Changes in the last year

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 30 2012 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
You mean like Newton with alchemy?

Hutchinson has nothing to do with this.

I don't care about Jones' later work, his earlier work was legit. This isn't a personality contest or a debate about what you think about someone's religious beliefs.

I made no mention of religious beliefs, I am simply saying that if you condemn someone for not carrying out diagnostic tests, surely this cuts both ways? Steven Jones has the material, has repeatedly promised independent verification but now has abandoned all efforts and flat out states that he isn't going to do any more.


It is about whether or not he was getting paid to produce a report on something that he had a prior interest in, in the sense that it was in his interest to come to a certain conclusion given his earlier work, and then not disclosing that prior interest.

Except that I still don't see how 'he worked for the EPA before' means he has a conflict of interest. I am currently paid to write code for a couple of companies. In at least one area, this would be in direct competition to a previous company I have worked for. Does this mean that I have a conflict of interest because of previous employment? By using this logic, it would mean that once someone has a job in one area, they can never reuse that experience without being accused of impropriety. This would clearly be absurd.


Even if that were the case and the science was solid it would not matter so much, but good science is marked by the fact that it raises more questions than it answers.

This makes no sense at all. I can appreciate the implied point, 'good science is discovering new phenomena' but it is exclusive for no reason. Good science is any well tested premise that advances knowledge. Finding facts is a core tenet of science, and so an experiment which removes questions by answering them can be in every way as good as one that finds new behaviour.


This is what baffles me. There is no call to even mention Jones' Mormonism nor whether chooses to subsequently the mating behaviour of Zorgs from the planet Beejubs V, it is highly irrelevant to the question at hand, yet OS'ers routinely get a free pass on this sort of nonsense.

I didn't mention his Mormonism. You are seeing things that aren't there.


He didn't abandon the research, he got effectively fired by his university.

He retired with his position. It may have been a forced retirement but I assume you believe his university was pressured by some shadowy group?


A calorimeter costs say $10k, are you going to buy him one for his own personal use?

He used a calorimeter in his research. Did he sell it or something?
edit on 30/5/12 by exponent because: adding extra questions + answers




posted on May, 30 2012 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 




I am simply saying that if you condemn someone for not carrying out diagnostic tests


I am not condemning him for that, I asking why the OS community does not (did not) ask him to do it if it was supposed to be such a conclusive test?

I am raising the issue in light of his previous connections and possible prejudice, not as an issue in itself.




Except that I still don't see how 'he worked for the EPA before' means he has a conflict of interest. I am currently paid to write code for a couple of companies. In at least one area, this would be in direct competition to a previous company I have worked for. Does this mean that I have a conflict of interest because of previous employment? By using this logic, it would mean that once someone has a job in one area, they can never reuse that experience without being accused of impropriety. This would clearly be absurd.


Except that part of his job there was to test air-quality at the 9/11 site, something we know the EPA lied about under political pressure.

It would be like getting an ex-Union Carbide engineer to test water quality in Bhopal. Of course his previous position would influence his mindset on the matter.




I didn't mention his Mormonism. You are seeing things that aren't there.


I expressly and deliberately referenced the OS community as a whole, as opposed to you specifically. I am not the one seeing things that are not there.



He used a calorimeter in his research. Did he sell it or something?


...while he was at a tenured position at a physics department at a University...

Do the math...




He retired with his position. It may have been a forced retirement but I assume you believe his university was pressured by some shadowy group?


Shadowy group?

No, nobody was hiding the fact that they didn't like the research he was doing and preferred he not do it at that University.

Do you really think this sort of thing is not routine in academia, if so you are far more naive than I could have imagined.
edit on 30-5-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
I am not condemning him for that, I asking why the OS community does not (did not) ask him to do it if it was supposed to be such a conclusive test?

I was never involved with the original solicitation or really saw anything about it until it was done. It was carried out during a period of work for me, so I didn't really pay attention at the time. Was this a rhetorical question? Do you know the answer? If not then I guess I can go look it up.


Except that part of his job there was to test air-quality at the 9/11 site, something we know the EPA lied about under political pressure.

Is there any evidence of faked results? I was under the impression that the EPA made a misleading statement and that Millette was involved later on in providing accurate information for the situation at Ground Zero? Is there any evidence of impropriety on his behalf whatsoever?


It would be like getting an ex-Union Carbide engineer to test water quality in Bhopal. Of course his previous position would influence his mindset on the matter.

Would it? Are you saying that once a large company or organisation is involved in a scandal, all of their engineers or scientists should become unemployable? That seems to be the implication here.



I expressly and deliberately referenced the OS community as a whole, as opposed to you specifically. I am not the one seeing things that are not there.

You actually specifically mentioned me when talking about 'bringing up his religion'. Please don't play innocent, if you're going to accuse someone of something, accuse them explicitly. I don't claim that 'all truthers think victims are fake' because a few idiots do. You can appreciate why I saw something aimed at me.


...while he was at a tenured position at a physics department at a University...

Do the math...

As far as I am aware the research was done after his retirement. The paper itself was published something like 3 years later. Do you know for sure that what you are saying is the case? I was under the impression he conducted this research post retirement.


Shadowy group?

No, nobody was hiding the fact that they didn't like the research he was doing and preferred he not do it at that University.

Do you really think this sort of thing is not routine in academia, if so you are far more naive than I could have imagined.

It's certainly not routine. Especially if he indeed had tenure (I don't think I've seen any mention of this). Are you in academia yourself? Have you experienced this personally?
edit on 30/5/12 by exponent because: fixing quotes



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 05:01 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 





all of their engineers or scientists should become unemployable?


Don't read selectively, almost every response of yours is out of context and badly mangles the sense of the thing it replies to.

I wrote BHOPAL, indicating that yes, he would be unemployable IN THAT CONTEXT because of the allegations (not what he was or was not actually guilty of in a personal capacity) surrounding that incident.

I take it you know the connection between Union Carbide and Bhopal.

I wrote:



There is no call to even mention Jones' Mormonism nor whether chooses to subsequently the mating behaviour of Zorgs from the planet Beejubs V, it is highly irrelevant to the question at hand, yet OS'ers routinely get a free pass on this sort of nonsense.



Please read the whole quote, not just the words that you would like to take offence to.




As far as I am aware the research was done after his retirement. The paper itself was published something like 3 years later. Do you know for sure that what you are saying is the case? I was under the impression he conducted this research post retirement.


You may be right. In that case I don't know where he got the equipment from and why he does not still access to it.

The fact of the matter remains that it is YOUR (as the larger OS movement) contention that this test would solve the issue, not his. As far as I understand his position, and the broader truther position, is that the only reason you could think that is if you are being willfully obtuse. That is the direction I lean in anyway.

If calling for this test demonstrates a penchant for obfuscation, why should he oblige? He is not being paid by anyone to do anything and nothing he does you will ever satisfy you anyhow.

Whatever the case may be, here you had someone who was in a position to do the test for you, you were paying him already. Why was he not pushed to do this allegedly trivial step and solve the question once and for all?

Why is this crucial test now suddenly not important anymore?
edit on 30-5-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)
edit on 30-5-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 05:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
The fact of the matter remains that it is YOUR (as the larger OS movement) contention that this test would solve the issue, not his.


That's not true. Jones admitted that there were inconsistencies in his work and he claimed that he would address these in a subsequent paper. He has not done so.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
Don't read selectively, almost every response of yours is out of context and badly mangles the sense of the thing it replies to.

I wrote BHOPAL, indicating that yes, he would be unemployable IN THAT CONTEXT because of the allegations (not what he was or was not actually guilty of in a personal capacity) surrounding that incident.

I take it you know the connection between Union Carbide and Bhopal.

I'm asking you questions, I'm not demanding you support a certain position. My problem is that you seem to be implying certain things, and then refining the position while complaining at me. Perhaps I am not understanding completely, but that is why I am asking questions.

I don't think it would be reasonable to condemn members of an organisation because of negligence or impropriety occurring outside of their purvue. If someone is directly implicated then that is of course a different matter, but as far as I know, the allegations against Millette stem only from prior association with the EPA in general.

You mentioned before 'air sampling'. Do you have any more information about this? From a cursory search I could only find information confirming my previous statement, that he seems to have been involved only post-announcement. I found nothing indicating any sort of deception or incompetence or anything untoward whatsoever.



I wrote:
...
Please read the whole quote, not just the words that you would like to take offence to.

You also said "This isn't a personality contest or a debate about what you think about someone's religious beliefs. ". That's why I said you mentioned me directly, and why I saw it as implying I had talked about his religious beliefs. I think we'll leave it there.


The fact of the matter remains that it is YOUR (as the larger OS movement) contention that this test would solve the issue, not his. As far as I understand his position, and the broader truther position, is that the only reason you could think that is if you are being willfully obtuse. That is the direction I lean in anyway.

Why is it that as soon as a disagreement forms, someone will accuse an opponent of deception? I don't deny that the 'OS movement' would like to see the test done, but Jones hasn't exactly delivered on his promises of independent verification has he? Could you at least answer that question in a straightforward manner?


If calling for this test demonstrates a penchant for obfuscation, why should he oblige? He is not being paid by anyone to do anything and nothing he does you will ever satisfy you anyhow.

Nonsense, you act as if I and others share a dogmatic belief, but this is simply not the case. The only thing that I am accused of believing in dogmatically is the 'official story', by those who do not believe in the official story. I don't find that surprising.



Whatever the case may be, here you had someone who was in a position to do the test for you, you were paying him already. Why was he not pushed to do this allegedly trivial step and solve the question once and for all?

Why is this crucial test now suddenly not important anymore?
edit on 30-5-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)
edit on 30-5-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)

Again, I was never involved in these tests at all, so I can't answer this question for you. I can find out the answer, but I am sure you can too with the same amount of effort.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 




I'm asking you questions, I'm not demanding you support a certain position. My problem is that you seem to be implying certain things, and then refining the position while complaining at me. Perhaps I am not understanding completely, but that is why I am asking questions.


Is it too much to ask that you don't read like a lawyer?

"You" can refer to both the singular or the plural en.wiktionary.org...

Just assume that I am not attacking you (singular) personally and let's move on.




I don't think it would be reasonable to condemn members of an organisation because of negligence or impropriety occurring outside of their purvue. If someone is directly implicated then that is of course a different matter, but as far as I know, the allegations against Millette stem only from prior association with the EPA in general.


It may not be fair, but guilt by association is real.

Would you allow a Chinese national with links to communist party to do a purely technical inspection of your neighbourhood nuclear power plant? It's an extreme case but the principle is the same. It is not ad hominem tp assume that this person may have some other motives.

As for the claim that the EPA lied, that comes direct from the Inspector General of the EPA's report: www.commondreams.org...

I am not claiming that he did anything wrong, but the fact he has a prior connection to the study of the dust, however tenuous, is certainly relevant, and the fact that it was not (and in fact he was made out to be "independent") is very damaging in my eyes at least.


.......

Actually, I stand corrected. If I am not mistaken this is the nature of the link.


www.historycommons.org...


October 3, 2001: Law Firm Finds EPA Dust Analysis Methods Faulty HP Environmental, a Virginia law firm, releases a study concluding that there is an overwhelming concentration of ultra fine fibers—particles measuring less than half a micron in size—in the Manhattan area that have eluded the standard polarized light microscopy (PLM) techniques (see September 12, 2001) used by the EPA. The report was compiled by several scientists and industrial hygienists including Hugh Granger, Ph.D., CIH and Piotr Chmielinski, CIH of HP Environmental; Tom McKee, Ph.D. of Scientific Laboratories; Jim Millette, Ph.D. of MVA, Inc.; and George Pineda, CIH of ET Environmental. Newsweek reports that according to Granger, the study’s lead author, high concentrations of these fibers have been detected “within several blocks of Ground Zero, including inside closed and undamaged offices nearby and as high up as 36 stories.” Dr. Philip Landrigan, a leading expert on asbestos toxicity, commenting on the report’s findings, tells Newsweek, “I find this very troublesome. The smaller the particle, the more easily it can be aerosolized. And the easier job that it has penetrating right down into the very depths of the lungs.” The study is based on laboratory tests of samples collected between September 21 and 28. [NEWSWEEK, 10/5/2001; ASSOCIATED PRESS, 10/10/2001; REUTERS, 10/15/2001; NEW YORK MAGAZINE, 10/22/2001] The study is initially posted on the website of the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA). But is removed after only 5 hours. Cate Jenkins, a veteran EPA employee, will later suggest that “its removal was motivated by the fact that it conflicted with Governor Whitman’s press release of the same day (see October 3, 2001) claiming no hazardous exposures to asbestos except at Ground Zero.” [JENKINS, 12/3/2001 ] Entity Tags: Phillip Landrigan, Tom McKee, Ph.D., Piotr Chmielinski, CIH, Jim Millette, Ph.D., HP Environmental, George Pineda, CIH, Hugh Granger Timeline Tags: Environmental Impact of 9/11


In my eyes that is even more damaging to Millette's impartiality in this matter.

It is a lie of omission and guilt by association even if we don't know what his personal role was.

Again: This is notifiable in this context.

P.S. Jim/James: I checked, he seems to use it interchangeably on the MVA site www.mvainc.com... (but rollover the "Staff" header for James.
edit on 30-5-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)
edit on 30-5-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
Is it too much to ask that you don't read like a lawyer?

"You" can refer to both the singular or the plural en.wiktionary.org...

Just assume that I am not attacking you (singular) personally and let's move on.

I blame my years of reading hard to decipher arguments interspersed with personal attacks. I'm happy to move on though as long as you weren't accusing me of anything explicitly, which you don't seem to be.


It may not be fair, but guilt by association is real.
...
In my eyes that is even more damaging to Millette's impartiality in this matter.

It is a lie of omission and guilt by association even if we don't know what his personal role was.

Again: This is notifiable in this context.

This really is the most tenuous possible link. There's no evidence whatsoever here that he in any way omitted, falsified, removed or distorted data, and lets be clear here you're associating the EPA with the controlled demolition conspiracy.

It just doesn't line up in any way. You condemn the 'official story' folks for not identifying that he had a conflict of interest, but you demonstrate that indeed there was no conflict of interest, and only the slightest hint of impropriety by connection. It's not even clear that the EPA directly funded the initial study, nor that they relied upon it to make statements. In no way is this a connection which would throw substantial doubt on a fairly rigorous paper.

Let's also remember that we're completely ignoring the impossibility of the current 'nanothermite theories'. I don't want to sidetrack the discussion but it has to be remembered that in context, this is only one tiny part of a currently incoherent theory.

I don't think I'm being particularly harsh or unfair here. I just cannot find any dubious connection or allegation of anything untoward that would remotely affect this at all. Please explain how this does affect him in your eyes, because I just can't see it.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 




This really is the most tenuous possible link. There's no evidence whatsoever here that he in any way omitted, falsified, removed or distorted data, and lets be clear here you're associating the EPA with the controlled demolition conspiracy.


What do you mean? He was co-author on a damning report that was surreptitiously yanked after it was found to be politically (or professionally) expedient to do so. He didn't kick up a fuss. People died.

Open and shut case in my eyes.

And, just to be clear, I am linking a highly emotive study dealing with dust on 9/11 with a highly emotive study dealing with the dust on 9/11.

One way or another he is not impartial and that prior connection should have been made clear.

Just to be perfectly clear, I understand dilemma and trauma that must have been associated with this. I would have hated to be put in such a position myself and I am not sure I would have acted irreproachably. But that is neither here nor there. He was in that position, he made a certain decision not to act, and now that is part of his record. It is sh1tty, I know, but it is also part of life.

It is like lying about a criminal record to an employer, the record itself may not get you fired (or stop you from getting hired), but lying about it almost certainly will, whether or not you were ACTUALLY guilty of anything or not.



I don't think I'm being particularly harsh or unfair here. I just cannot find any dubious connection or allegation of anything untoward that would remotely affect this at all. Please explain how this does affect him in your eyes, because I just can't see it.


The connection is that he lied by omission on this subject (the 9/11 dust) before and he lied by omission again by not making this connection clear himself.

Then he produces a report which conveniently uses very expedient definitions, jumps wildly at conclusions and omits key tests which the OS'ers claim would be conclusive.

If that doesn't scream "lie by omission, again" to you, I don't know what would.
edit on 30-5-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
What do you mean? He was co-author on a damning report that was surreptitiously yanked after it was found to be politically (or professionally) expedient to do so. He didn't kick up a fuss. People died.

Open and shut case in my eyes.

"He didn't kick up a fuss". How do you even know that he knew? You're assigning blame with ridiculous reach here, despite no actual evidence existing whatsoever. From this most tenuous connection you're trying to extend an aura of 'untrustability' all the way to his results.

It's simply not feasible. Your logical chain goes 'EPA released misleading information and tried to save face' -> 'researcher is responsible for not speaking out' -> 'researcher has an interest in covering up 911'.

The last step has nothing to support it, the previous step does nothing to advance the theory that he has some sort of conflict of interest, especially as it seems the report was prepared by an entirely private entity?


One way or another he is not impartial and that prior connection should have been made clear.

Was it available under his name? Was his name published at the start? If these two things are true then as far as I am concerned it was made clear. I would be open to any references to the original threads though.


It is like lying about a criminal record to an employer, the record itself may not get you fired (or stop you from getting hired), but lying about it almost certainly will, whether or not you were ACTUALLY guilty of anything or not.

Lets be fair, you haven't found any evidence of lies, only the suggestion that he might not have said anything, if he knew, which we don't know.


Then he produces a report which conveniently uses very expedient definitions, jumps wildly at conclusions and omits key tests which the OS'ers claim would be conclusive.

If that doesn't scream "lie by omission, again" to you, I don't know what would.

I'm afraid that this is very weak evidence, and I see you applying it purely to one side of the matter. Again lets bring up the fact that Steven Jones has promised independent verification, and the results of tests which never surfaced. This is the primary source behind the theory and evidence refusing to release the results of tests that he says were justified. That seems far more suspicious to me than 'well he might have known about it and if he did then he should have spoken out, unless he did'.

Still, at this point I'd like to take a quick break and thank you for at least responding carefully and thoughtfully. You've made this connection stronger in my mind than it was originally, and I would certainly be interested in learning more about the connection between Millette and the EPA. I think it's incredibly unlikely that we'll find anything of actual concern, and at the moment we're both basically going off a couple of paragraphs on historycommons. Still, getting a coherent, careful response from someone on here is rare, and I thank you again for it. Keep up the good work, no matter what you believe there's only one truth to find



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 




Was it available under his name? Was his name published at the start? If these two things are true then as far as I am concerned it was made clear. I would be open to any references to the original threads though.


Read the article.

A lie by omission is a lie.

If you know someone is about to get attacked by a friend and then allow yourself not to report it or fail to follow up on a report (say because the friends dad is a cop) and then that friend ends up killing someone, you are at the very least morally culpable, if not legally.

Moral culpability is enough in science, it doesn't have to technically illegal. If you think this this is okay for him to then be an authority in this field then your moral compass is way off in my opinion.

Even if it is something that you are okay with it is not something that most people with functional consciences would be, and as such it is notifiable when doing research in similar areas. That only compounds the lie.

You see, the fact that he is happy to lie (even if only by omission) twice without apparently batting an eyelid leads the rational man to expect that he will happily omit crucial data again if that pleases the people he defers to. In science that is a mortal sin. Because all you have in science is trust that the researchers adhere to basic ethical principles in research, like telling you when they rig an experiment to fail.

Without that there can be no science.
edit on 30-5-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


Let us consider the scale of this once more:


It is unclear exactly how many individuals have been impacted by the Ground Zero toxins. New York City’s Department of Health estimates that 70,000 people might have long-term health problems due to the dust. The dust from the World Trade Center debris contained asbestos, lead, mercury and numerous other dangerous carcinogens.

In February 2009, it was reported that over 13,000 recovery workers had already died or were sick and currently receiving treatment. It is estimated that another 40,000 were being monitored for ill effects.

knowledgebase.findlaw.com...

At the very least he should feel bad about not doing more to prevent those additional deaths and disabilities which conceivably amounts to more than died in the initial attacks (and more than the additional deaths attributed to Chernobyl).

If he doesn't (and the fact that he didn't bother to say anything indicates that that is likely the case), then there is no reason to expect he would feel bad about not being as careful as he should be with this latest study.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
Read the article.

A lie by omission is a lie.

If you know someone is about to get attacked by a friend and then allow yourself not to report it or fail to follow up on a report (say because the friends dad is a cop) and then that friend ends up killing someone, you are at the very least morally culpable, if not legally.

Ok so using this logic, everyone who believes 911 was an inside job is morally culpable or legally culpable for the deaths in Afghanistan and the US. Their lack of action resulted in 2 international wars.

Of course. It didn't, and blaming it on them is ludicrous. You are making the same ludicrous reach. This person completed research for a private company and published the results. They were then allegedly removed from a website and that is all the information we have.


You see, the fact that he is happy to lie (even if only by omission) twice without apparently batting an eyelid leads the rational man to expect that he will happily omit crucial data again if that pleases the people he defers to. In science that is a mortal sin. Because all you have in science is trust that the researchers adhere to basic ethical principles in research, like telling you when they rig an experiment to fail.

This is disgusting. How can you possibly accuse the man of lying by omission twice, when there's no evidence he was even aware that his report was removed.

You've moved from 'conflict of interest' to calling him an inherently untrustable person. You're now directly carrying out an ad hominem against someone who's produced research which differs with your opinion. It's become an absolutely ridiculous scenario where you are throwing around emotive insults without the slightest hint of evidence to back it up. Lets look at the sum total of all the evidence against this person again:


The complete study was posted on the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) website
for a total of 5 hours on 9/3/01 before it was removed. The AIHA has not admitted its removal
was motivated by the fact that it conflicted with Governor Whitman’s press release of the same
day claiming no hazardous exposures to asbestos except at Ground Zero.

That's it. That's all the evidence we have, and you've expanded this to somehow indict him as a person and dismiss all of his work.

It's fantasy. If this is the level of rigour you require then please explain to me how Steven Jones promising independent results and then ignoring all future requests explicitly is any better? Clearly it would be worse, but you seem to be trying to destroy the credibility of only one side of this argument.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 05:52 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 




Ok so using this logic, everyone who believes 911 was an inside job is morally culpable or legally culpable for the deaths in Afghanistan and the US. Their lack of action resulted in 2 international wars.


The fact that the EPA lied about air quality is not disputed.

The team in question had hard data in their hands and had a real opportunity to influence public discourse which not every Tom, Dick and Harry with a theory about 9/11 has.

I also expressly excluded legal culpability, you read selectively quite often don't you?

Does your entire defense hinge on the fact that he may not have realized it was removed? I don't know about you, but I frequently check things that I have made publicly available. It was removed within hours of release, do you really in all honestly believe no one told him?



That's it. That's all the evidence we have, and you've expanded this to somehow indict him as a person and dismiss all of his work.


Again with the selective reading. This is a bit of a habit with you, a little like your apparent credulousness.

I don't have a problem with him publishing or doing science. I have a problem with him publishing IN THIS FIELD without SPECIFIC NOTIFICATION of the REAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST brought on by his prior role and demonstrated willingness to be flexible with the facts when it proves politically expedient in issues relating to the dust at the 9/11 site.
edit on 31-5-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 06:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
The fact that the EPA lied about air quality is not disputed.

The team in question had hard data in their hands and had a real opportunity to influence public discourse which not every Tom, Dick and Harry with a theory about 9/11 has.

As far as we know, they published it and followed regular procedure with no indications that it was censored. Its existence and removal from one website is no evidence whatsoever of complicity or unethical behaviour. I was able to find news stories about the report from the approximate time, and there has been no evidence presented of any direct link.


I also expressly excluded legal culpability, you read selectively quite often don't you?

I apologise, I read 'if not legally' as meaning 'possibly legally'. It is a common turn of phrase so you can see the mistake.


Does your entire defense hinge on the fact that he may not have realized it was removed? I don't know about you, but I frequently check things that I have made publicly available. It was removed within hours of release, do you really in all honestly believe no one told him?

There is no 'entire defence', I'm simply trying to ascertain the truth of the situation. You started this discussion by:

Saying that someone doing a study has an alleged clear undisclosed conflict of interest


However, you have now abandoned this argument altogether and have accused him of ethical impropriety. To this end the only evidence you have presented is that a privately run study that he co-authored may have been removed for political reasons and if he knew about it, he may not have mentioned it.

This is a long way from the original statements and questions, and so the question now becomes: Did Dr Millette know about the removal from this website, and in any way was he complicit in his report being hidden from the public?

To this end, I found a news report originating 2 days after the report was apparently released: www.msnbc.msn.com...

Within the first 2 weeks Dr Millette was giving statements about the severity of the situation:

''That's something you rarely see on its own,'' said Dr. James R. Millette, the executive director of MVA Inc., in Norcross, Ga. The private tests have produced new evidence that the extraordinary force of the building collapses pulverized materials into unusually fine motes -- including asbestos fibers.

Dr. Millette said about 10 percent of a typical dust sample was the finest powderlike particles. In the samples from around the attack site, at least 30 percent of the dust was the finest material.

www.nytimes.com...

I am finding it extremely hard to indict him for ethical failings when the only evidence of any possible conflict is a single report about an unexplained removal of a paper from a site. I have yet to identify the title of the paper so I can't check publication records, but at this stage I highly doubt that we're going to find anything that can significantly indict him.

edit: Since I began writing this reply you added this section:

I don't have a problem with him publishing or doing science. I have a problem with him publishing IN THIS FIELD without SPECIFIC NOTIFICATION of the REAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST brought on by his prior role and demonstrated willingness to be flexible with the facts when it proves politically expedient in issues relating to the dust at the 9/11 site.

What you are not doing any longer is accusing him of a conflict of interest. In no way could his silence on an issue count as a conflict of interest against investigating controlled demolition. Even if you had evidence of the former, there is no logical tie to the latter.
edit on 31/5/12 by exponent because: adding extra answer



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 




What you are not doing any longer is accusing him of a conflict of interest. In no way could his silence on an issue count as a conflict of interest against investigating controlled demolition. Even if you had evidence of the former, there is no logical tie to the latter.


Perhaps "conflict of interest" is not the right wording, it is a little more subtle than that.

The point is, and has always has been, that he has prior experience in this field and it was not explicated at the outset.

I don't know why that study was yanked, but it is not about finding proof of wrongdoing. The wrongdoing is in not stating this prior connection. He may feel perfectly justified in his actions, and that may well be the case. But is not for him to decide this. The action that calls into question his methods is the fact that he (or Mohr) decided that this connection was not relevant to bring to the attention of the audience and instead to present him as an independent researcher.

He is not an independent researcher, he comes to the table with a record of what is to all appearances a willingness to abandon scientific findings at the altar of political correctness.

Whether that was what in fact happened or not, it is not for him or you to decide if it is relevant, it is for us, and as such it is notifiable at the outset. The absolute undeniable fact is that he chose not to do so and, whether or not the first was, the second is unquestionably a lie by omission.
edit on 31-5-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 11:19 PM
link   
Great timing with the post, I literally just crawled out of bed and found this at the top of the forum.


Originally posted by Darkwing01
Perhaps "conflict of interest" is not the right wording, it is a little more subtle than that.

The point is, and has always has been, that he has prior experience in this field and it was not explicated at the outset.

When was 'the outset'? I find that Chris Mohr was explaining his prior experience right at the start of the year: forums.randi.org...


He is not an independent researcher, he comes to the table with a record of what is to all appearances a willingness to abandon scientific findings at the altar of political correctness.

Except that looks like nonsense given that quotes are available from him within 2 weeks, and warnings about the study within 2 days. If they tried to cover it up they did a terrible job, and clearly the report authors were not complicit. Who gives an interview to explain something that's being covered up?


Whether that was what in fact happened or not, it is not for him or you to decide if it is relevant, it is for us, and as such it is notifiable at the outset. The absolute undeniable fact is that he chose not to do so and, whether or not the first was, the second is unquestionably a lie by omission.
edit on 31-5-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)

I believe he actually did inform people, and as such there are no lies by omission, just Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, the principle elements of truth movement theories.

I hope I'm not being uneccesarily harsh here, and I am willing to condemn Dr Millette if you do find evidence of political behaviour, but so far I see it, Chris Mohr picked the only person who could reasonably carry out the tests needed, and had access to WTC dust.

Do you have an alternate suggestion? Who should investigate, and how much should it cost?

I also want to ask again whether you condemn Steven Jones for promising independent confirmation and test results, and then explicitly refusing to provide them?

That's enough questions for now. Thanks again for taking your time to reply and doing so carefully and calmly.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


So, this guy is supposedly suspect because he co-authored a paper which found high levels of fine particulates near ground zero, and then somebody else put it on a website and took it back off again, and he gave interviews about it to members of the press? And he didn't publicly flip out that somebody took the paper off the website?

What exactly should he have disclosed? I don't even get what you're saying.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 





So, this guy is supposedly suspect because he co-authored a paper which found high levels of fine particulates near ground zero, and then somebody else put it on a website and took it back off again, and he gave interviews about it to members of the press? And he didn't publicly flip out that somebody took the paper off the website?


He should have disclosed his previous research. This:

He is an independent researcher with extensive experience in forensics and dust analysis.
(emphasis mine)

Is not true.

His experience with dust analysis includes 9/11 and his research was yanked (whether with his knowledge or not) on the basis of a purely political consideration to all appearances.

That accession to political influence means that he can no longer claim to be "independent" in this mater, he has shown that politics is more important to him than facts.

This is relevant.



What exactly should he have disclosed? I don't even get what you're saying.


He should have disclosed that he did not publicly flip out.

The research was not faulty, this we learned later. The fact that it was pulled almost certainly cost people their lives, and answering a few reporter's questions is not the same thing as standing by your research.

It was pulled on what one can reasonably surmise was political grounds, there is no need to prove the assertion because no reasonable person, or even the legal standard of an "idiot in a hurry", could conclude otherwise.

Even if he did not know at the time that it was pulled he certainly knew by the time of this latest study, so the question of his knowledge at the time is moot because we are not so much concerned with his candor then as now.
edit on 1-6-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)
edit on 1-6-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
He should have disclosed his previous research.

In the quote I found, he did. Where are you seeing the previous research not mentioned?


This:

He is an independent researcher with extensive experience in forensics and dust analysis.
(emphasis mine)

Is not true.

His experience with dust analysis includes 9/11 and his research was yanked (whether with his knowledge or not) on the basis of a purely political consideration to all appearances.

That would not change his independent status. Remember you are impeaching him on the basis of acquiescence, not factual distortion. The two are not inherently connected, and we have yet to even establish a morsel of reliable evidence of the former.


It was pulled on what one can reasonably surmise was political grounds, there is no need to prove the assertion because no reasonable person, or even the legal standard of an "idiot in a hurry", could conclude otherwise.

Even if he did not know at the time that it was pulled he certainly knew by the time of this latest study, so the question of his knowledge at the time is moot because we are not so much concerned with his candor then as now.
edit on 1-6-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)
edit on 1-6-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)

I don't consider this reasoning rigorous, the removal from a third party site in no way indicates that anything was hidden. There's not even indication that he had any knowledge of this being posted.

I feel we're going round in circles here somewhat. I do believe there's room for more consensus on exactly what he is being accused of, but until we have more reliable information then the evidence of data availability and immediate interviews kinda defeats the case.

I must also say that even if he had full knowledge it still would not remove his 'independent' status, he still works for a private company and as far as we know has no outstanding ties to the EPA in any form.

Please have a look at the quotes I posted, and let me know whether they don't meet your requirements, because there's not much I can type that I have not already, and we should focus on exactly what was revealed, and what was known.





new topics
top topics
 
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join