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.
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.
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.
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 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.
He didn't abandon the research, he got effectively fired by his university.
A calorimeter costs say $10k, are you going to buy him one for his own personal use?
I am simply saying that if you condemn someone for not carrying out diagnostic tests
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.
I didn't mention his Mormonism. You are seeing things that aren't there.
He used a calorimeter in his research. Did he sell it or something?
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?
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?
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 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.
...while he was at a tenured position at a physics department at a University...
Do the math...
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.
all of their engineers or scientists should become unemployable?
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.
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.
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.
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 wrote:
...
Please read the whole quote, not just the words that you would like to take offence to.
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)
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
One way or another he is not impartial and that prior connection should have been made clear.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Saying that someone doing a study has an alleged clear undisclosed conflict of interest
''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.
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.
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.
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)
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?
(emphasis mine)
He is an independent researcher with extensive experience in forensics and dust analysis.
What exactly should he have disclosed? I don't even get what you're saying.
Originally posted by Darkwing01
He should have disclosed his previous research.
This:
(emphasis mine)
He is an independent researcher with extensive experience in forensics and dust analysis.
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.
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)