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.

 

9/11: Science and Society. Dr. Steven Jones' presentation and challenge to all scientists.

page: 1
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Professor Emeritus Physicist Dr Steven E. Jones issues a challenge to the world scientific community; a challenge to examine the evidence he and his peers have presented at The Journal of 9/11 Studies questioning the official explanation of the 9/11 events.


Dr. Steven Jones gave the following lecture in Sydney, Australia in November 2009. Dr. Jones discusses his papers, the scientific process that was used, the put options. He also talks about his story of forced early retirement from Brigham Young University, and many other topics.


9/11: Science and Society with Dr Steven E. Jones part 1 of 8
www.youtube.com...

9/11: Science and Society with Dr Steven E. Jones part 2 of 8
www.youtube.com...

9/11: Science and Society with Dr Steven E. Jones part 3 of 8
www.youtube.com...

9/11: Science and Society with Dr Steven E. Jones part 4 of 8
www.youtube.com...

9/11: Science and Society with Dr Steven E. Jones part 5 of 8
www.youtube.com...

9/11: Science and Society with Dr Steven E. Jones part 6 of 8
www.youtube.com...

9/11: Science and Society with Dr Steven E. Jones part 7 of 8
www.youtube.com...

9/11: Science and Society with Dr Steven E. Jones part 8 of 8
www.youtube.com...



There are those that post here in the 9/11 forum that assert themselves as armchair scientists. I would suggest that if you're going to "debunk" what Dr. Jones presents, you should write your own paper and submit it to Dr. Jones with supporting evidence.

You can't accept or respond to Dr. Jones' challenge by posting here on this forum. I would suggest writing a formal response and sending it to the Journal of 9/11 Studies for review and allow him to respond to your response.




posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

There are those that post here in the 9/11 forum that assert themselves as armchair scientists. I would suggest that if you're going to "debunk" what Dr. Jones presents, you should write your own paper and submit it to Dr. Jones with supporting evidence.

You can't accept or respond to Dr. Jones' challenge by posting here on this forum. I would suggest writing a formal response and sending it to the Journal of 9/11 Studies for review and allow him to respond to your response



Can you please post his e-mail address. I have a white paper that debunks all his claims. I will post all correspondence here if permitted by Mr. Jones.

Thank you in advance.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma
Can you please post his e-mail address. I have a white paper that debunks all his claims. I will post all correspondence here if permitted by Mr. Jones.

That's Dr. Jones, if you please. And I will not post his personal email address out of respect and without permission. However, you can submit your white paper to the Journal of 9/11 Studies where Dr. Jones is one of the editors. You may then ask for a proper response to your paper after review:

www.journalof911studies.com...



Hope that was somewhat helpful. On a side note, I very highly doubt that your white paper debunks "all his claims", because for that to happen, science and physics as we know it would have to be severely altered or reversed.



P.S. I find it odd that you've had this white paper prepared, sitting around collecting dust and looking to truthers to get your paper to the "right people". Start submitting it. There's contact forms on every 9/11 research website.

Did you even watch the full lecture in all of the videos above? The time of your post is less than the time it takes to watch all of the videos.














edit on 21-2-2011 by _BoneZ_ because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 11:25 PM
link   
Dude, you killed your own thread!
You told the armchair scientists basically not to use this forum for their arguments and evidence, which I'm sure they'll be more than happy to cooperate with. Instead, we'll get a few wackos saying they've already tried but were turned down by the evil Dr. Jones. I've seen them here before and they aren't ever willing to prove their claims, but you just gave them license not to. Damn it man! This could have been a big thread, it had all of the makings. You said Dr. Jones, you can't say Dr. Jones in ATS's 9/11 forum without immediate backlash, now the Dr. Jones bump in post numbers that is virtually guaranteed is going to be eliminated. Bonez, you're a salty veteran 'round here so I'm intrigued that you did this knowingly. Maybe, you're just hi-lighting the fact that nobody is taking advantage of his challenge in the professional world.

S & F anyway

I want to challenge hooper, alfie, weedwhacker, dan the man, and the other 4-5 OS guys out there to explain Tom Kennedy's quote (video 3, 1:15) without Rudy Giuliani's explanation. The 9/11 Commission obviously didn't think this explanation was either sufficient or important enough.
edit on 2/22/2011 by budaruskie because: The question



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

There are those that post here in the 9/11 forum that assert themselves as armchair scientists. I would suggest that if you're going to "debunk" what Dr. Jones presents, you should write your own paper and submit it to Dr. Jones with supporting evidence.

You can't accept or respond to Dr. Jones' challenge by posting here on this forum. I would suggest writing a formal response and sending it to the Journal of 9/11 Studies for review and allow him to respond to your response



Can you please post his e-mail address. I have a white paper that debunks all his claims. I will post all correspondence here if permitted by Mr. Jones.

Thank you in advance.


Can you summarize for us the essential parts of Jones' etc studies you debunk please?



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by budaruskie
 



....Tom Kennedy's quote (video 3, 1:15) without Rudy Giuliani's explanation.


Can you just give us the quote?



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 08:19 AM
link   
Jones' Journal for 9/11 Studies is a joke masquerading as a peer-reviewed, academic journal. Its referees are not independent scientists but cronies of Jones, such as Kevin Ryan and Richard Gauge. Anything critical of the 9/11 canon promulgated by Pope Jones gets automatically thrown out.

Once one has seen through this masquerade run by someone who believes that Jesus walked across North America, one does not waste one's time submitting papers to this comic journal.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 09:01 AM
link   
This 9/11 business is ridiculous. Don't astronomers claim to have some understanding of gravity? We are suppposed to believe they cannot comprehend that structural engineers have to figure out how to distribute the steel in skyscrapers? The grade school physics of 9/11 is a JOKE.

This will be an embarrassment to science for decades.

9/11 is the Piltdown Man Incident of the 21st century.

If we don't have accurate data on the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level then the supposed potential energy of the towers cannot even be computed correctly. GREAT SCIENCE!!!

psik

PS - For this to drag on like this some people must be using their "reputations" for scientific knowledge to obfuscate the issue. That means keeping people ignorant and confused. The nation that put men on the Moon can't tell the world the distributions of steel and concrete in buildings designed before 1969? HILARIOUS!



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
..... that structural engineers have to figure out how to distribute the steel in skyscrapers? The grade school physics of 9/11 is a JOKE.
.....


No, the joke is your argument. The blueprints are out there. GET THEM. USE THEM. I can figure out the exact dimensions of the connections between the trusses and the columns, but you cannot calculate the area of a floor?

That's your own damn fault, nobody elses.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
..... that structural engineers have to figure out how to distribute the steel in skyscrapers? The grade school physics of 9/11 is a JOKE.
.....


No, the joke is your argument. The blueprints are out there. GET THEM. USE THEM. I can figure out the exact dimensions of the connections between the trusses and the columns, but you cannot calculate the area of a floor?

That's your own damn fault, nobody elses.


So provide us with a link to a blueprint that shows how the HORIZONTAL BEAMS in the core were arranged.

I have seen blue prints that show where the toilets were in the core. We are just flooded out with TRIVIAL INFORMATION and then the important information is disappeared.

psik



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by zimishey
 


The "peer reviewed" paper associated with the self-extinguishing thermite paint that comprises 10-100 tons of the dust is easily refuted. That the thermite paint remained unignited is not surprising. Jones' theory is based on a predetermined conclusion and shows no mechanism for use of the material or what it supposedly did when it was used.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
There are those that post here in the 9/11 forum that assert themselves as armchair scientists. I would suggest that if you're going to "debunk" what Dr. Jones presents, you should write your own paper and submit it to Dr. Jones with supporting evidence.


I'm not certain why anyone is "debunking" his paper since his paper offers absolutely nothing usable. The report simply says that he found traces of aluminum and rust in the WTC wreckage area, both of which were found naturally within the towers by the megaton, so this and the rest of the report going into great detail on the combustible properties of aluminum and rust is about as much of a grand revelation as saying that farts stink.

Nowhere in his report does he even remotely suggest that this material was responsible for the collapse of the towers, and it's well that he didn't since there is absolutely zero corresponding evidence of sabotage from any thermitic material. All this "thermite" bit is entirely the invention of the conspiracy theorists' own abject paranoia and if Jones actually makes the absurd claim elsewhere that thermite was responsible for the collapse, I would like to see it.


You can't accept or respond to Dr. Jones' challenge by posting here on this forum. I would suggest writing a formal response and sending it to the Journal of 9/11 Studies for review and allow him to respond to your response.


Of course we can! You're the one presenting this report as if it were de facto evidence supporting something or another, not Jones, and the only thing it proves is the quasi-manic zealotry of the conspiracy theorists at grasping at any straw however preposterous that supports their conspiracy hypothesis.

Please refresh my memory, Bonez- are you a "it was staged by the go'vt" conspiracy theorist or are you a "it was staged by the Jews" conspiracy theorist? You don't strike me as a "it was staged by a secret cult of Satan worshipping numerologists" conspiracy theorist or a "it was staged by shape shifting alien lizards" conspiracy theorist.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

That's Dr. Jones, if you please.


I am not addressing him in this thread. His title is irrelevant unless you are seeking an appeal to authority. The white paper I have addresses many of his mistakes. I will be delivered via e-mail shortly. (he has had a copy for a few years as does Gage and Griffin)

I'll let you know what he says.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma
I am not addressing him in this thread. His title is irrelevant unless you are seeking an appeal to authority. The white paper I have addresses many of his mistakes. I will be delivered via e-mail shortly. (he has had a copy for a few years as does Gage and Griffin)

I'll let you know what he says.



Say, Six, can you post a link to a copy of that white paper you're referring to?












posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


www.fema.gov... Figure 2-2 might be helpful for floor framing of the core.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


What we should really ask him is when will Jesus visit America for the second time YES FOLKS according to Dr Jones he has been before I think that is an indication of how he thinks!!!



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by micpsi
by someone who believes that Jesus walked across North America, one does not waste one's time submitting papers to this comic journal.


Originally posted by wmd_2008
What we should really ask him is when will Jesus visit America for the second time YES FOLKS according to Dr Jones he has been before I think that is an indication of how he thinks!!!

I was going to report both of your posts for being off-topic, but I think I'll respond instead.

If you want to use bigotry as an excuse to dismiss a doctor of physics or his work, then do so by keeping your bigoted comments to yourself. Bigotry by any means is not welcome in my threads, nor anywhere in the civilized world.

It's too bad you people are so close-minded and ignorant to facts. Because then you would see that 9/11 was an inside job, and that our creators made themselves known everywhere in this world including North America, not just the Middle East. Real research would show you these facts. Science and facts have proven both.


On a final note, there's not a single thing about 9/11 that has anything to do with religion, what-so-ever. For certain individuals to use the religion card to attempt to discredit the work of a doctor of physics, shows that some individuals are getting desperate and/or can't counter the argument with facts or evidence.

Someone's religious beliefs have zero bearing on the scientific process and methods. Scientific process and methods have certain rules and standards that have to be applied to the process. I'll guarantee that Dr. Jones isn't the only scientist in this world with the same or similar religious beliefs. Especially if you take for granted the science by those other scientists.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by budaruskie
Dude, you killed your own thread! You told the armchair scientists basically not to use this forum for their arguments and evidence

Nah, anyone can debate about anything they want here. They just can't properly respond to Dr. Jones' challenge by posting their opinions on an internet forum.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Can you just give us the quote?

Can you just watch the videos yourself? Why even comment if you're not going to watch his presentation and see what he has to say?



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Say, Six, can you post a link to a copy of that white paper you're referring to?

I would also like to see this white paper. Would definitely be an interesting read, either way.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join