thermite may have been used to bring the towers down, no matter what I find, I will say I found thermite anyway, even though I am a world renowned etc etc"



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
Originally posted by impressme

At best, under the circumstances, he has an interesting theory.


Interesting theory? Now I know you have never read Jones’ Journal, had you read it you would have found out, that Jones proved his point when he tested the WTC dust samples and documented every test, step by step in a controlled environment. Yet, you want to call this a theory?

Jones, “discovered” thermatic particles under the flame testing. The Iron spheroids were starring right at him under the electronic microscope. Not only did Jones discovered this material so did the USGS and it was presented in their report.


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

911research.wtc7.net...


Aluminothermic Residues
Form and Composition of Dust Particles Indicates Aluminothermics

911research.wtc7.net...


Thats all it is though, a theory. It proves nothing. It may very well be wrong.


It proves “nothing”? So, science is nothing, is that what you think about science?

It is not a theory; it was proven true, by real science.

ATS is all about denying ignorance and yet, you have no problems in given your opinions that are proven ignorant? I would have expected better from a forum moderator, who is supposed to be supporting “denying ignorance”.

If science cannot open peoples mind to prove truth, then nothing will.
edit on 28-12-2010 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 09:14 PM
link   
What an unclean and hazardous home they must have had! To be welding in their apartment? If his welding contaminated the dust, he must be an obsessive artist, continuing to weld the week after 9/11 rather than cleaning up what, I'm assuming, was a significant layer of dust given the proximity to the towers!



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by kalamatas
 


I think he is alluding to before 9/11. He believes that the spheres were there because Jim Lecce was dabbling in metal sculpting. Along with that, the man was brazing iron inside his high priced apt. with a handheld propane torch and this is what caused those iron spheres to appear. According to him, the man not only had a blatant disregard for his own safety, that he was also a slob that never bothered to clean up after himself, and his wife let this sort of thing go on for so long that it would have enough of an effect on several different samples of dust collected from the apt. It doesn't seem to ridiculous, does it?



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by OptimistPrime
reply to post by kalamatas
 


I think he is alluding to before 9/11. He believes that the spheres were there because Jim Lecce was dabbling in metal sculpting. Along with that, the man was brazing iron inside his high priced apt. with a handheld propane torch and this is what caused those iron spheres to appear.


Regardless of all of this Jones used more than one source of dust in his tests.

If anyone spends any time actually looking at his work they can find this for themselves. There are even maps online that I've seen before, that pinpoint the locations dust was collected from.
edit on 28-12-2010 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 09:59 PM
link   
cha-ching.



new topics

top topics



 
96
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join