It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Had I been POTUS instead of Cheney/Bush, this would have been my thinking:
INSTEAD of making a run at the throne of the earth ie: global geostrategic hegemony, by authorizing the muder of 3000 of my own constituents, in order to wage resource and domination wars as per the PNAC (with a soft c) recommendations, and sacrificing another million innocent souls in the process to a Satanic doctrine..
..I would have looked into the future of the 21st century and noted that the whole world was on the very cusp of entering the technological age, and on the basis that we had a severe CRISIS on our hands, in education and technological innovation, and were about to lose our competitive edge in an increasingly competitive global marketplace, I would have spent that TWO TRILLION dollars on all manner of infrastructure, including a REAL information superhighway in the form of terrabit bandwidth fiber optic cabling to every school and home in the country, as well as various Civil Infrastructure initiatives, including high speed and light commutor rail corridors between all the major urban centers, improving dramatically the speed of exchange of people and goods and services, as well as the continued joy of community living, or a MAJOR national upgrade in other words, on par with JFK's landing on the moon initiative.
Then we could have turnedd our attention to the Education System, recognizing that our HUMAN INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL development, is indeed our greatest national asset and latant potentiality, for securing a vital edge within the larger context of an emerging global civilization / global village.
In other words, I would have tried to discern and do the will of God, instead of Satan, simple as that.
I honestly think there might have been GIVEN the wrong blueprint for success by the wrong people, people like Cheney, Bush Sr. and their ilk. &/or whoever they take their marching orders from..
May there be weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth...
Originally posted by impressme
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.
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.
Originally posted by bsbray11
You might as well just say, "I don't believe him because he's a "truther"
Originally posted by impressme
Before this escalates any further, please explain what you believe Steven Jones’ theory is.
Perhaps we are talking about two different subjects.
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.
Before you pulled the "mod card" out here, did you ask me what I actually beleived about the event as a whole?
And guess what - neither side can be proven until someone rebuilds the towers exactly as they were and then repeats the events, because in the absence of irrefutible evidence to definitely prove something everything is a theory
Bentham Publishing Exposed For The Fraud's They Are
Submitted by Just dropping by on Thu, 06/11/2009 - 17:48
* Daily Paul Liberty Forum
Here's an excerpt
Earlier this year, Davis started receiving unsolicited emails from Bentham Science Publishers, which publishes more than 200 "open-access" journals – which turn the conventional business model of academic publishing on its head by charging publication fees to the authors of research papers, and then making the content available for free
As the emails stacked up, Davis was not only encouraged to submit papers, but was also invited to serve on the editorial board of some of Bentham's journals – for which he was told he would be allowed to publish one free article each year. "I received solicitations for journals for which I had no subject expertise at all," says Davis. "It really painted a picture of vanity publishing."
So Davis teamed up with Kent Anderson, a member of the publishing team at The New England Journal of Medicine, to put Bentham's editorial standards to the test. The pair turned to SCIgen, a program that generates nonsensical computer science papers, and submitted the resulting paper to The Open Information Science Journal, published by Bentham.
Read the rest here. www.newscientist.com...
So as the debunkers were saying months ago, this Bentham journal is pay-for-publish vanity journal and the fact that Stephen Jones got his little thermite paper published in it hold no fact because they were willing to publish a paper that made no sense whatsoever, as long as the $800 publication fee cleared..
After the first flush of enthusiasm, however, researchers began to question Benthams activities, not least because many of the invitations they were receiving seemed decidedly badly targeted. For instance, psychologists were being invited to contribute papers on ornithology, health policy researchers were being invited to submit papers on analytical chemistry and economists were being invited to submit papers on sleep research...
To add insult to injury, some of the invitations researchers were receiving were addressed to a completely different person, or the name field was empty, and addressed simply to "Dear Dr.,"...
By March of this year, senior health care research scientist at the University of Toronto Gunther Eysenbach had had enough. Publicly criticising Bentham's activities on his blog, Eysenbach complained..., "All pleas and begging from my side to stop the spamming, as well as clicking on any 'unsubcribe' links did not stop the spam plague from Bentham."
For others, the experience of being targeted by Bentham proved even more frustrating. When Professor John Furedy, Emeritus Professor of Psychology at the University of Toronto, received an invitation to be editor-in-chief of the Open Behavioral Science Journal he initially accepted. But after doing so he found himself being bombarded with further invitations. And when Bentham failed to reply to the questions he raised about the new role he had taken on he decided the best course of action was to withdraw his acceptance, reluctant to be associated with a company that behaved in this way. Even though he had resigned, however, Furedy was surprised to see that his name had been added to the list of editors on the journal's web site. And despite repeated requests to Bentham to remove it his name remains there to this day.
I too had by now begun receiving copies of Bentham's invitations — not because I was on its mailing list, but because frustrated researchers were forwarding them to me, and asking me to find out what the dickens was going on.
So I emailed various Bentham directors (including Richard Scott and Matthew Honan), all of whom — with the exception of publications director Mahmood Alam — completely ignored my messages. Moreover, while Alam replied, he proved decidedly unwilling to answer my questions, despite repeated promises that he would. He was equally unwilling to put me in contact with anyone else at the company.
911 NanoTech Thermite Publisher Accepts Fake Paper, Editors quit
By John R Moffett, Posted by John R Moffett
Previously, the chief editor of the Bentham journal that the Thermite article was published in resigned, and denounced the journal with this statement: “I cannot accept that this topic is published in my journal. The article has nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics, and I could well believe that there is a political viewpoint behind its publication. If anyone had asked me, I would say that the article should never have been published in this journal. Period.” Despite supposedly being the chief editor, she had not been informed that the thermite article was going to be published in her journal.
The advocates for the nanotech thermite theory of the WTC collapse will never accept the fact that the Bentham Group journals are not actual peer reviewed scientific publications, but scientists all around the world are now convinced of the fact.
Professor Dr. Marie-Paule Pileni
Director of the Mesoscopic & Nanometric Materials Laboratory
Chair of Institut Universitaire de France
University P & M Curie, Paris VI
Postal Address: Université Pierre et Marie Curie Case 52, 4 Place Jussieu, 75252 Paris cedex 05
Phone: 33 1 44 27 25 16
Fax: 33 1 44 27 25 15
E-mail Marie-Paule Pileni
Organization of nanomaterials in mesoscopic scale : collective properties
Nanomaterials : synthesis, characterisation and physical properties
Chemical modification of enzymes
Physical chemistry in condensed matter
Photophysic and photobiology
Photochemistry in gas phase
Originally posted by Mythkiller
Irrefutable evidence as far as I can see, nice post.
I would suggest that the only ones that are debunking this information at this stage are paid agents/stooges, trolls, complete morons, ignorant or just in total denial.
Originally posted by conar
This video proves a thing or two
Originally posted by impressme
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 ." - 911truth.org
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.
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)
Originally posted by Josephus23
Arguing against the journal does not in any way at all disprove the theory put forth by not only Jones, but several international scientists.