Additonal Experiments with Nano Therm. vs. WTC Dust

reply to post by -PLB-


Jones got his PHD with Summa cum Laude. So according to you he is either incompetent or intentionally missleading. Which one is it?

reply to post by Cassius666


I don't know. I hope he is just incompetent.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Cassius666

 

I don't know. I hope he is just incompetent.

So somebody who got his PHD in the topic at hand with summa cum laude and years of experience in that field is incompetent and conspiracy guy on conspiracy board found his errors to set him straight. Is that what we are working with here?

reply to post by Cassius666


He didn't have years of experience in the topic at hand. Especially not in the topic of electrical engineering. But also not in the topic of material science. And even if he had, he can still be a nut job. Maybe you heard of Peter Deusberg.

reply to post by -PLB-

Just one response as I'm really not interested in discussing psychological matters.

A person most certainly can be unbiased if they constrain themselves to the data that all ready exists about the subject. There is no problem asking for new data, but that new data does not exist yet, thus the asking. So drawing any conclusion based upon nonexistent data would be where the bias would come in. Bias also comes in when a person introduces data that has no relation to other existing data about the subject.

So the way I see it is we have data from Harrit, we have data from this French scientist, and now I'm aware of new data from this Basile guy, though I'm not sure how much he has released, yet.

So based on this data (and other data that all ready exists, i.e. other experiments with thermite, carbon, combustion, paint, etc.) I find it a compelling argument that a thermitic reaction did occur. (Notice that I did not say it IS thermitic, or it IS NOT thermitic.)

However, the introduction of new data (i.e. the DSC in argon) could show that it did not happen. However, this data does not exist yet, so an unbiased person would still reserve ultimate judgment. And I most certainly would like new data, but I also think a discussion of the data that all ready exists is constructive.

"I do not see why that kind of bias would be a major issue in discussing his work." The reason you and I don't have anything to discuss is because you allow your bias so much importance that you do not want to discuss specifics, even on data that you introduce into threads, such as this French scientist's work. So I don't understand why you introduced data, but then don't want to discuss it.

So as I said before, have fun.

He has been criticised by his peers. Jones is criticised by conspiracy guy on conspiracy board. I might as well take the blogs of moonhauxers seriously.

reply to post by NIcon


To me your dishonesty is noted. I see a person that is extremely forgiving towards Jones incompetency, but keep telling yourself how unbiased you are.

I will repeat it again, having a bias is a human condition. We all suffer from it. What matters is how it influences our opinion making process. As affect, I think my opinion "his work is inconclusive" is not biased. But my opinion "It is likely just paint" may be biased. Just like your opinion "It it likely thermitic" may be biased". The opinion that it is inconclusive is purely based on his work, and I think we share that. Our other opinions are based on what we believe, our bias. I can not prove it, neither can you.

reply to post by -PLB-


And conspiracy guy on conspiracy board is in a position to determine if Jones is incompetent or not because??

reply to post by -PLB-

And I'll be sitting here waiting for you to show me where I'm being dishonest.

I wanted to talk about the data, yet you want to talk about Jones' "incompetency." For some reason you would rather cling to your opinions rather than discuss the data. That reveals a lot about a person.

So we're clear, I really don't care about your opinion about Jones "incompetency." But like I said, have fun.

reply to post by NIcon


Sorry, I made a severe edit, I usually don't do that. But I think I explain myself sufficiently.

Originally posted by NIcon
I wanted to talk about the data, yet you want to talk about Jones' "incompetency."

I am completely ok with talking about the data and I have done so in many threads already. So if you have a specific point you like to discuss, sure.

Originally posted by Cassius666
And conspiracy guy on conspiracy board is in a position to determine if Jones is incompetent or not because??

Because I have a master degree in electrical engineering and I know a lot about the subject. I have seen Jones making measurements that are complete rubbish. So I know he is incompetent at applying the right methodology. Being that incompetent at one area leads me to believe he may also be as incompetent in other areas.

Definitely my last post to you as you are not worth discussing anything with.

First your heavily edited post:

Just like your opinion "It it likely thermitic" is biased".

Why did you change what I said? I never said it's likely. Here's what I said:

So based on this data (and other data that all ready exists, i.e. other experiments with thermite, carbon, combustion, paint, etc.) I find it a compelling argument that a thermitic reaction did occur. (Notice that I did not say it IS thermitic, or it IS NOT thermitic.)

Please don't try to rephrase what I say. I try to be very specific in what I say.

For your second post:

I am completely ok with talking about the data and I have done so in many threads already. So if you have a specific point you like to discuss, sure.

I all ready posted the specific points I wanted to discuss about the French scientist's work, to which you responded with some moronic garbage about me contacting Jones and I should believe what I want to believe.

So I posted what I wanted to discuss, and I get a juvenile response from you. That does not show a willingness to "talking about the data." And this is data you introduced into this thread. Did this show a willingness to discuss the data, PLB?

Then after our first go round, you said:

To be honest, I don't care that much about the French guy's work.

That does not show a willingness to "talking about the data," does it, PLB? And, again, this is data you introduced into this thread. The question is if you don't care about it, why did you introduce it?

In my mind that shows an unwillingness. That shows me you like just posting things and then bullying your opinion onto others. So I prefer to discuss things with a more mature, contemplative poster.

So sorry, like I said before, have fun.

So why dont you publish your own paper about Jones paper and have your peers review it? Your credentials wouldnt be in question either then. It would also save you work and time too, seen as how you spend so much time on here.

Just saying.

Originally posted by NIcon
Why did you change what I said? I never said it's likely. Here's what I said:

Please don't try to rephrase what I say. I try to be very specific in what I say.

It doesn't change my point. You finding his argument compelling is your bias.

For the rest, no I do not care that much about the French guys work and I am not really interested in discussing it. Maybe you should open a topic about it.

reply to post by Cassius666


A paper pointing out Jones amateurish measurement error? The reason I do not publish such a paper is the same reason why I do not publish a paper about my sister failing to connect her printer to the computer using a USB cable.

reply to post by -PLB-


Your sister does not have a PHD with summa cum laude in chemistry, or to stick with your example, computer science. You are anonymous on a conspiracy board. I trust you see the believability gap for us ordinary folks who do not have an PHD in that subject like Jones, or you, who might have it (Masters degree that is) or might lie about it.

reply to post by Cassius666


Jones also does not have a PhD in electrical engineering, in fact, he is completely incompetent in that area. If you think PhD stands for knowledgeable and capable in any area there is or that it is a guarantee someone is not a nut job or liar you are wrong.

But enough on this. You will be convinced that Jones is the mega capable multi-profession super doctor, because you like his claims. I know for certain he is completely incapable in at least in the area of electrical engineering because of my education, and I have been told by others he is also incompetent in the area of material science. And I believe them.

reply to post by -PLB-


I said chemistry. You somehow seem to think its unreasonable to take the work of an educated person over that of conspiracyguy on conspiracyboard.

reply to post by Cassius666


Jones also does not have a PhD in chemistry.