New DVD – Steven Jones, PhD: “Nano-Thermite”

[runlikell]

"Here’s the one we’ve been waiting for. Currently available only from AE911Truth.

Pre-order Now – Ships Aug 12th

Watch it online now

Nanothermite: What in the World is High-tech Explosive material Doing in the Dust Clouds Generated on 9/11/2001?

This new DVD, Hot off the press, contains the dynamic multimedia presentation given by Dr. Jones in Sacramento, CA on April 30th, 2009.

Steven E. Jones, Ph.D., Physics Professor Emeritus, Brigham Young University, brilliantly presents his carefully researched new discoveries made as he analyzed the dust from the World Trade Center high-rises on 9/11.

Jones presents the controversial new article in the peer-reviewed “Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal” – the result of 18 months of intensive scientific collaboration – exposing “the loaded gun of 9/11”. The beauty of the photos and the depth of understanding are breathtaking.

The implications of this new peer-reviewed paper are profound. Nanothermite, a highly engineered energetic nanocomposite, was conceived around 1990. By 2000 it had been weaponized and manufactured in top secret military laboratories. This nano-engineered form of thermite does not just burn extremely hot, it explodes.

Bonus video includes: Niels Harrit, PhD – TV interview on nanocomposites in the WTC on 4/6/09; and, “9/11: Blueprint for Truth” – 10 minute WTC 7 version."

-----

A new DVD for you guys to rip apart.

Since the chain of custody argument is often given, does this mean you guys think Jones and Harrit actually spiked the dust? This would be hard to believe; they may be wrong, they may be a bit crazy, but surely they are honest men, no?

[FineWine]

"Here’s the one we’ve been waiting for. Currently available only from AE911Truth.

Pre-order Now – Ships Aug 12th

Watch it online now

Nanothermite: What in the World is High-tech Explosive material Doing in the Dust Clouds Generated on 9/11/2001?

This new DVD, Hot off the press, contains the dynamic multimedia presentation given by Dr. Jones in Sacramento, CA on April 30th, 2009.

Steven E. Jones, Ph.D., Physics Professor Emeritus, Brigham Young University, brilliantly presents his carefully researched new discoveries made as he analyzed the dust from the World Trade Center high-rises on 9/11.

Jones presents the controversial new article in the peer-reviewed “Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal” – the result of 18 months of intensive scientific collaboration – exposing “the loaded gun of 9/11”. The beauty of the photos and the depth of understanding are breathtaking.

The implications of this new peer-reviewed paper are profound. Nanothermite, a highly engineered energetic nanocomposite, was conceived around 1990. By 2000 it had been weaponized and manufactured in top secret military laboratories. This nano-engineered form of thermite does not just burn extremely hot, it explodes.

Bonus video includes: Niels Harrit, PhD – TV interview on nanocomposites in the WTC on 4/6/09; and, “9/11: Blueprint for Truth” – 10 minute WTC 7 version."

-----

A new DVD for you guys to rip apart.

Since the chain of command argument is often given, does this mean you guys think Jones and Harrit actually spiked the dust? This would be hard to believe; they may be wrong, they may be a bit crazy, but surely they are honest men, no?


Why would honest men refuse to share their work with colleagues who do not subscribe to their bizarre political agendas? Why would honest men refuse to submit their work to independent labs? Why would honest men bypass the peer-review process for a tawdry pay-for-play journal?

Jones and Harrit are frauds.

[Justin39640]

if you cant verify the chain
how can you say no one spiked it before they had it?
you cant say for certain either way

seeing a lot of things that the truth distorts knowingly and willfully i dont think it would be a shocker if someone slipped in a nanothermite mickey
but most people know its just paint chips

[Dave Rogers]

A new DVD for you guys to rip apart.

Unless it presents something over and above Harrit et al's fatally flawed Bentham paper, it's already in shreds.

Since the chain of command argument is often given, does this mean you guys think Jones and Harrit actually spiked the dust? This would be hard to believe; they may be wrong, they may be a bit crazy, but surely they are honest men, no?

It's "chain of custody". And you're presenting a false dilemma: either Harrit and Jones are dishonest, or the samples are representative. There are many other possibilities. The methodology by which the dust samples were collected is, as far as we know, laughably poor, meaning that there is no reason to suppose they are representative of dust generated by the collapse. The people supplying them to Jones and Harrit may have tampered with the samples; we know little or nothing about them. The samples may have been accidentally mixed up, or contaminated by bad handling.

And, finally, no, we don't know for certain that Jones and Harrit are honest men. Jones was forced to retire for attempting to bypass the peer review process, an important safeguard of honesty in science, and continues to come up with ways to circumvent it. This is suggestive, if no more, of dishonest intentions.

Dave

[newton3376]

A new DVD for you guys to rip apart.

Since the chain of command argument is often given, does this mean you guys think Jones and Harrit actually spiked the dust? This would be hard to believe; they may be wrong, they may be a bit crazy, but surely they are honest men, no?

Is the chain of command argument anything like the chain of custody argument?

[DavidJames]

I would like to know why a person who claims to seek the truth and is a good researcher is still unable to use the search function. Why can a someone like that only seem to find **** on a conspiracy theory site.

Never mind, I know why. because he's not interested in the truth and is your basic, ignorant, garden variety, conspiracy theorist.

[newton3376]

It's "chain of custody".

Damn you Dave.....you beat me to it....

[uk_dave]

....... but surely they are honest men, no?


What makes you think that?

Jones believes that jesus walked with the ancient mayan.... in fact he believes he has found evidence to support this.

Still trust him?

Why do they deliberately lie about the veracity of Bentham? Hasn't there been enough doubt cast upon this for them to actually go and get their cast iron proof published in a mainstream peer reviewed journal and stop all the questions about their methods?

Why should I trust liars?

Why do you?

[TruthersLie]

"Here’s the one we’ve been waiting for. Currently available only from AE911Truth.


You twoofs have been waiting for it... make sure you pay the fee to own it.


Pre-order Now – Ships Aug 12th

Watch it online now


No thanks. it will be a waste of time. Next you will be hot and bothered about the "new" loose change on 9/22


Nanothermite: What in the World is High-tech Explosive material Doing in the Dust Clouds Generated on 9/11/2001?


There was NO nanothermite there... swing and a massive miss... try again.


This new DVD, Hot off the press, contains the dynamic multimedia presentation given by Dr. Jones in Sacramento, CA on April 30th, 2009.

where you can watch him LIE out of his ass, and misrepresent facts to spin it to the wacky opinion that there was some sort of themite... but why does he tell Greening, there must have been conventional explosives there too? Conventional explosives which were mysteriously silent.

Steven E. Jones, Ph.D., Physics Professor Emeritus, Brigham Young University, brilliantly presents his carefully researched new discoveries made as he analyzed the dust from the World Trade Center high-rises on 9/11.

appeal to authority would help if he wasn't forced to retire due to ethical reasons...

and nice to see you just copied and pasted it DIRECTLY from AEtwoof.

Jones presents the controversial new article in the peer-reviewed “Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal”
snicker... peer reviewed... you are repeating that crap? You have already been shown they are NOT peer reviewed, unless you mean "did the check clear?"


– the result of 18 months of intensive scientific collaboration – exposing “the loaded gun of 9/11”. The beauty of the photos and the depth of understanding are breathtaking.

18 wasted months... wow... kind of like most normal twoofs... wasting years slandering the dead and pissing on the living.


The implications of this new peer-reviewed paper are profound.

Yes they are. The implications are that P.T. Barnum was right. One is born every minute... and you should stay in school kids.


Nanothermite, a highly engineered energetic nanocomposite, was conceived around 1990. By 2000 it had been weaponized and manufactured in top secret military laboratories.
prove it. it had been weaponized... RIGHT. super sekret internet ninja's did it.

This nano-engineered form of thermite does not just burn extremely hot, it explodes.

Hush A Boom!!! and it will clean your room, wash your dog, and makes julian fires too!!!


Bonus video includes: Niels Harrit, PhD – TV interview on nanocomposites in the WTC on 4/6/09; and, “9/11: Blueprint for Truth” – 10 minute WTC 7 version."


make sure you pay up, and join AETWOOF... we have bills to pay suckers!!!!


A new DVD for you guys to rip apart.

based on OLD LIES that have been ripped to shreds.

Since the chain of command argument is often given, does this mean you guys think Jones and Harrit actually spiked the dust? This would be hard to believe; they may be wrong, they may be a bit crazy, but surely they are honest men, no?

nice appeal to niceness... they are lying frauds.
And you can't do 10 minutes of research to see how this has already been debunked?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140017&highlight=nanothermite
and
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=146027&highlight=nanothermite
and
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140426&highlight=nanothermite
and the fantastic rebuttals by sunstealer
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=139293&highlight=nanothermite

an MA you say? cognitvie neuroscience?
wow...
5 minutes of real research. try it.

[johnny karate]

Nothing says legitmate scientific research like "DVD for sale".

[Dave Rogers]

"Jones presents the controversial new article in the peer-reviewed “Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal” –

ITYM "the journal whose incompetent peer-review processes have recently been very publicly exposed, and whose managing editor resigned in protest at this paper being published without her knowledge".

the result of 18 months of intensive scientific collaboration – exposing “the loaded gun of 9/11”. The beauty of the photos and the depth of understanding are breathtaking.

Shouldn't that be "smoking gun"? AE911T can't even get their cliches right. The depth of understanding appears largely absent, given that authors are unable to recognise that a reaction producing a higher energy density than thermite cannot therefore be a thermite reaction, and that a DSC trace taken in an oxygen-containing ambient is a particularly incompetent way to test for a thermite reaction, which contains its own oxidation source. The fact that their methodology invalidates their results is indicative of incompetence, rather than depth of understanding.

Nanothermite, a highly engineered energetic nanocomposite, was conceived around 1990. By 2000 it had been weaponized and manufactured in top secret military laboratories.

Without a cite, I don't believe a word of this. It's classic conspiracist fantasy: make up something that agrees with your theory, assume it's true, then claim it as proven fact.

Dave

[runlikell]

It's "chain of custody". Sorry. I don't normally wake up this early.

[16.5]

Gee, they claim that bentham is peer reviewed not once but twice when in fact we all know that is a huge lie.

[KJC]

I am still waiting to see any demonstration of nanothermite to see if it can possibly cut thick steel beams.

Remember, Steven Jones is someone who dropped concrete 12 feet and thought it proved that no concrete should have been pulverized in the WTC collapse.

[Crazytimes]

I am still waiting to see any demonstration of nanothermite to see if it can possibly cut thick steel beams.

Remember, Steven Jones is someone who dropped concrete 12 feet and thought it proved that no concrete should have been pulverized in the WTC collapse.

Yeah, why have these liars not gotten part of a steel beam, some thermite and a camera and done this simple experiment ? Seems to me it would be an easy thing to do.

[FineWine]

Yeah, why have these liars not gotten part of a steel beam, some thermite and a camera and done this simple experiment ? Seems to me it would be an easy thing to do.


When "truthers" fool around with thermite, it isn't a pretty sight. The results tend to be somewhat inconvenient to their myths.

[triforcharity]

Sure, if they wanted to prove that it would take buttloads of that stuff, and it would take quite some time to actually accomplish what they said it did.

Plus, I don't actually believe there is such a thing as nano-thermite, but I could be wrong.

[~enigma~]

This would be hard to believe; they may be wrong, they may be a bit crazy, but surely they are honest men, no?
Sorry but during the cold fusion debacle of Pons and Fleischmann, Steven Jones attempted to verify the fusion and did find (and admit) a neutron emmision of a few million times less then Pons and Fleischmann. For whatever reason he decided at that time to cross the line into scientific fraud and decided he verified cold fusion. He lost all credibility to me then and he lost all credibility to most of the scientific community also. So to answer your last question, no Jones isn't honest.

ETA - I always wanted to ask him for a cup of tea.

[fourtoe]

Shouldn't that be "smoking gun"? AE911T can't even get their cliches right. The depth of understanding appears largely absent, given that authors are unable to recognise that a reaction producing a higher energy density than thermite cannot therefore be a thermite reaction, and that a DSC trace taken in an oxygen-containing ambient is a particularly incompetent way to test for a thermite reaction, which contains its own oxidation source. The fact that their methodology invalidates their results is indicative of incompetence, rather than depth of understanding.
I've heard a Truther explain this corruption of the original wording. They believe that they found unexploded nanothermite in the dust at WTC so they like to say that they didn't just find the smoking gun, they found the gun with the bullet still loaded.

It is both stupid and smug, my favorite two words to describe the TM.

[ElMondoHummus]

Since the chain of custody argument is often given, does this mean you guys think Jones and Harrit actually spiked the dust? This would be hard to believe; they may be wrong, they may be a bit crazy, but surely they are honest men, no?

While the chain of custody has been raised as an issue in the past, it is not the only critique, nor is it close to being the most damning. Sunstealer in particular has written a well argued critique (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4607894&postcount=1694) based firmly on the data Harrit, Jones, and the others provided.

If Jones at the rest can establish the chain of custody, then that's good, but that still fails to address fundamental problems in the findings themselves. That just means we can be more sure that the chips were indeed from the WTC dust. And many of the existent critiques already presumed that.

[bill smith]

Unless it presents something over and above Harrit et al's fatally flawed Bentham paper, it's already in shreds.



It's "chain of custody". And you're presenting a false dilemma: either Harrit and Jones are dishonest, or the samples are representative. There are many other possibilities. The methodology by which the dust samples were collected is, as far as we know, laughably poor, meaning that there is no reason to suppose they are representative of dust generated by the collapse. The people supplying them to Jones and Harrit may have tampered with the samples; we know little or nothing about them. The samples may have been accidentally mixed up, or contaminated by bad handling.

And, finally, no, we don't know for certain that Jones and Harrit are honest men. Jones was forced to retire for attempting to bypass the peer review process, an important safeguard of honesty in science, and continues to come up with ways to circumvent it. This is suggestive, if no more, of dishonest intentions.

Dave

What's really to the point Dave is whether there really is an abundance of nano-sized particles in the dust. For as we all know the making of nano-sized particles, especialy explosive/incendiary ones is only in the purview of the military. So the presence of the particles combined with even a reasonable chain of custody will tend to validate the dust as being what Jones and Harrit say it is.

[SteveAustin]

While the chain of custody has been raised as an issue in the past, it is not the only critique, nor is it close to being the most damning. Sunstealer in particular has written a well argued critique (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4607894&postcount=1694) based firmly on the data Harrit, Jones, and the others provided.

If Jones at the rest can establish the chain of custody, then that's good, but that still fails to address fundamental problems in the findings themselves. That just means we can be more sure that the chips were indeed from the WTC dust. And many of the existent critiques already presumed that.

Where did sunstealer publish his findings?

[Dave Rogers]

What's really to the point Dave is whether there really is an abundance of nano-sized particles in the dust. For as we all know the making of nano-sized particles, especialy explosive/incendiary ones is only in the purview of the military.

Rubbish. You know absolutely nothing about nanotechnology, and it shows. There wasn't an abundance of anything particularly unexpected in the dust, and nanotechnology is in no way limited to the military.

Dave

ETA: And, of course, there isn't even a reasonable chain of custody.

[TruthersLie]

Where did sunstealer publish his findings?

He published them in somthing JUST AS VALID as any bentham open chemical physics journal...

And the head editors/mods here don't quit in disgust because something got written w/out them knowing about it...
and they don't accept completely made up computer gibberish as peer reviewed either.

massive swing and a miss.
we have some lovely parting gifts for you though.

[A W Smith]

Sorry. I don't normally wake up this early.

Yes you overslept and missed the pre-debunking on 11th April 2009,
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4607894&postcount=1694


You can go back to sleep now.

[~enigma~]

Not too sure I understand. Steven Jones is proven to be a scientific fraud so why is anything coming from him trusted by anybody except idiots that want to be "frauded"?

[Arus808]

Where did sunstealer publish his findings?


doesn't matter since the paper by jones was never peer reviewed and was only published because the publisher got paid to publish it.

[bill smith]

Rubbish. You know absolutely nothing about nanotechnology, and it shows. There wasn't an abundance of anything particularly unexpected in the dust, and nanotechnology is in no way limited to the military.

Dave

ETA: And, of course, there isn't even a reasonable chain of custody.

Who would make nano-sized explosive particles with the chemical signature of Thermite other than the military ? Nobody could afford it for a start. Besides, the mere fact that the presence of Thermite was theorised at the WTC long before it was found and empiricallly proven is also a striong validation of Jones et al. I doubt that the chain of custody issue will be a big problem.

[Dave Rogers]

Not too sure I understand. Steven Jones is proven to be a scientific fraud so why is anything coming from him trusted by anybody except idiots that want to be "frauded"?

Because, basically, that's the ad hominem fallacy. Whether or not Steven Jones is guilty of academic fraud in the past is irrelevant; this particular piece of work can be dismissed on the grounds that the data presented fails to support the conclusions drawn.

Dave

[TruthersLie]

Who would make nano-sized explosive particles with the chemical signature of Thermite other than the military ? Nobody could afford it for a start. Besides, the mere fact that the presence of Thermite was theorised at the WTC long before it was found and empiricallly proven is also a striong validation of Jones et al. I doubt tht the chain of custody issue will be a big problem.

truther LIE bill s.

Thermite WAS NOT FOUND.
THERMATE was NOT FOUND
nanothermite was not found.

Iron oxide (you know rust), aluminum (only everywhere in the towers, cladded in the stuff) make up thermite...

where are the KNOWN byproducts of any thermitic reaction in the dust? Oh there are NONE.

stop with the LIE.

try again. Even jones has dropped the thermate claim, now is focusing on nanosuperduper I'll clean your room, walk your dog, make dinner thermite.

Bill you really should tell your group home staff that your meds aren't working anymore... I'd suggest haldol or lithium bicarbonate...or up the dosage

[~enigma~]

Because, basically, that's the ad hominem fallacy. Whether or not Steven Jones is guilty of academic fraud in the past is irrelevant; this particular piece of work can be dismissed on the grounds that the data presented fails to support the conclusions drawn.

Dave
Fallacy nothing. Once a fraud, always a fraud unless of course there is a reason you think there is even one iota of legitimacy this time.

ETA - an ad hom is not pointing out his past fraud, maybe it would be if I were to dismiss his fraud because of his past stupidity about jesus walking america.

ETA 2 - Not academic fraud...read post 18 again, it was pure scientific fraud in spite of data showing otherwise.

[Dave Rogers]

Who would make nano-sized explosive particles with the chemical signature of Thermite other than the military ? Nobody could afford it for a start.

Rubbish, again. Nanoparticles can be synthesised by colloid chemistry using easily available chemicals and equipment; I've seen it done. It's simple chemical synthesis that could be carried out in a high school chemistry lab, given the required expertise, and there's nothing too rare about that. And this is all moot because nothing that would require even that level of expertise and equipment was found in the dust samples.

Dave

[~enigma~]

truther LIE bill s.

Thermite WAS NOT FOUND.
THERMATE was NOT FOUND
nanothermite was not found.

Iron oxide (you know rust), aluminum (only everywhere in the towers, cladded in the stuff) make up thermite...

where are the KNOWN byproducts of any thermitic reaction in the dust? Oh there are NONE.

stop with the LIE.

try again. Even jones has dropped the thermate claim, now is focusing on nanosuperduper I'll clean your room, walk your dog, make dinner thermite.

Bill you really should tell your group home staff that your meds aren't working anymore... I'd suggest haldol or lithium bicarbonate...or up the dosage
Haldol Decanoate is longer acting :)

[Crazytimes]

Besides, the mere fact that the presence of Thermite was theorised at the WTC long before it was found

Why do you think this is ? Why do you think thermite was theorised before it wasnt found ?

[bill smith]

Rubbish, again. Nanoparticles can be synthesised by colloid chemistry using easily available chemicals and equipment; I've seen it done. It's simple chemical synthesis that could be carried out in a high school chemistry lab, given the required expertise, and there's nothing too rare about that. And this is all moot because nothing that would require even that level of expertise and equipment was found in the dust samples.



Dave

Do you mean that no massively expnensive specialised equipment is needed to grind say Anthrax down to weaponised nano-levels ?

[Dave Rogers]

Do you mean that no massively expnensive specialised equipment is needed to grind say Anthrax down to weaponised nano-levels ?

It's incredible, he just picks out words at random and types them in. I have absolutely no idea what "weaponised nano-level Anthrax" might be, but it sounds really scary, doesn't it? I don't think anthrax would be very effective in severing steel columns, though.

Dave

[A W Smith]

Where did sunstealer publish his findings?

right here at the JREF. Tell us steve-0. what does sunstealer get wrong? Be specific now.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4607894&postcount=1694

where did jones send his samples for "independent review" Steve-0? Oh that right. he didn't. He just cut a check for $800 to publish in a sham vanity journal where two people have already quit in disgust.

What was the dust sample chain of custody from the artists apartmemt window sill where the artists boyfriend did welding of sculptures all the way to the lab steve-0?

Where are the yet to be tested jones samples today? And why are they not shared steve-0?

How can an alleged "uberthermite" coating a few microns thick heat up a steel section to failure several inches thick steve-0?

[Dave Rogers]

Besides, the mere fact that the presence of Thermite was theorised at the WTC long before it was found and empiricallly proven is also a striong validation of Jones et al.

The WTC was made of steel and aluminium, and surrounded by oxygen, as Jones knew long before he started making up his thermite fantasies. It would have been difficult not to find something he could pretend was thermite. All it proves is that it's a well-prepared lie.

Dave

[~enigma~]

All it proves is that it's a well-prepared lie.
From a known scientific fraud. Strange how that conclusion can be reached without a debate that tends to elevate his nonsense to that of a scientific or intellectual equal level with real science.

[ElMondoHummus]

As I have said about Harrit and Jones's paper, the source of the publication are only relevant in answering the claims about peer review. The flaws of the Jones, Harrit, et. al. paper exist regardless where it's published at. Likewise with Sunstealer; the fact he posted his critique here does not affect the validity of the critique; it stands on its own merits. Like the thermite chips papers fail on the lack of merits.

[bill smith]

It's incredible, he just picks out words at random and types them in. I have absolutely no idea what "weaponised nano-level Anthrax" might be, but it sounds really scary, doesn't it? I don't think anthrax would be very effective in severing steel columns, though.

Dave

Allow me to bring you up to speed. The particles can range from 40-100 nanometers in size and are small enough to enter the human cell. This does not come from the chemical soup in the high school you were talking about.
So the mere presence of these particles and especially if they are still live and can be induced to ignite explosively will go an awful long way to validating the dust samples in combination with a reasonable chain of custody.

[Dave Rogers]

Allow me to bring you up to speed. The particles can range from 40-100 nanometers in size and are small enough to enter the human cell. This does not come from the chemical soup in the high school you were talking about.
So the mere presence of these particles and especially if they are still live and can be induced to ignite explosively will go an awful long way to validating the dust samles in combintion with a reasonablle chain of custody.

:jaw-dropp

Are you seriously insane enough to believe that Harrit and Jones found ANTHRAX in the WTC dust? And that you think it's an explosive?

Dave

ETA: By the way, yes, it's perfectly possible to produce 40nm nanoparticles using colloid chemistry; all you need is a supply of the right chemicals, a suitable temperature controlled reaction vessel, and an appropriate recipe. High school chemistry lab stuff. As I said, I've seen it done.

[~enigma~]

Allow me to bring you up to speed. The particles can range from 40-100 nanometers in size and are small enough to enter the human cell. This does not come from the chemical soup in the high school you were talking about.
So the mere presence of these particles and especially if they are still live and can be induced to ignite explosively will go an awful long way to validating the dust samples in combination with a reasonablle chain of custody.
Thermite is live? Or are you confusing yourself into thinking Anthrax and thermite are the same thing. In any event your god is a proven scientific fraud who I would love to see try to take his bs to court. Any lawyer (even one still in school) would ruin the jerks life.

ETA - his scientific life (really credibility) was already suicided when he practiced scientific fraud with cold fusion.

[SteveAustin]

right here at the JREF. Tell us steve-0. what does sunstealer get wrong? Be specific now.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4607894&postcount=1694

where did jones send his samples for "independent review" Steve-0? Oh that right. he didn't. He just cut a check for $800 to publish in a sham vanity journal where two people have already quit in disgust.

What was the dust sample chain of custody from the artists apartmemt window sill where the artists boyfriend did welding of sculptures all the way to the lab steve-0?

Where are the yet to be tested jones samples today? And why are they not shared steve-0?

How can an alleged "uberthermite" coating a few microns thick heat up a steel section to failure several inches thick steve-0?

Oh...so he didn't get his findings published! That's unfortunate. Seems if this is such a big thing he should send his research to a journal to have it peer reviewed and published so other scientists can see his findings and comment on it.

Otherwise it's just a forum posting that has zero relevance in the real world.

Hey if it's so easy to publish in these so-called "sham vanity journals" then sunstealer should have an easy time getting it accepted. Hey with all the JREF cult members here, if you each donated 5 bucks you could easily come up with the $800 to have it published in the same journal, and according to JREF you would not even have to worry about peer review.

[~enigma~]

Oh...so he didn't get his findings published! That's unfortunate. Seems if this is such a big thing he should send his research to a journal to have it peer reviewed and published so other scientists can see his findings and comment on it.

Otherwise it's just a forum posting that has zero relevance in the real world.

Hey if it's so easy to publish in these so-called "sham vanity journals" then sunstealer should have an easy time getting it accepted. Hey with all the JREF cult members here, if you each donated 5 bucks you could easily come up with the $800 to have it published in the same journal, and according to JREF you would not even have to worry about peer review.
I bet if you sent Sunstealer a PM and offered to submit his article for publication and you also offered to pay the 800 dollar fee he would accept. But alas we all know TMbots would never do such a thing.

[bill smith]

The WTC was made of steel and aluminium, and surrounded by oxygen, as Jones knew long before he started making up his thermite fantasies. It would have been difficult not to find something he could pretend was thermite. All it proves is that it's a well-prepared lie.

Dave

Why on Earth would a quiet Mormon Physics professor want to invent an exotic explosive at the WTC if it were not true ? What possible point could there be to it ? He lost his job and has been castigated by the intelligentia for years now. Don't tell me- he is crazy too ?

[SteveAustin]

He published them in somthing JUST AS VALID as any bentham open chemical physics journal...

And the head editors/mods here don't quit in disgust because something got written w/out them knowing about it...
and they don't accept completely made up computer gibberish as peer reviewed either.

massive swing and a miss.
we have some lovely parting gifts for you though.

You realize that bentham never published that fake article, they contacted the people who wrote that fake article in an attempt to find out exactly who they were. Seems like Bentham did a great job in preventing a fake article from being published.

A forum post is not a legitemate journal/publication of any kind, if the information he has is valid then it will stand up to peer review and get published and then stand up again to peer review from all the scientist that will then see his information.

The only reason to keep it hidden here on JREF is because he knows it will not be accepted, and better to pretend he doesn't have to have it published than to have to face rejection and all that means.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Do you mean that no massively expnensive specialised equipment is needed to grind say Anthrax down to weaponised nano-levels ?

The bacillus anthracis bacterium, popularized in the media as Anthrax, is typically 1 to 9 micrometers across. It's a living organism, grinding it into nanometer sized bits wouldn't weaponize it, it would kill and nullify the contagion. You too are a living organism. If you were ground into nano-bits would you be a danger to anybody?

Your comment displays an extreme level of scientific ignorance and I'm afraid I've had to stundie it.

[~enigma~]

he is crazy too ?
First time you ever said anything correct. Congratulations.

[SteveAustin]

not too sure i understand. steven jones is proven to be a scientific fraud so why is anything coming from him trusted by anybody except idiots that want to be "frauded"?

links please :)

[SteveAustin]

doesn't matter since the paper by jones was never peer reviewed and was only published because the publisher got paid to publish it.

Links please:)

[16.5]

Oh...so he didn't get his findings published! That's unfortunate. Seems if this is such a big thing he should send his research to a journal to have it peer reviewed and published so other scientists can see his findings and comment on it.

Otherwise it's just a forum posting that has zero relevance in the real world.

Hey if it's so easy to publish in these so-called "sham vanity journals" then sunstealer should have an easy time getting it accepted. Hey with all the JREF cult members here, if you each donated 5 bucks you could easily come up with the $800 to have it published in the same journal, and according to JREF you would not even have to worry about peer review.

The real world?? Giggle, lets run that through the old Google-izer, shall we:

"News results: Standard Version | Text Version | Image Version Results 1 – 2 of about 2 for Steven-Jones thermite."

Result 1, On-Line Journal, result 2, Pakistan Daily.

You truthers are setting the world on fire with Jones' vanity published, not peer reviewed article and DVD!

[bill smith]

:jaw-dropp

Are you seriously insane enough to believe that Harrit and Jones found ANTHRAX in the WTC dust? And that you think it's an explosive?

Dave

ETA: By the way, yes, it's perfectly possible to produce 40nm nanoparticles using colloid chemistry; all you need is a supply of the right chemicals, a suitable temperature controlled reaction vessel, and an appropriate recipe. High school chemistry lab stuff. As I said, I've seen it done.

If you want to be stupid about it Dave it's no skin off my nose.

[SteveAustin]

Because, basically, that's the ad hominem fallacy. Whether or not Steven Jones is guilty of academic fraud in the past is irrelevant; this particular piece of work can be dismissed on the grounds that the data presented fails to support the conclusions drawn.

Dave

Links please:)

[~enigma~]

If you were ground into nano-bits would you be a danger to anybody?Nano-TM particles would be a perfect biological weapon since the mere touch or breath of any particles at concentrations less then 2 PPM would cause instant stupidity rendering all effected to be unable to use their weapons.

[SteveAustin]

truther LIE bill s.

Thermite WAS NOT FOUND.
THERMATE was NOT FOUND
nanothermite was not found.

Iron oxide (you know rust), aluminum (only everywhere in the towers, cladded in the stuff) make up thermite...

where are the KNOWN byproducts of any thermitic reaction in the dust? Oh there are NONE.

stop with the LIE.

try again. Even jones has dropped the thermate claim, now is focusing on nanosuperduper I'll clean your room, walk your dog, make dinner thermite.

Bill you really should tell your group home staff that your meds aren't working anymore... I'd suggest haldol or lithium bicarbonate...or up the dosage

Links please:)

[bill smith]

The bacillus anthracis bacterium, popularized in the media as Anthrax, is typically 1 to 9 micrometers across. It's a living organism, grinding it into nanometer sized bits wouldn't weaponize it, it would kill and nullify the contagion. You too are a living organism. If you were ground into nano-bits would you be a danger to anybody?

Your comment displays an extreme level of scientific ignorance and I'm afraid I've had to stundie it.

Many thanks for that.

[~enigma~]

links please :)
Have no idea if it is online or not. You can search if you want, I am speaking from my personal work on the subject.

[BigAl]

Why on Earth would a quiet Mormon Physics professor want to invent an exotic explosive at the WTC if it were not true ?

He had a boat payment to make?

[Evilgiraffe]

Do you mean that no massively expnensive specialised equipment is needed to grind say Anthrax down to weaponised nano-levels ?

For FSM's sake Bill. Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

For a start, weapons grade anthrax is not nano-sized, it is much larger than that. For the simple reason that anthrax spores have a certain minimum size. Grind them up smaller and you don't have anthrax anymore.

Sub-micron sized aluminium powders are easily obtainable using a ball-mill. This equipment is not really that expensive, you could probably find a nice second hand one for ~$1000. Nano-sized iron oxide can be precipitated from solution remarkably easily if you have an inkling of chemistry nous (Pro-tip. It depends on the concentration of iron species in solution, the pH and the temperature at which you do the crystallisation).

[newton3376]

Oh...so he didn't get his findings published! That's unfortunate. Seems if this is such a big thing he should send his research to a journal to have it peer reviewed and published so other scientists can see his findings and comment on it.

Otherwise it's just a forum posting that has zero relevance in the real world.

Hey if it's so easy to publish in these so-called "sham vanity journals" then sunstealer should have an easy time getting it accepted. Hey with all the JREF cult members here, if you each donated 5 bucks you could easily come up with the $800 to have it published in the same journal, and according to JREF you would not even have to worry about peer review.

:dl:

You say this as if anyone would even bother to get a rebuttal to Jones' "paper" published....

It's not as if the scientific and engineering community is buzzing about talking about Jones thermite paper....ROFL

MOST OF US LAUGH AT IT.

I read Jones ridicuolus paper and I thought he simply reached a foregone conclusion....his analysis was TERRIBLE.

He talks about "contamination" and hand waves away anything in the spectra that might disagree with his "thermite" or "nano-thermite" conclusion.

Most scientists and engineers don't bother to refute garbage....they just IGNORE it.

That is what is happening to the truth movement....in general most people just laugh at you and then IGNORE YOU.

[T.A.M.]

"Here’s the one we’ve been waiting for. Currently available only from AE911Truth.

Pre-order Now – Ships Aug 12th

Watch it online now

Nanothermite: What in the World is High-tech Explosive material Doing in the Dust Clouds Generated on 9/11/2001?

This new DVD, Hot off the press, contains the dynamic multimedia presentation given by Dr. Jones in Sacramento, CA on April 30th, 2009.

Steven E. Jones, Ph.D., Physics Professor Emeritus, Brigham Young University, brilliantly presents his carefully researched new discoveries made as he analyzed the dust from the World Trade Center high-rises on 9/11.

Jones presents the controversial new article in the peer-reviewed “Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal” – the result of 18 months of intensive scientific collaboration – exposing “the loaded gun of 9/11”. The beauty of the photos and the depth of understanding are breathtaking.

The implications of this new peer-reviewed paper are profound. Nanothermite, a highly engineered energetic nanocomposite, was conceived around 1990. By 2000 it had been weaponized and manufactured in top secret military laboratories. This nano-engineered form of thermite does not just burn extremely hot, it explodes.

Bonus video includes: Niels Harrit, PhD – TV interview on nanocomposites in the WTC on 4/6/09; and, “9/11: Blueprint for Truth” – 10 minute WTC 7 version."

-----

A new DVD for you guys to rip apart.

Since the chain of custody argument is often given, does this mean you guys think Jones and Harrit actually spiked the dust? This would be hard to believe; they may be wrong, they may be a bit crazy, but surely they are honest men, no?

Interesting because one of the people who Jones arranged to have samples of the dust, Fred Henry (not sure which he goes by) made a comment on this very forum, when unable to reproduce the red-grey chips in his own sample, that perhaps someone had tampered with his samples, to REMOVE the red grey chips.

So in my opinion, if he and others are paranoid enough to think that their dust samples were tampered with to REMOVE the chips, who is to say they were not tampered with in the first place to PUT IN the red grey chips.

TAM:)

Edit:

before you ask, it is suggested in post #317, here,

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140017&page=8

TAM:)

[SteveAustin]

:jaw-dropp

Are you seriously insane enough to believe that Harrit and Jones found ANTHRAX in the WTC dust? And that you think it's an explosive?

Dave

Note the classic disinformation tactics used here. Bill commented on the anthrax as an example of grinding something down to the nanometer size (and also at the same time point out another flaw in the Official Conspiracy Theory with regards to anthrax). So dave takes this as his chance to purposely misrepresent what Bill has said so that dave can then insult/ridicule/smear

ETA: By the way, yes, it's perfectly possible to produce 40nm nanoparticles using colloid chemistry; all you need is a supply of the right chemicals, a suitable temperature controlled reaction vessel, and an appropriate recipe. High school chemistry lab stuff. As I said, I've seen it done.

:)

[NWO Sentryman]

ell Archit€ct$ €ngin€€ring 911 Truth are at it again.

CT$ are a money maker these days.

[newton3376]

Links please:)

Do your own investi-googling....

You should be an expert at this by now...after all your truther sources are youtube, googlevideo, and any troofer website....

Off you go investigoogler!

[SteveAustin]

I bet if you sent Sunstealer a PM and offered to submit his article for publication and you also offered to pay the 800 dollar fee he would accept. But alas we all know TMbots would never do such a thing.

Oh yes, that tactic, turn it around on me and make it my fault that he has not published ROFL.

Now the JREF cult is trying to claim that the only reason sunstealer has not published is because I will not pay to have him publish his findings.

Where do you guys come up with this garbage?

[SteveAustin]

The real world?? Giggle, lets run that through the old Google-izer, shall we:

"News results: Standard Version | Text Version | Image Version Results 1 – 2 of about 2 for Steven-Jones thermite."

Result 1, On-Line Journal, result 2, Pakistan Daily.

You truthers are setting the world on fire with Jones' vanity published, not peer reviewed article and DVD!

Links please :)

[SteveAustin]

Have no idea if it is online or not. You can search if you want, I am speaking from my personal work on the subject.

Oh, so you have no evidence to back up your claims?

[SteveAustin]

:dl:

You say this as if anyone would even bother to get a rebuttal to Jones' "paper" published....

It's not as if the scientific and engineering community is buzzing about talking about Jones thermite paper....ROFL

MOST OF US LAUGH AT IT.

I read Jones ridicuolus paper and I thought he simply reached a foregone conclusion....his analysis was TERRIBLE.

He talks about "contamination" and hand waves away anything in the spectra that might disagree with his "thermite" or "nano-thermite" conclusion.

Most scientists and engineers don't bother to refute garbage....they just IGNORE it.

That is what is happening to the truth movement....in general most people just laugh at you and then IGNORE YOU.

So this is the excuse you are using to avoid rejection!

[~enigma~]

Oh yes, that tactic, turn it around on me and make it my fault that he has not published ROFL.

Now the JREF cult is trying to claim that the only reason sunstealer has not published is because I will not pay to have him publish his findings.

Where do you guys come up with this garbage?
Did I blame you for anything or are you just so foolish you think anything contrary to your narrow view is blaming you for something?

[~enigma~]

Oh, so you have no evidence to back up your claims?
Sure I do. As I said I am not sure if any is online. Please learn to read.

ETA - If you want, you could always ask Jones himself but also ask him for a cup of tea, he will understand.

[16.5]

Links please :)

I CAN POST IN BIG FONT IN COLOR!

"You truthers are setting the world on fire with Jones' vanity published, not peer reviewed article and DVD!"

REBUTTAL PLEASE

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Links please :)

He said he was running it through google.

Can't you read?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Many thanks for that.

Do you understand why what you said was wrong?

[A W Smith]

Originally Posted by A W Smith http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4973628#post4973628)
right here at the JREF. Tell us steve-0. what does sunstealer get wrong? Be specific now.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=1694 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4607894&postcount=1694)
Note the steve-0 quote below, steve-0 cannot or will not answer this.
where did jones send his samples for "independent review" Steve-0? Oh that right. he didn't. He just cut a check for $800 to publish in a sham vanity journal where two people have already quit in disgust.
Note the steve-0 quote below, steve-0 cannot or will not answer this.
What was the dust sample chain of custody from the artists apartmemt window sill where the artists boyfriend did welding of sculptures all the way to the lab steve-0?
Note the steve-0 quote below, steve-0 cannot or will not answer this.
Where are the yet to be tested jones samples today? And why are they not shared steve-0?
Note the steve-0 quote below, steve-0 cannot or will not answer this.
How can an alleged "uberthermite" coating a few microns thick heat up a steel section to failure several inches thick steve-0? Note the steve-0 quote below, steve-0 cannot or will not answer this.

Oh...so he didn't get his findings published! That's unfortunate. Seems if this is such a big thing he should send his research to a journal to have it peer reviewed and published so other scientists can see his findings and comment on it.
There is no need to. Jones work already fails on it face. For example: You can write a paper refuting gravity and publish in a sham journal. there's no need for scientists to publish a refutation. Jones is a non starter.
Otherwise it's just a forum posting that has zero relevance in the real world.
Yet you fail to show what sunstealer gets wrong steve-0. Jones doesn't operate in the real world. Its just been his pet fantasy since day one. He started years ago with "iron sphericals" but was debunked Here at JREF. As iron sphericals are a common occurrence in everyday life via incinerator combustion, brake dust, ETC. His quest is to prove the existance of his thermite fantasy. That is not science. He is a smirking agenda driven liar and ass ****. Whos lies have been exposed here before. The doctored firemen/search light photo being a prime example.

Hey if it's so easy to publish in these so-called "sham vanity journals" then sunstealer should have an easy time getting it accepted. Hey with all the JREF cult members here, if you each donated 5 bucks you could easily come up with the $800 to have it published in the same journal, and according to JREF you would not even have to worry about peer review.what do we need to pay money to refute jackass truthers when they refute themselves?

[boloboffin]

18 months, and Jones couldn't do a $40 test to determine the actual compounds in his chips? I guess the shell game he's playing with elemental composition is more conducive to snake oil sales.

[Hokulele]

"Here’s the one we’ve been waiting for. Currently available only from AE911Truth.

Pre-order Now – Ships Aug 12th

A new DVD for you guys to rip apart.


Why, are they giving you a percentage of the sales?

[SteveAustin]

Do your own investi-googling....

You should be an expert at this by now...after all your truther sources are youtube, googlevideo, and any troofer website....

Off you go investigoogler!

Thanks for proving the double standard held here at JREF

[SteveAustin]

Sure I do. As I said I am not sure if any is online. Please learn to read.

ETA - If you want, you could always ask Jones himself but also ask him for a cup of tea, he will understand.

Again, the JREF double standard for everyone to see.

I have to take your word for this, and seeing as you are a proven liar why should I?

[SteveAustin]

I CAN POST IN BIG FONT IN COLOR!

"You truthers are setting the world on fire with Jones' vanity published, not peer reviewed article and DVD!"

REBUTTAL PLEASE

ROFL, you obviously missed reading the other thread where 20 or so JREF cult member did the exact same thing over and over and over and over again. LOL so you are making fun of your own cult members here.

Oh and BTW...

Where is that link? :)

[SteveAustin]

He said he was running it through google.

Can't you read?

I'm still waiting for those links!!

[~enigma~]

Again, the JREF double standard for everyone to see.

I have to take your word for this, and seeing as you are a proven liar why should I?
I am a proven liar? Link please? You are free to ignore anything I say but why don't you just take my advice and ask Jones himself. Either that or you can crack a real book and read about the cold fusion fiasco but if you speak to Jones, ask him for a cup of tea.

ETA - first the TM produces a guy that claims he is a 16th century reincarnation and now they produce a wrestler who's claim to fame was the word WHAT.

[T.A.M.]

Again, the JREF double standard for everyone to see.

I have to take your word for this, and seeing as you are a proven liar why should I?

You don't have to accept anything. You should, perhaps give him a little time before you outright whine about a "double standard"..he did say that the "proof" so to speak is "offline" rather than via "insta-googling".

TAM:)

[SteveAustin]

Note the steve-0 quote below, steve-0 cannot or will not answer this.Note the steve-0 quote below, steve-0 cannot or will not answer this.Note the steve-0 quote below, steve-0 cannot or will not answer this.Note the steve-0 quote below, steve-0 cannot or will not answer this.Note the steve-0 quote below, steve-0 cannot or will not answer this.

There is no need to. Jones work already fails on it face. For example: You can write a paper refuting gravity and publish in a sham journal. there's no need for scientists to publish a refutation. Jones is a non starter. Yet you fail to show what sunstealer gets wrong steve-0. Jones doesn't operate in the real world. Its just been his pet fantasy since day one. He started years ago with "iron sphericals" but was debunked Here at JREF. As iron sphericals are a common occurrence in everyday life via incinerator combustion, brake dust, ETC. His quest is to prove the existance of his thermite fantasy. That is not science. He is a smirking agenda driven liar and ass ****. Whos lies have been exposed here before. The doctored firemen/search light photo being a prime example.what do we need to pay money to refute jackass truthers when they refute themselves?

Did you note the repeated attempts to dodge the question by attempting to turn it around on me and ask me questions, then the repeated excuse.

You have not said anyting that has not already been soundly thrashed. You only re-worded and enlarged it so as to scare people into thinking you actually said something of substance.

There has been no scientific rebuttal in any peer reviewed journal of any kind to the Harrit/Jones paper. All your obfuscations do nothing to further your cause, only to make you look really really silly

[SteveAustin]

18 months, and Jones couldn't do a $40 test to determine the actual compounds in his chips? I guess the shell game he's playing with elemental composition is more conducive to snake oil sales.

Links please :)

[boloboffin]

Links please :)

The links to sunstealer's posts have already been provided. Please stop trolling.

[Disbelief]

There has been no scientific rebuttal in any peer reviewed journal of any kind to the Harrit/Jones paper. All your obfuscations do nothing to further your cause, only to make you look really really silly

Why would anyone post a rebuttal in a peer reviewed journal, when the Harrit/Jones paper was never in a peer reviewed journal? What would be the point?

[Pardalis]

A DVD? Well this shows they really aren't interested in science, but propaganda.

What kind of scientist would prefer selling DVDs over proving their theory to the scientific community? Shameful, but not unexpected from them.

[~enigma~]

A DVD? Well this shows they really aren't interested in science, but propaganda.

What kind of scientist would prefer selling DVDs over proving their theory to the scientific community? Shameful, but not unexpected from them.
First test for junk science and I am very glad you pointed it out. Coincidently it is the first charge against Pons and Fleischmann's cold fusion fiasco that Jones also commited scientific fraud in. Anybody see a pattern?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

links please :)
Links please:)
Links please :)
Links please :)

Ladies and gentlemen... the 2009 9/11 truth movement in all its intellectual glory.

[T.A.M.]

A DVD? Well this shows they really aren't interested in science, but propaganda.

What kind of scientist would prefer selling DVDs over proving their theory to the scientific community? Shameful, but not unexpected from them.

Well they have gone about as far as they can. EVEN IF there were a shred of validity to their "paper", do you really think ANY serious journal is going to pick up their "paper" after the Bentham debacle? The only alternatives they have are to give up - they are too insane for that, or to go into David Ray Griffin/ Alex Jones territory, and start to milk the sheep for profit.

TAM:)

[Sword_Of_Truth]

A DVD? Well this shows they really aren't interested in science, but propaganda.

What kind of scientist would prefer selling DVDs over proving their theory to the scientific community? Shameful, but not unexpected from them.

Or justice for that matter. Three thousand restless souls who cannot sleep and these buttholes wanna sell DVDs.

[~enigma~]

You don't have to accept anything. You should, perhaps give him a little time before you outright whine about a "double standard"..he did say that the "proof" so to speak is "offline" rather than via "insta-googling".

TAM:)
Here is the best I found online. it's only a short section in the paper.

http://www.nuenergy.org/pdf/cold.pdf

ETA - Odd when you consider who the author is.

[16.5]

rofl, you obviously missed reading the other thread where 20 or so jref cult member did the exact same thing over and over and over and over again. Lol so you are making fun of your own cult members here.

Oh and btw...

where is that link? :)

rebuttal first please!

[The Platypus]

Yet another DVD to sell people, why am i not surprised. This cult comes out with more DVDs to sell than the Girls Gone Wild dudes....

[~enigma~]

Here is the best I found online. it's only a short section in the paper.

http://www.nuenergy.org/pdf/cold.pdf

ETA - Odd when you consider who the author is.
Seems the truthers posting became ghosts all of a sudden.

[Crazytimes]

Can someone explain a couple of things to me ?

How on earth do truthers STILL claim thermite was found ?

Why is nano thermite significant ? Is it stronger ? Burns hotter ? Burns longer ? Or is it just so super tiny that they could hide it's use better ?

[SteveAustin]

You don't have to accept anything. You should, perhaps give him a little time before you outright whine about a "double standard"..he did say that the "proof" so to speak is "offline" rather than via "insta-googling".

TAM:)

LOL if you could only hear me laugh when I am here reading JREF, but of course that would not fit in with your smear in saying i'm whining.

Maybe next time someone asks me for a link or for evidence I can do exactly what you have done here and say they are whining?? Yes?? No??

[Arus808]

funny how the SA wants us to provide links yet he can't even do that himself. All of his links go to batcrap crazy idiots of the trooth movement,. which of course are filled with lies, ignorance, arguments from idiocy and stupidity

[SteveAustin]

Why would anyone post a rebuttal in a peer reviewed journal, when the Harrit/Jones paper was never in a peer reviewed journal? What would be the point?

Please source your evidence for this claim

[16.5]

LOL if you could only hear me laugh when I am here reading JREF, but

That's a pretty funny image.

Just another beautiful day in the life of Steve Austin

/obligatory

[BigAl]

Please source your evidence for this claim

What claim? "Peer Review"? The publisher has no "peer review" process as it is known fo anyone with first-hand familiarity with the term. Letting the author pick the reviewers is not "peer review".

[SteveAustin]

A DVD? Well this shows they really aren't interested in science, but propaganda.

What kind of scientist would prefer selling DVDs over proving their theory to the scientific community? Shameful, but not unexpected from them.

Yes, more of the unfounded and unsubstantiated smear jobs that is all too common here at JREF from the cult.

Tell me pardalis, how is making a DVD not proving their theories to the scientific community? Do the scientific community not have access to these DVD's? Or does the scientific community not have access to the already published findings? You will note that there still has not been any published article in any peer reviewed journal refuting of any of the peer reviewed and published articles from the 9/11 truth community (in this case Jones et al)

[~enigma~]

Yes, more of the unfounded and unsubstantiated smear jobs that is all too common here at JREF from the cult.

Tell me pardalis, how is making a DVD not proving their theories to the scientific community? Do the scientific community not have access to these DVD's? Or does the scientific community not have access to the already published findings? You will note that there still has not been any published article in any peer reviewed journal refuting of any of the peer reviewed and published articles from the 9/11 truth community (in this case Jones et al)
The correct process is to verify with the scientific community FIRST before publishing a DVD. They short circuited correct procedure.

[beachnut]

You don't have to accept anything. You should, perhaps give him a little time before you outright whine about a "double standard"..he did say that the "proof" so to speak is "offline" rather than via "insta-googling".

TAM:)
Proof? He said it, so it is so!

What is that called? Fetzer, another original failed scholar for truth uses the same proof method. Say it is, and it is so.

The DVD, Another fraud and the failed movement faithful accept lies as their truth.

[ElMondoHummus]

... they may be wrong, they may be a bit crazy, but surely they are honest men, no?

That right there requires a bit of analysis. For starters, you can indeed argue that Jones at least has attempted to argue scientifically and ascribe a modicum of honesty to that (I'll refrain from commenting on Harrit because I know next to nothing about him; Legge and the rest you can look up here on your own). He does work hard to bring a veneer of real empirical observation to his work, something rare in the extreme in conspiracy-favoring arguments. I wish we'd see more of that; what "scientific" work has been done has been beyond laughable. But on the other hand, he's been published in real journals before, and while there's nothing wrong with open source publication per se, there are clear issues with Bentham's rigor specifically. That's even been detailed here in this forum. And I find it hard to believe that he would be able to overlook that. He knows enough about legitimate publishing to understand the difference.

To me, questions about Jones and honesty come down to the details of his work. For starters, he full well realizes that his chosen method of spectroscopy - X-EDS - does not reveal bonding or structure, yet he continues to use that method of spectroscopy to buttress his work. Other methods exist that would provide structural information about the chips he's located, yet he's failed to resort to them. The cynical may infer that this is done in order to allow for obsfucation; the generous may argue that the explanation might be far more mundane, that he may simply have no access to alternate methods. Regardless, he draws conclusions from the spectroscopy that are unwarranted because they're based on information that cannot be drawn from that spectroscopy, but must be inferred from elsewhere; Sunstealer highlighted that in his rebuttals, and demonstrated the erroneous inferences. It wouldn't be so bad if those inferred presumptions were somewhat accurate, but they're not. And therein lies the problem.

Beyond that, there are other parts of the paper where conclusions were drawn that were unsupported by the actual work done. As an example, the elimination of paint as a candidate was conducted by soaking a chip (or several) in a solvent that does not dissolve all classes of paint. Granted, it dissolves a hell of a lot of them, but the point is that it's insufficient to account for all types. That right there is grade-school level lab work, and unworthy of a former professor from a well regarded university. And as other examples, you can do a search for "energetic nano" and "nanothermite" in this forum and see our previous critiques regarding his energy conclusions from his calorimeter experiements. It's questionable for him to classify the chips as thermite when the calorimetric experiments show energy readings completely inconsistent with that compound, but he does it anyway. And his handwave - I assert that it's nothing short of being a handwave - is that nanoprocessed thermite can release more energy in a more explosive manner. That still doesn't account for the fact that it's more energy than thermite is capable of releasing, but he further handwaves that away with the presence of the sol-gel adding extra energy... which means that he cannot separate the energy of the matrix from the reactive substance, and therefore cannot conclusively or even tentatively conclude that the energetics prove his assertion. And that to me smacks of dishonesty. But at the same time, I can't eliminate self-delusion, and a potential for desiring to be right and therefore fooling himself into believing his own arguments. So he might indeed be honest, but that still leaves him as being honestly wrong.

So, the question of honesty ends up being an uncomfortable one for conspiracy advocates. Either he is honestly delusional, and is stretching and misinterpreting his own data to fit his worldview, or he's dishonest, and full well knows that his conclusions are not supported by his evidence. Either way, he's wrong. And the question of his honesty is unfortunately a low bar; it's his claims that are important, whether honestly or deceptively forwarded. Those claims are demonstrably wrong, and in fact contradicted by what is known to be true about the collapses. He cannot argue thermite in the complete absence of any effects of thermite on the steel columns, and it does not matter how much publication and spectroscopic analysis he brings to bear. The veneer of respectability does not change the fact that the presumption is wrong at a fundamental level. And his honesty or lack of it doesn't mitigate the significance of that problem.

[SteveAustin]

Ladies and gentlemen... the 2009 9/11 truth movement in all its intellectual glory.

ROFL..do you really want to go there? Ok, let's do it...

Steve, if you can't post a link to the story, could you maybe copy and paste it from your files? Thanks!
SteveAustin, I have cleared half an hour from my schedule this morning to review that article, could you please post the link before noon eastern time? Thanks in advance!
SteveAustin, you have said that the US gov't hired 1000 'disinfo agents' to argue the "Official Conspiracy Theory" on the internet, and that there was a 'leaked' story about it. Could you kindly post a link or source? Thanks!:)
In four pages since Steve claimed htere was a leaked article about 1000 disinfo agents hired by the US govt, I have yet to see a link to where this article is.


Why does it take four pages to do so?
YOU HAVE TOTALLY IGNORED EVERY SINGLE POST ASKING FOR THAT LINK, INCLUDING THE SURPRISINGLY SANE ADVICE FROM BILL SMITH THAT YOU POST IT.
Still no link from Steve Austin re the 1,000 paid shills. Why am I not surprised?
Yes Steve. We know of your derail. :words: But:

What. About. The. Link. For. The. 1000. paid. Shills.
Yes Steve. We know of your derail. :words: But:

What. About. The. Link. For. The. 1000. paid. Shills.

OMG.....:dl:

Thanks Zeus I wasn't drinking anything when I read this post....
Steve, I'm just going to remind you of your 1000 shills LINK, så that you don't forget it.
Which reminds me-

SteveAustin, have you got that link yet? If you don't have it, then just say so, and I will stop asking for it.
Still no link to the 1000 paid debunkers, huh?

Why am I not surprised.
1000 was the original number of internet revisionist (I guess that's the polite term for paid government shill/disinformation agent) that were hired to spout the Official Conspiracy Theory on the internet. I guess you did not see the story that was leaked a week or two ago on this did you?

wheres the story?
liar
you said it existed it dont
there was no "leak"
youve spun 10 pages trying to CYA
quite poorly at that
im tempted to use my ignore function for the 1st time

I could go on, and I skipped many of them, but you get the picture, so thank you for showing JREF in all it's intellectual glory

[SteveAustin]

rebuttal first please!

rebuttal to what? Your unfounded and unsourced claims? You need to at least source your claims before I need to have a rebuttal

[SteveAustin]

Can someone explain a couple of things to me ?

How on earth do truthers STILL claim thermite was found ?

Because there has been no legitemate rebuttal of the peer reviewed journal article that came forward with the findings

[SteveAustin]

funny how the SA wants us to provide links yet he can't even do that himself. All of his links go to batcrap crazy idiots of the trooth movement,. which of course are filled with lies, ignorance, arguments from idiocy and stupidity

This is nothing more than an argument from incredulity

[16.5]

rebuttal to what? Your unfounded and unsourced claims? You need to at least source your claims before I need to have a rebuttal

Uh, the claim that the Jones paper has no public impact whatsoever and has been completely and utterly ignored by everyone oither than die hard truthers and debunkers out for a good laugh.

C'mon, that part of my post.

Now get to it, truther!

[BigAl]

"Here’s the one we’ve been waiting for. Currently available only from AE911Truth.

Pre-order Now – Ships Aug 12th

...
This would be hard to believe; they may be wrong, they may be a bit crazy, but surely they are honest men, no?

Honest? No.

I came to debunking and JREF several years ago via USENET posts about "molten steel" at WTC. I was intrigued.

I was a witness to some of WTC. I know people that worked on the cleanup of the "pile" in the weeks after 9/11. I also have an engineering background sufficient to read and understand what people that know more than I do say. Literal "molten steel" in the pile was on the edge of plausibility and I was curios.

When I dug into the quotes and citations used to justify claims, I found rampant lying in the form of malicious cherry-picking of quotes of firemen while excising words that contradict Twoofer claims. Dozens of these are on the premier "peer reviewed" Truth Movement, http://www.journalof911studies.com/

I have since collected a long lost of faked images and video by the TM and complaints by people who have been mis-quoted by TM.

So much for intellectual honesty and "Peer Review" of the "Truth Movement".

[Justin39640]

steve you dont seem to understand the difference
you claimed that you read a "leaked" article about 1000 paid shills
we all went looking for it and got nothing
we then asked you to cite that article and again got nada

here people are commenting on an article that exists
people are giving their (well founded) opinions on it
hence youre reading the link (complete with links to similar discussions)
please feel free to post it when you find it fitting

you just got so hammered on something stupid that you typed over the last few days that youre foaming at the mouth to give some back (even when it doesnt apply)

pretty childish (esp to re "link please" to every post over 3 pages adding nothing)

bill if you ground yourself down would you have millions of nano-bills or would you just be dead?
use that gray matter before you type

[boloboffin]

Steve has made abundantly clear that he is only trolling here. Please don't feed the troll.

[SteveAustin]

steve you dont seem to understand the difference
you claimed that you read a "leaked" article about 1000 paid shills
we all went looking for it and got nothing
we then asked you to cite that article and again got nada

here people are commenting on an article that exists
people are giving their (well founded) opinions on it
hence youre reading the link (complete with links to similar discussions)
please feel free to post it when you find it fitting

you just got so hammered on something stupid that you typed over the last few days that youre foaming at the mouth to give some back (even when it doesnt apply)

pretty childish (esp to re "link please" to every post over 3 pages adding nothing)

bill if you ground yourself down would you have millions of nano-bills or would you just be dead?
use that gray matter before you type

LOL very few of you even bothered to research it for yourselves, and even after the article that you claim still does not exist was linked you still all continued your rants.

In my case no one has yet linked their sources, unless you can scroll up and show me where they linked them

[Justin39640]

Honest? No.

I came to debunking and JREF several years ago via USENET posts about "molten steel" at WTC. I was intrigued.

I was a witness to some of WTC. I know people that worked on the cleanup of the "pile" in the weeks after 9/11. I also have an engineering background sufficient to read and understand what people that know more than I do say. Literal "molten steel" in the pile was on the edge of plausibility and I was curios.

When I dug into the quotes and citations used to justify claims, I found rampant lying in the form of malicious cherry-picking of quotes of firemen while excising words that contradict Twoofer claims. Dozens of these are on the premier "peer reviewed" Truth Movement, http://www.journalof911studies.com/

I have since collected a long lost of faked images and video by the TM and complaints by people who have been mis-quoted by TM.

So much for intellectual honesty and "Peer Review" of the "Truth Movement".

the misquotes, trick video edits, and faked pics were what really got me angry with the TM and started me down this road a few years ago

one that sticks out was when they took 3 quotes from 3 people and made it seem that one person said all three
when in context the original quotes hurt the TM's argument

[ktesibios]

Yet another DVD to sell people, why am i not surprised. This cult comes out with more DVDs to sell than the Girls Gone Wild dudes....

Anyone can beat a dead horse- but it takes a troofer to milk one.;)

[Crazytimes]

Because there has been no legitemate rebuttal of the peer reviewed journal article that came forward with the findings

What do you consider legitimate ? and where is this peer reviewed paper ? You can't be talking about Bentham, can you ?

[Justin39640]

are comments on published papers normally peer reviewed themselves? (like steve and bill imply?)
wouldnt this result in never ending peer review process?

[Hokulele]

are comments on published papers normally peer reviewed themselves? (like steve and bill imply?)
wouldnt this result in never ending peer review process?


That is correct question.

When a paper is published in a peer-reviewed journal, that same journal often prints responses or comments in a "Letters" section. That section doesn't require peer-review (other than basic editorial review) and is typically provided free of charge by the journal.

What makes the Bentham journals even more of a joke than they are, is that when R.Mackey originally wrote a few comments against one of their papers and inquired about having those published as a rebuttal, they wanted to charge him the same $800 publishing fee as the original authors.

What rubbish.

[ElMondoHummus]

are comments on published papers normally peer reviewed themselves? (like steve and bill imply?)
wouldnt this result in never ending peer review process?

No. They're not. The responses to Zdenek Bazant's work and his replies in turn demonstrates this. If I remember correctly, they appeared as letters to the editor of the journal he published in. I don't remember the link to this, so if someone else has it, feel free to post it.

[Macgyver1968]

I'm still waiting for those links!!

http://ninecooks.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/beefhotlinks.jpg

Sorry...couldn't resist :)

[TruthersLie]

Oh...so he didn't get his findings published! That's unfortunate. Seems if this is such a big thing he should send his research to a journal to have it peer reviewed and published so other scientists can see his findings and comment on it.

Otherwise it's just a forum posting that has zero relevance in the real world.

Hey if it's so easy to publish in these so-called "sham vanity journals" then sunstealer should have an easy time getting it accepted. Hey with all the JREF cult members here, if you each donated 5 bucks you could easily come up with the $800 to have it published in the same journal, and according to JREF you would not even have to worry about peer review.

OH poor twoof...

why would anyone want to waste $800 to debunk a craptacular journal (sham)?

I'd be embarassed to have ANY Bentham publication on my CV. (and I do have 3 peer reviewed journal articles on my CV... and I didn't have to pay for ANY of them...

Sunstealers critique is just as "peer reviewed" and accepted as anything from Bentham...

try again twoof.

[TruthersLie]

You realize that bentham never published that fake article, they contacted the people who wrote that fake article in an attempt to find out exactly who they were. Seems like Bentham did a great job in preventing a fake article from being published.

A forum post is not a legitemate journal/publication of any kind, if the information he has is valid then it will stand up to peer review and get published and then stand up again to peer review from all the scientist that will then see his information.

The only reason to keep it hidden here on JREF is because he knows it will not be accepted, and better to pretend he doesn't have to have it published than to have to face rejection and all that means.

hahahahahahaha

ROFLMAO.

Yes, Bentham KNEW it was a sham and was trying to "catch them."
ROFLMAO.

It was a nice attempt to cover up their SHAM.

Nice try twoof.
lithium bicarbonate is your friend. try again.

[TruthersLie]

links please :)

provide yours... those 1000 NSA agents... I still want to see that link

[Audible Click]

I could type "I want the link too." in a great big font but I'll refrain from doing that. Your requests for links is laughable SA because you never provided any link to the, supposedly, leaked article about the 1,000 paid shills.

[TruthersLie]

Links please:)

Thank you. OH poor butthurt twoof. Your spam has now been reported. Have a nice suspension (one can hope).

[TruthersLie]

ROFL, you obviously missed reading the other thread where 20 or so JREF cult member did the exact same thing over and over and over and over again. LOL so you are making fun of your own cult members here.

Oh and BTW...

Where is that link? :)

The exact same thread where for over 15 pages you DIDN'T PROVIDE a citaiton to your claim.

I'm still waiting for YOU TO PROVIDE ONE.

[TruthersLie]

Because there has been no legitemate rebuttal of the peer reviewed journal article that came forward with the findings

There was no legitimate paper published in a peer reviewed journal which shows that thermite was found.

So then there doesn't need to be a "peer reviewed" rebuttal of the crap that you twoofs try to sell.

Once you get into a REAL journal, then we can talk. I'm still waiting.

[TruthersLie]

Anyone can beat a dead horse- but it takes a troofer to milk one.;)

they are so dumb they think it is milk.

p.s. that horse is male. :confused:

[Tricky]

Please do not flood the forum with identical posts. If someone is flooding the forum this way, please don't flood it more by quoting it. Thank you.

Tricky

[beachnut]

...

Steven E. Jones, Ph.D., Physics Professor Emeritus, Brigham Young University, brilliantly presents his carefully researched new discoveries made as he analyzed the dust from the World Trade Center high-rises on 9/11.

... “the loaded gun of 9/11”. The beauty of the photos and the depth of understanding are breathtaking.

...
You post fraud on sale for 21.65. A DVD of fiction with a delusional conclusion. Where is the Pulitzer Prize for Jone breaking the big "loaded gun"? You posted a joke when you need facts and evidence.

Jones, fired for making up lies about 911! He is not brilliant, he is a fallen physicist who makes up lies about 911 and you fall for his moronic rant.

[Slayhamlet]

Note the classic disinformation tactics used here. Bill commented on the anthrax as an example of grinding something down to the nanometer size (and also at the same time point out another flaw in the Official Conspiracy Theory with regards to anthrax). So dave takes this as his chance to purposely misrepresent what Bill has said so that dave can then insult/ridicule/smear



:)

Please explain how anthrax, a bacterium, is ground down to nanometer size. Be specific. The fact is that neither you nor Bill has any idea what he's talking about. This is, as we all know, quite typical for "Truthers".

[Justin39640]

Please explain how anthrax, a bacterium, is ground down to nanometer size. Be specific. The fact is that neither you nor Bill has any idea what he's talking about. This is, as we all know, quite typical for "Truthers".

i dont think they quite grasped the idea that anthrax is alive (and still on tour lol)

[T.A.M.]

LOL if you could only hear me laugh when I am here reading JREF, but of course that would not fit in with your smear in saying i'm whining.

Maybe next time someone asks me for a link or for evidence I can do exactly what you have done here and say they are whining?? Yes?? No??

Do you laugh when you stop and realize how pathetic your movement is? How in nearly a decade you have been able to convince a few hundred young men, and a few hundred "nutty professors"? Do you laugh then?

Do you laugh when you realize that you could be at this all of the remaining days of your life, and you WILL NEVER get any further, convince no more then a handful of nuts, of your ridiculous theories?

Do you laugh then? No? That's ok, because at those times, I AM LAUGHING AT YOU, FOR YOU!

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Expecting a "legitimate rebuttal" to the thermite "paper" in the Bentham "journal", is kind of like expecting a "legitimate rebuttal" to your highschool science essay that postulated the same.

you cannot expect an answer when no one is listening.

TAM:)

[leftysergeant]

Since the chain of custody argument is often given, does this mean you guys think Jones and Harrit actually spiked the dust? This would be hard to believe; they may be wrong, they may be a bit crazy, but surely they are honest men, no?

In as much as Jones started from the lie that there was molten metal under the rubble pile, after hearing it from a Nazi, and since he allowed himself to be seen and photographed comparing notes with that same Nazi, I must say that their integrity is utterly in the toilet.

[T.A.M.]

Please explain how anthrax, a bacterium, is ground down to nanometer size. Be specific. The fact is that neither you nor Bill has any idea what he's talking about. This is, as we all know, quite typical for "Truthers".

I haven't been following the "Anthrax" angle of this thread (I have bill on ignore still), but the above sounds quite silly.

nano particles of Bacillus anthracis would be a great first step in a vaccine, but it would be the exact opposite to what you would do if you wished to give people anthrax.

fact:

Bacillus anthracis are LARGE rods. they average 3-5 micrometers in length, and 1-1.2 micrometers in width. (1 micrometer = 1000 nanometers) so they are hardly nano themselves. once "ground" they are useless except, as I have said before, perhaps as a form of vaccination (though incredibly crude in this context as well).

As for how they would be "ground" into such, I would be very interested in hearing the details.

TAM:)

[Justin39640]

That is correct question.

When a paper is published in a peer-reviewed journal, that same journal often prints responses or comments in a "Letters" section. That section doesn't require peer-review (other than basic editorial review) and is typically provided free of charge by the journal.

What makes the Bentham journals even more of a joke than they are, is that when R.Mackey originally wrote a few comments against one of their papers and inquired about having those published as a rebuttal, they wanted to charge him the same $800 publishing fee as the original authors.

What rubbish.

No. They're not. The responses to Zdenek Bazant's work and his replies in turn demonstrates this. If I remember correctly, they appeared as letters to the editor of the journal he published in. I don't remember the link to this, so if someone else has it, feel free to post it.

ah thanks
thats what i thought
i have often seen truthers say (like someone did before) "why are there no peer reviewed rebuttals published"
it didnt make sense to me (seeing who said it, i wonder why it would :rolleyes) but i wasnt sure


thank you again

[Justin39640]

I haven't been following the "Anthrax" angle of this thread (I have bill on ignore still), but the above sounds quite silly.

nano particles of Bacillus anthracis would be a great first step in a vaccine, but it would be the exact opposite to what you would do if you wished to give people anthrax.

fact:

Bacillus anthracis are LARGE rods. they average 3-5 micrometers in length, and 1-1.2 micrometers in width. (1 micrometer = 1000 nanometers) so they are hardly nano themselves. once "ground" they are useless except, as I have said before, perhaps as a form of vaccination (though incredibly crude in this context as well).

As for how they would be "ground" into such, I would be very interested in hearing the details.

TAM:)
bill is comedy gold
like someone said before its like he just takes a whole mess of words and types them randomly
he might just be that monkey in the room full of a million monkeys

[Arus808]

This is nothing more than an argument from incredulity


Nothing in my statemen is an "argument from incredulity". YOU need to read up on the definition of the logical fallacy that you are trying to point out.

So far, the only person to argue from incredulity is you, as demonstrated by your lack of comprehension.

[KJC]

links please :)

You are asking this in response to the comment that Steven Jones is a proven fraud and liar.

You really need to ask?

Steven Jones claimed that jets of dust were seen in the top corner of WTC7 when it collapsed, even though these magical jets of dust went down with the building as opposed to hanging in the air.

Steven Jones claimed that fire fighters were able to hover their faces above a river of LIQUID STEEL.

Steven Jones claimed that concrete pulverization is proof of explosives... even though explosives don't pulverize concrete, especially when they aren't drilled into concrete.

Steven Jones claimed that tons of steel columns being thrown hundreds of feet could only have happened via the use of explosives. Tell me what kind of explosive powerful enough to throw tons of steel hundreds of feet and not deafen those within mere yards of the explosion?

Steven Jones dropped a concrete block 12 feet and thought he proved why there should be no pulverization in the collapse of a 110 story building.

Steven Jones claimed that a cut column at ground zero was proof of a controlled demolition even though we know for certain that these columns were cut in the cleanup operation.

I could probably go on for thousands more words, but I think I've made my point perfectly clear and you can not refute a single thing of what I've said.

[cyclonic]

Steven jones didn't even know how to operate a cigarette lighter,think about it, a science professor who didn't know how to flick a lighter!

a0kWya_oVC8

[Brainster]

I watched a couple of the segments on YouTube; I loved Janice McKinlay's picture of her "dust", showing it completely uncovered.

[triforcharity]

FANTASTIC video Cyclonic!! Especially when the firefighter picks up the "molten metal light source" (read: Halogen light) and moves it. That alone is PRICELESS!!

[~enigma~]

i dont think they quite grasped the idea that anthrax is alive (and still on tour lol)
And strangely enough their discography is playing on my computer :)

[Dog Town]

Steven jones didn't even know how to operate a cigarette lighter,think about it, a science professor who didn't know how to flick a lighter!

I like the "it's probably butane" line. Ya think? Not a Zippo there, Dr.Jones!

[Justin39640]

And strangely enough their discography is playing on my computer :)

lol yes mine is infected too
"talking to you is like clapping with one hand" fitting lyric for the thread id say lol

[~enigma~]

lol yes mine is infected too
"talking to you is like clapping with one hand" fitting lyric for the thread id say lol
Yes, seems that Scott wrote about the TM before they were thought of.

[ref]

Jones presents the controversial new article in the peer-reviewed “Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal” – the result of 18 months of intensive scientific collaboration – exposing “the loaded gun of 9/11”.


When did they switch they catch phrase from "smoking gun" to "loaded gun"?

[Dave Rogers]

If you want to be stupid about it Dave

I wouldn't want to compete.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

Why on Earth would a quiet Mormon Physics professor want to invent an exotic explosive at the WTC if it were not true ? What possible point could there be to it ? He lost his job and has been castigated by the intelligentia for years now. Don't tell me- he is crazy too ?

That's the argumentum ad vericudinam fallacy, isn't it?

I neither know nor care why Jones tells lies. I only comment that he does. Insanity seems quite likely, though, because nobody with a decent education and basic intelligence could believe his fantasies without a considerable measure of self-delusion.

Dave

[SteveAustin]

What claim? "Peer Review"? The publisher has no "peer review" process as it is known fo anyone with first-hand familiarity with the term. Letting the author pick the reviewers is not "peer review".

That's not evidence,that's just another unfounded claim.

[SteveAustin]

The correct process is to verify with the scientific community FIRST before publishing a DVD. They short circuited correct procedure.

Where is this process, this correct procedure you speak of listed?

[~enigma~]

Where is this process, this correct procedure you speak of listed?
what?

[SteveAustin]

OH poor twoof...

why would anyone want to waste $800 to debunk a craptacular journal (sham)?

I'd be embarassed to have ANY Bentham publication on my CV. (and I do have 3 peer reviewed journal articles on my CV... and I didn't have to pay for ANY of them...

Sunstealers critique is just as "peer reviewed" and accepted as anything from Bentham...

try again twoof.

When you continue to be this dishonest it's no wonder that JREF has become the laughingstock it is

[SteveAustin]

hahahahahahaha

ROFLMAO.

Yes, Bentham KNEW it was a sham and was trying to "catch them."
ROFLMAO.

It was a nice attempt to cover up their SHAM.

Nice try twoof.
lithium bicarbonate is your friend. try again.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17288-spoof-paper-accepted-by-peerreviewed-journal.html

"Mahmood Alam, Bentham's director of publications, responded to queries from New Scientist by email: "In this particular case we were aware that the article submitted was a hoax, and we tried to find out the identity of the individual by pretending the article had been accepted for publication when in fact it was not." "

so sorry there mr. lie, but you are wrong again

[SteveAustin]

provide yours... those 1000 NSA agents... I still want to see that link
I could type "I want the link too." in a great big font but I'll refrain from doing that. Your requests for links is laughable SA because you never provided any link to the, supposedly, leaked article about the 1,000 paid shills.

This repeated and repeated dishonesty by every JREF "debunker" just show everyone else that JREF is not a place to come to get the truth.

[SteveAustin]

Expecting a "legitimate rebuttal" to the thermite "paper" in the Bentham "journal", is kind of like expecting a "legitimate rebuttal" to your highschool science essay that postulated the same.

you cannot expect an answer when no one is listening.

TAM:)

More excuses for not having a legitemate rebuttal from your sad movement there eh TAM!

[T.A.M.]

More excuses for not having a legitemate rebuttal from your sad movement there eh TAM!

Like I said, if no one in the legitimate scientific community even knows the paper exists, where am I to get a "legitimate rebuttal" to provide you? Am I a chemist, or a physicist? Am I a material scientist?

Are you stupid? I ask, because the above is so plain and simple, that for me to have to repeat it twice indicates you are either (A) simple, or (B) purposely ignorant.

Take your pick.

TAM:)

[TruthersLie]

When you continue to be this dishonest it's no wonder that JREF has become the laughingstock it is

Oh poor twoof. LOOK IT UP.

Bentham and peer review. Feel free.

and unlike you, I do provide citations.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2009/06/hoax-exposes-incompetence-or-worse-at.html

(now you see all of those blue words, they are links to other sources they cite. Try to read them.)

Where is that citation you claim again stevie?

[TruthersLie]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17288-spoof-paper-accepted-by-peerreviewed-journal.html

"Mahmood Alam, Bentham's director of publications, responded to queries from New Scientist by email: "In this particular case we were aware that the article submitted was a hoax, and we tried to find out the identity of the individual by pretending the article had been accepted for publication when in fact it was not." "

so sorry there mr. lie, but you are wrong again

Oh twoof.
Being calleda LIAR by such an accomplished one is an amazing honor.

But of course what else do we expect... they get nailed for their craptacular peer review, they get embarassed after accepting the paper (and sending the recommendations of the PEER REVIEWERS), so they wait a week, and try to play up the "yea I knew you were doing that."

ROFLMAO.
Poor widdle stevie... You can't even get into a ****** vanity journal w/out screwing it up.

wonderful fantastic journal there twoof.

I'll take JEM, journal of fracture, structural engineering journals.

why can't you get JUST ONE SIMPLE article through ANY respected journal?

A P.O. Box in Dubai... amazing that...

[TruthersLie]

This repeated and repeated dishonesty by every JREF "debunker" just show everyone else that JREF is not a place to come to get the truth.

particularly when you make up stuff, and then don't provide a single citation to support it twoof.

[TruthersLie]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17288-spoof-paper-accepted-by-peerreviewed-journal.html

"Mahmood Alam, Bentham's director of publications, responded to queries from New Scientist by email: "In this particular case we were aware that the article submitted was a hoax, and we tried to find out the identity of the individual by pretending the article had been accepted for publication when in fact it was not." "

so sorry there mr. lie, but you are wrong again

They were attempting to find out their identity? They could easily have gotten more information. Or they could just look and find the real names.

why did that journal editor quit in disgust and shame if they were trying to OUT a hoax? Huh twoof?

considering that editor NEVER SAW THAT PAPER either. How can a journal know of a hoax and be willing to STING the hoaxer, if the head editor doesn't know about it? (sounds like that other bentham head editor who didn't know about a journal article... oh yea bentham open chemical physics Nanocrap article)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/jun/18/science-editor-resigns-hoax-article

try again stevie.... this time with facts.
The level of peer review at bentham is equal to "did the check clear?"

[boloboffin]

Successful troll is successful.

[FineWine]

More excuses for not having a legitemate rebuttal from your sad movement there eh TAM!


Why do you prefer braying mindlessly to making the effort to read what Sunstealer, a materials scientist, has written about Jones and his fellow frauds? Over three different threads, he has presented a magisterial refutation of the sort of pseudo-science that makes you aggressive know-nothings go gaga, but somehow never makes a stir in the real world.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140363

Pssst! You prefer braying mindlessly to reading because you are a "truther.'

[A W Smith]

They were attempting to find out their identity? They could easily have gotten more information. Or they could just look and find the real names.

why did that journal editor quit in disgust and shame if they were trying to OUT a hoax? Huh twoof?

considering that editor NEVER SAW THAT PAPER either. How can a journal know of a hoax and be willing to STING the hoaxer, if the head editor doesn't know about it? (sounds like that other bentham head editor who didn't know about a journal article... oh yea bentham open chemical physics Nanocrap article)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/jun/18/science-editor-resigns-hoax-article

try again stevie.... this time with facts.
The level of peer review at bentham is equal to "did the check clear?"

I guess they forgot to look at the $800.00 check for the name imprint. So they had to fake follow through to catch the miscreant.

[uk_dave]

".... Any idiot can start a journal on the web."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/jun/18/science-editor-resigns-hoax-article

And steven jones is that idiot.

[9/11-investigator]

New article by Bollyn on the subject of nano-thermite:

http://www.bollyn.com/911#article_11253

Who made the nano-thermite material and who put it into the twin towers? Finding the answer to these questions will reveal the true culprits of the mass murder of September 11, 2001. This is the focus of my work at this point.

http://www.bollyn.com/public/NIST_AML.jpg
NIST's Gaithersberg campus has a huge state-of-the-art facility dedicated solely to nano-tech fabrication and research. Why has NIST not joined the effort to identify the origin of the nano-thermite chips found in the dust of the twin towers? Why is NIST ignoring the evidence of nano-thermite in the World Trade Center?

[9/11-investigator]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/jun/18/science-editor-resigns-hoax-article

And steven jones is that idiot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones

Jones earned his bachelor's degree in physics, magna cum laude, from Brigham Young University in 1973, and his Ph.D. in physics from Vanderbilt University in 1978. Jones conducted his Ph.D. research at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (from 1974 to 1977), and post-doctoral research at Cornell University and the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility.

He was principal investigator for experimental muon-catalyzed fusion from 1982 to 1991 for the U.S. Department of Energy, Division of Advanced Energy Projects.

But if Jones is an 'idiot' I am very curious to learn about the credentials of 'uk_dave' himself. They must be stellar.

[FineWine]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones

Jones earned his bachelor's degree in physics, magna cum laude, from Brigham Young University in 1973, and his Ph.D. in physics from Vanderbilt University in 1978. Jones conducted his Ph.D. research at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (from 1974 to 1977), and post-doctoral research at Cornell University and the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility.

He was principal investigator for experimental muon-catalyzed fusion from 1982 to 1991 for the U.S. Department of Energy, Division of Advanced Energy Projects.

But if Jones is an 'idiot' I am very curious to learn about the credentials of 'uk_dave' himself. They must be stellar.


Tell us more about Jones's work on cold fusion and his paper on Jesus in the Americas. Tell us about the rebuke his own department issued to Jones for failing to maintain professional standards. Tell us why Jones and his accomplices refuse to submit their samples to independent labs.

[BigAl]

Why is NIST ignoring the evidence of nano-thermite in the World Trade Center?[/I]

Because Jones hasn't asked them? He hasn't asked anyone. Only Jones claims to have samples of something he says is evidence for (but isn't) nano-thermite.

[NutCracker]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones

Jones earned his bachelor's degree in physics, magna cum laude, from Brigham Young University in 1973, and his Ph.D. in physics from Vanderbilt University in 1978. Jones conducted his Ph.D. research at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (from 1974 to 1977), and post-doctoral research at Cornell University and the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility.

He was principal investigator for experimental muon-catalyzed fusion from 1982 to 1991 for the U.S. Department of Energy, Division of Advanced Energy Projects.

But if Jones is an 'idiot' I am very curious to learn about the credentials of 'uk_dave' himself. They must be stellar.

And when we evaluate his more recent writings we indeed see that the deer professor is an idiot.

[jhunter1163]

New article by Bollyn on the subject of nano-thermite:

http://www.bollyn.com/911#article_11253

Who made the nano-thermite material and who put it into the twin towers? Finding the answer to these questions will reveal the true culprits of the mass murder of September 11, 2001. This is the focus of my work at this point.

http://www.bollyn.com/public/NIST_AML.jpg
NIST's Gaithersberg campus has a huge state-of-the-art facility dedicated solely to nano-tech fabrication and research. Why has NIST not joined the effort to identify the origin of the nano-thermite chips found in the dust of the twin towers? Why is NIST ignoring the evidence of nano-thermite in the World Trade Center?

Because, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, there IS no evidence for thermite of any kind, nano- or otherwise, in the WTC dust. Sunstealer has thoroughly debunked the entire nano-thermite concept. Go ahead and invite your pal Jones to look at Sunstealer's work and see if he can find any flaws. I'll wait*.

* - For a long time, I'll wager.

[T.A.M.]

And when we evaluate his more recent writings we indeed see that the deer professor is an idiot.

I thought he was a physicist, not a biologist:D

TAM;)

[9/11-investigator]

I'll wait*.

You do that.

[9/11-investigator]

I thought he was a physicist, not a biologist:D

TAM;)

NutCracker is probably dreaming of ******** the professor.

Edited for beach of Rule 2.

[beachnut]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones

Jones earned his bachelor's degree in physics, magna cum laude, from Brigham Young University in 1973, and his Ph.D. in physics from Vanderbilt University in 1978. Jones conducted his Ph.D. research at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (from 1974 to 1977), and post-doctoral research at Cornell University and the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility.

He was principal investigator for experimental muon-catalyzed fusion from 1982 to 1991 for the U.S. Department of Energy, Division of Advanced Energy Projects.

But if Jones is an 'idiot' I am very curious to learn about the credentials of 'uk_dave' himself. They must be stellar. Jones makes up lies; how smart are people who fall for his lies?

Jones made up thermite and tells lies which got him fired from his job. Cool, he went nuts after being so smart. At least he has his Christ was walking around North America book to keep him on the BYU good side after they fired him for making up delusions about 911 like you do.

Jones makes up lies and you fall for them; he is smarter than those who believe his lies.

[9/11-investigator]

Because Jones hasn't asked them? He hasn't asked anyone. Only Jones claims to have samples of something he says is evidence for (but isn't) nano-thermite.

Should he? The claim that thermite was used was a very early one (remember the video with that orange molten stuff squirting out of a WTC tower). NIST should have investigated that out of it's own inducement not because Jones should have asked.

But NIST was not interested in finding the truth; it was paid to cover up.

[FineWine]

Should he? The claim that thermite was used was a very early one (remember the video with that orange molten stuff squirting out of a WTC tower). NIST should have investigated that out of it's own inducement not because Jones should have asked.

But NIST was not interested in finding the truth; it was paid to cover up.


You've been caught lying again. Nobody paid the thousand physicists, structural engineers, fire safety experts, architects, and metallurgists consulted by NIST to cover-up anything.

There was no thermite in the towers. Evidence for the substance is nonexistent. Go back to Holocaust denial.

[BigAl]

Should he? The claim that thermite was used was a very early one (remember the video with that orange molten stuff squirting out of a WTC tower). NIST should have investigated that out of it's own inducement not because Jones should have asked.


Wrong. Original claims were for thermite/thermate and there was no evidence. The claims were found to be baseless.

Jones found invented nano-thermite in some dust given to him much more recently.

[9/11-investigator]

Jones made up thermite and tells lies which got him fired from his job. Cool, he went nuts after being so smart. At least he has his Christ was walking around North America book to keep him on the BYU good side after they fired him for making up delusions about 911 like you do.

Jones makes up lies and you fall for them; he is smarter than those who believe his lies.

Chapeau, another post without using the phrase 'dirt dumb'!

I must remind my esteemed opponents (that includes FineWine) that America is still Christian (much more than Europe). Now I am not holding that against America but you are going beyond your depth drawing conclusions from his biblical studies. It could easily backfire against America as a whole.

[NutCracker]

I thought he was a physicist, not a biologist:D

TAM;)

As a biologist at least he would be excused. :)

[beachnut]

Chapeau, another post without using the phrase 'dirt dumb'!

I must remind my esteemed opponents (that includes FineWine) that America is still Christian (much more than Europe). Now I am not holding that against America but you are going beyond your depth drawing conclusions from his biblical studies. It could easily backfire against America as a whole.
You present Jones as an expert but he has no clue on 911 issues. He has written a book about Jesus in North America and he worked on Cold Fusion. You support the idiotic ideas of Jones with no ability to support his dirt dumb conclusions. Just like your Holocaust denial, your willful ignorance on 911 is exposed on each post.

[9/11-investigator]

You present Jones as an expert but he has no clue on 911 issues. He has written a book about Jesus in North America and he worked on Cold Fusion.

Many physicists jumped on cold fusion when Fleischmann and Pons presented their results. Very understandably so considering the dire energy situation the planet is in.

You support the idiotic ideas of Jones with no ability to support his dirt dumb conclusions.

A regrettable fallback into old bad habits...

[NutCracker]

NutCracker is probably dreaming of ******** the professor.
Moderated content removed.

Your words, entirely. Now, do this words tell something about me, or something about you?

[BigAl]

Many physicists jumped on cold fusion when Fleischmann and Pons presented their results.

In the sense that any large number of physicists uncritically accept the claim, no.

[Grizzly Bear]

Why is NIST ignoring the evidence of nano-thermite in the World Trade Center?[/I]

It's not possible to investigate and find results for something that was non-existent anywhere in the debris pile.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones

[I]Jones earned his bachelor's degree in physics, magna cum laude, from Brigham Young University in 1973, and his Ph.D.

<snip>

But if Jones is an 'idiot' I am very curious to learn about the credentials of 'uk_dave' himself. They must be stellar.

Woopedy doo, I graduated with cum Laude a few months ago with a bachelors in Arts and Architecture. Not a soul would give a rat's ass about my accomplishments if I were either incapable of demonstrating proper standard of professional practice or if I engaged in making fraudulent claims that place priority in conspiracy loony. That said, Jone's education is irrelevant to what he's participating in today :)

Nothing personal...

[9/11-investigator]

Your words, entirely. Now, do this words tell something about me, or something about you?

You do understand that I was milking your deer typo I hope?

Nothing serious, just relax...

[9/11-investigator]

In the sense that any large number of physicists uncritically accept the claim, no.

From the same wikipedia link:

A New York Times article says that while peer reviewers were quite critical of Pons and Fleishchmann's research they did not apply such criticism to Jones' much more modest, theoretically supported findings. Although critics insisted that his results likely stemmed from experimental error,[9] most of the reviewing physicists indicated that he was a careful scientist. Later research and experiments supported the metallic cold fusion reports by Jones.

I remember how exited I was about the Fleischmann and Pons results.

[beachnut]

Many physicists jumped on cold fusion when Fleischmann and Pons presented their results. Very understandably so considering the dire energy situation the planet is in.



A regrettable fallback into old bad habits...

We are the Saudi Arabia of Coal so the dire energy situation is? Jones made up thermite so the cold fusion expertise of Jones failed to help him in his nut case department of delusions to fool neoNAZIs who deny the Holocaust.

Your current habit you practice in each evidence free post is spreading unsupported lies that are dirt dumb like Jones thermite fraud. And there is not a thing you can do to help Jones madness.

[Justin39640]

You do understand that I was milking your deer typo I hope?

Nothing serious, just relax...

maybe he was just comparing steven jones to a dumb smelly animal that ***** on its own heels lol

[BigAl]

From the same wikipedia link:

A New York Times article says that while peer reviewers were quite critical of Pons and Fleishchmann's research they did not apply such criticism to Jones' much more modest, theoretically supported findings. Although critics insisted that his results likely stemmed from experimental error,[9] most of the reviewing physicists indicated that he was a careful scientist. Later research and experiments supported the metallic cold fusion reports by Jones.

I remember how exited I was about the Fleischmann and Pons results.

From the NYT article that you cited without reading.

Physicists seemed generally persuaded as the sessions ended that assertions of "cold fusion" were based on nothing more than experimental errors by scientists in Utah.
...
Physicists who have investigated Dr. Jones's report have been fairly restrained in their criticism, acknowledging that Dr. Jones is a careful scientist. But from the outset they have expressed profound skepticism of claims by Dr. Fleischmann and Dr. Pons.
...
At a news conference today, nine of the leading speakers were asked if they would now rule the Utah claim as dead. Eight said yes, and one, Dr. Johann Rafelski of the University of Arizona, withheld judgment.
...
Top physicists directed angry attacks at Dr. Pons and Dr. Fleischmann, calling them incompetent, reciting sarcastic verses about their claims and complaining that they had refused to provide details needed for follow-up experiments. A West European expert said "essentially all" West European attempts to duplicate cold fusion had failed.

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/science/050399sci-cold-fusion.html

[Juniversal]

"Here’s the one we’ve been waiting for. Currently available only from AE911Truth.

Pre-order Now – Ships Aug 12th

Watch it online now

Nanothermite: What in the World is High-tech Explosive material Doing in the Dust Clouds Generated on 9/11/2001?

This new DVD, Hot off the press, contains the dynamic multimedia presentation given by Dr. Jones in Sacramento, CA on April 30th, 2009.

Steven E. Jones, Ph.D., Physics Professor Emeritus, Brigham Young University, brilliantly presents his carefully researched new discoveries made as he analyzed the dust from the World Trade Center high-rises on 9/11.

Jones presents the controversial new article in the peer-reviewed “Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal” – the result of 18 months of intensive scientific collaboration – exposing “the loaded gun of 9/11”. The beauty of the photos and the depth of understanding are breathtaking.Steven Jones you say? The same Steven Jones that jumped to the conclusion Thermate was involved simply because sulfur was found? The same Steven Jones that took an altered photograph of fire fighters around a lamp and claimed it was fire fighters around a glowing pool of molten metal? The same Steven Jones who claimed "Nano-Thermite" magically cut a huge vertical beam at a 45 degree angle?

That guys credibility = Zero.

[George152]

In a program on Myth busters they loaded a car roof with several hundred pounds of thermite and ignited it.
When the smoke and flames had cleared away the roof of the car was only slightly damaged.
At that rate they'd have to use tons of thermite for demolishing an outside toilet.

[wicked_ways]

This repeated and repeated dishonesty by every JREF "debunker" just show everyone else that JREF is not a place to come to get the truth.

SteveAustin,

I just started reading this thread this evening. Why won't you provide the link for the story about 1000 disinfo agents? Sounds very interesting.

If there is truth in your claim about disinfo agents, then please prove those "dishonest debunkers" wrong. Thank you

[~enigma~]

Many physicists jumped on cold fusion when Fleischmann and Pons presented their results. Very understandably so considering the dire energy situation the planet is in.
And your guru Jones was appointed as referee on Pons and Fleischmann's cold fusion claim. Then Jones found as few million times less neutron emissions than was claimed by Pons and Fleischmann. It was at that point that he crossed over into scientific fraud and claimed cold fusion works. Seems he still practices fraud.

[~enigma~]

In the sense that any large number of physicists uncritically accept the claim, no.
Actually some physicists did accept the possibility. It was the chemists that sounded the first alarm.

[NutCracker]

You do understand that I was milking your deer typo I hope?

Nothing serious, just relax...


Make your humour funny rather than tasteless, I would like to advise you.

[SteveAustin]

Like I said, if no one in the legitimate scientific community even knows the paper exists, where am I to get a "legitimate rebuttal" to provide you? Am I a chemist, or a physicist? Am I a material scientist?

Are you stupid? I ask, because the above is so plain and simple, that for me to have to repeat it twice indicates you are either (A) simple, or (B) purposely ignorant.

Take your pick.

TAM:)

I wish you "debunkers" would make up your minds..

Is it that no one in the scientific community knows of these papers or is it that they all think it is garbage and not worth their time?

I understand that that second option was the one being spouted repeatedly for a long time now, but seeing as using a little commen sense shows that opinion to be pure hogwash I guess you had to change your tune!

[SteveAustin]

Oh poor twoof. LOOK IT UP.

Bentham and peer review. Feel free.

and unlike you, I do provide citations.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2009/06/hoax-exposes-incompetence-or-worse-at.html

(now you see all of those blue words, they are links to other sources they cite. Try to read them.)

Where is that citation you claim again stevie?

You know if I were an editor and I received what is obviously a crap paper I would try and find out who sent it to me, I would try and find out who attempted to submit a transparent fraud.

hmmm...

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17288-spoof-paper-accepted-by-peerreviewed-journal.html

"Mahmood Alam, Bentham's director of publications, responded to queries from New Scientist by email: "In this particular case we were aware that the article submitted was a hoax, and we tried to find out the identity of the individual by pretending the article had been accepted for publication when in fact it was not."

[16.5]

You know if I were an editor and I received what is obviously a crap paper I would try and find out who sent it to me, I would try and find out who attempted to submit a transparent fraud.

hmmm...

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17288-spoof-paper-accepted-by-peerreviewed-journal.html

"Mahmood Alam, Bentham's director of publications, responded to queries from New Scientist by email: "In this particular case we were aware that the article submitted was a hoax, and we tried to find out the identity of the individual by pretending the article had been accepted for publication when in fact it was not."

Hmmmmm, then riddle me this: if Bentham knew it was a hoax, why did they ask for the $800?

[SteveAustin]

Oh twoof.
Being calleda LIAR by such an accomplished one is an amazing honor.

But of course what else do we expect... they get nailed for their craptacular peer review, they get embarassed after accepting the paper (and sending the recommendations of the PEER REVIEWERS), so they wait a week, and try to play up the "yea I knew you were doing that."

ROFLMAO.
Poor widdle stevie... You can't even get into a ****** vanity journal w/out screwing it up.

wonderful fantastic journal there twoof.

I'll take JEM, journal of fracture, structural engineering journals.

why can't you get JUST ONE SIMPLE article through ANY respected journal?

A P.O. Box in Dubai... amazing that...

So the paper was never published and Bentham says they knew it was a crap paper and were trying to get more info on who sent it in.

Yet you do not want to believe bentham because it would ruin your opinion, and it is just that, YOUR OPINION.

Boy, arguments from incredulity rock don't they?

[~enigma~]

using a little commen sense
Obviously not as common as you think.

[Justin39640]

Hmmmmm, then riddle me this: if Bentham knew it was a hoax, why did they ask for the $800?

by getting a check and cashing it they would know for sure of course
and of course - no refunds! lol

ETA: and if they knew no one would have quit in shame

[BigAl]

Actually some physicists did accept the possibility. It was the chemists that sounded the first alarm.

Yup. *some* did. The claim was that lots or most did, and 9/11-investigator cited a NYT story that really contradicted his claim.

[SteveAustin]

This repeated and repeated dishonesty by every JREF "debunker" just show everyone else that JREF is not a place to come to get the truth.

particularly when you make up stuff, and then don't provide a single citation to support it twoof.

See what I mean, JREF "debunkers" rely on simiply repeating falsehoods in the hopes that eventually people will believe them

[dtugg]

If I was the publisher of a sham journal that will publish literally anything and the journal's non existent peer review was exposed, I would probably tell a pathetic lie in order to fool some idiots.

And Stone Cold, why did an editor quit over the nonsensical computer generated article that was approved for publication if they were just trying to catch who submitted it?

[~enigma~]

Yup. *some* did. The claim was that lots or most did, and 9/11-investigator cited a NYT story that really contradicted his claim.
Never understood why though. Within hours of the announcement by Pons and Fleischmann we had an equation written that accounted for all the energy without fusion. Eventually Pons and Fleischmann "disappeared" and forgot about their foolishness but some idiots like Jones still believe in the disproven witchcraft.

[newton3376]

You know if I were an editor and I received what is obviously a crap paper I would try and find out who sent it to me, I would try and find out who attempted to submit a transparent fraud.

hmmm...

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17288-spoof-paper-accepted-by-peerreviewed-journal.html

"Mahmood Alam, Bentham's director of publications, responded to queries from New Scientist by email: "In this particular case we were aware that the article submitted was a hoax, and we tried to find out the identity of the individual by pretending the article had been accepted for publication when in fact it was not."

:dl:

Yeah.....they were pretending it was accepted :oldroll:

Are you truthers serious? After all of that investi-googling I would think you would be able to spot a real conspiracy when you see one.....

but, alas, I have once again expected too much from "truthers"....

[SteveAustin]

They were attempting to find out their identity? They could easily have gotten more information. Or they could just look and find the real names.

why did that journal editor quit in disgust and shame if they were trying to OUT a hoax? Huh twoof?

considering that editor NEVER SAW THAT PAPER either. How can a journal know of a hoax and be willing to STING the hoaxer, if the head editor doesn't know about it? (sounds like that other bentham head editor who didn't know about a journal article... oh yea bentham open chemical physics Nanocrap article)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/jun/18/science-editor-resigns-hoax-article

try again stevie.... this time with facts.
The level of peer review at bentham is equal to "did the check clear?"

Oh you mean that editor that lied about her own expertise and background?

You mean this one?

http://www.911blogger.com/node/19963

"The editor in chief of the journal where recently the paper: "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe" was published, resigned, claiming she wasn't informed of the publication. She proceeds to provide not a single solid scientific rebuttal, only administrative bickering and personal political bias against, well.. inconvenient science. One particularly notable comment attributed to Ms. Pileni is this one: "Marie-Paule Pileni points out that because the topic lies outside her field of expertise, she cannot judge whether the article in itself is good or bad.".

Strangely, her areas of research seem to contradict that. I'll quote you an excerpt of her resume:

OTHER ACTIVITIES
1990-1992: Chairperson on workshops related to the French Defense research.
1989-1992: Consultant at the Minister of Recherche concerning the National Defense 1989: Member of the “Institut des Hautes Etudes de Défense Européenne”.
1987-1988: Member of the ’“Institut des Hautes Etudes de Défense Nationale” (IHEDN)1984-1986: Member of National exam in Chemistry

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERSHIP
2006: Accounts of Chemical Research, American Chemical Society.
Journal of experimental nanosciences, Publisher Taylor&Francis.
2002: Journal of Physical Chemistry, Board member, American Chemical Society.

CONSULTING EXPERIENCE
1990-1994: Société Nationale des Poudres et Explosifs, SNPE, France (Literally translated: National Society of Powders and Explosives)

LABORATORY MANAGEMENT
2001: Laboratoire des matériaux mésoscopiques et nanomètriques, LM2N.
1992-2000: Structure et réactivité des systèmes interfaciaux, SRI. (Literally translated: Structure and reactivity of interfacial systems)

Interesting. Firm ties with the French/European military industrial complex. Experience with explosives and nanotechnology. It's reasonable to assume Ms. Pileni is familiar with nano-explosives. So Ms. Pileni's contention that "the topic lies outside my field of expertise" is false. Why would a nanotechnology expert and former consultant for the SNPE not want to comment on a paper discussing nano-thermitic explosives? A paper which caused her to resign? Puzzling."

[A W Smith]

You know if I were an editor and I received what is obviously a crap paper I would try and find out who sent it to me, I would try and find out who attempted to submit a transparent fraud.

hmmm...

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17288-spoof-paper-accepted-by-peerreviewed-journal.html

"Mahmood Alam, Bentham's director of publications, responded to queries from New Scientist by email: "In this particular case we were aware that the article submitted was a hoax, and we tried to find out the identity of the individual by pretending the article had been accepted for publication when in fact it was not."


Or they could have just looked at who sent them the $800.00 check. But they probably no longer had a record of it since they rushed to the bank as soon as they got it.
:dl:

It is fairly obvious that Mahmood Alam is just covering his ass so as not to look like the fools they are.


If I were the editor. i would simply not accept the paper. why bother wasting time and resources pretending to accept the paper? Just ignore it.

[SteveAustin]

Why do you prefer braying mindlessly to making the effort to read what Sunstealer, a materials scientist, has written about Jones and his fellow frauds? Over three different threads, he has presented a magisterial refutation of the sort of pseudo-science that makes you aggressive know-nothings go gaga, but somehow never makes a stir in the real world.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140363

Pssst! You prefer braying mindlessly to reading because you are a "truther.'

Has he managed to have it published in a peer reviewed journal? What's that? No? Then why would I bother reading a forum poster from some anonymous guy? Especially when much of what he says was already discredited in the paper itself.

[SteveAustin]

But if Jones is an 'idiot' I am very curious to learn about the credentials of 'uk_dave' himself. They must be stellar.

LOL, it's the classic JREF cult tactic, don't attack the argument because you can't simply attack the arguer!

[SteveAustin]

Because Jones hasn't asked them? He hasn't asked anyone. Only Jones claims to have samples of something he says is evidence for (but isn't) nano-thermite.

So are you trying to say that NIST, with their "completely thorough" investigation do not have any dust samples and have to rely on a private citizen to supply it to them?

How thorough was the NIST investigation again?

[A W Smith]

Has he managed to have it published in a peer reviewed journal? What's that? No? Then why would I bother reading a forum poster<sic> from some anonymous guy? Especially when much of what he says was already discredited in the paper itself.


Why not Steve-0? you read and respond to pretty much everything else. How would you know he's been discredited when you haven't even read it? Show us what points exactly have been discredited.
Links Please!!

[dtugg]

Has he managed to have it published in a peer reviewed journal? What's that? No? Then why would I bother reading a forum poster from some anonymous guy? Especially when much of what he says was already discredited in the paper itself.

Your gurus have never published their garbage in a peer reviewed journal either. And besides, I doubt it would even be worth it to publish a rebuttal to those frauds in a journal. It's not as if there is any real controversy. The only people that take them seriously are a small group of morons.

[~enigma~]

But if Jones is an 'idiot' I am very curious to learn about the credentials of 'uk_dave' himself.
There was a time that even you were a nice, innocent baby but things change. Same way Jones was once a good scientist but in the 80s he stepped over the line into scientific fraud so uk_dave's use of idiot is a bit light. Jones is a piece of garbage.

[SteveAustin]

Because, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, there IS no evidence for thermite of any kind, nano- or otherwise, in the WTC dust. Sunstealer has thoroughly debunked the entire nano-thermite concept. Go ahead and invite your pal Jones to look at Sunstealer's work and see if he can find any flaws. I'll wait*.

* - For a long time, I'll wager.

Then it should be no problem for him to get his paper published. Heck he doesn't have to publish it in Bentham, he can choose any other publication where he does not have to pay for it himself.

So let him publish it and allow the world to see his information, otherwise it is nothing more than unproven hot air.

[A W Smith]

Then it should be no problem for him to get his paper published. Heck he doesn't have to publish it in Bentham, he can choose any other publication where he does not have to pay for it himself.

So let him publish it and allow the world to see his information, otherwise it is nothing more than unproven hot air.


why should he publish a paper in rebuttal to a paper that hasn't been published itself yet?

[dtugg]

Hey Stone Cold, what do you have to say about your guru's revelation that the superdupernanothem*te was only a fuse for conventional exposives? Does this sound plausible to you?

[SteveAustin]

You've been caught lying again. Nobody paid the thousand physicists, structural engineers, fire safety experts, architects, and metallurgists consulted by NIST to cover-up anything.

So they worked for free? How does that work exactly.

BTW can you list the "thousand physicists, structural engineers, fire safety experts, architects, and metallurgists who were consulted by NIST"?

There was no thermite in the towers. Evidence for the substance is nonexistent. Go back to Holocaust denial.

Evidence for the substance is in a non-debunked, non-challenged peer reviewed scientific journal.

You denials will not change reality. An anonymous forum poster making a forum post on some obscure sub-forum does not constitute debunking. I'm sorry for you if you think it does.

[~enigma~]

So they worked for free? How does that work exactly.

BTW can you list the "thousand physicists, structural engineers, fire safety experts, architects, and metallurgists who were consulted by NIST"?



Evidence for the substance is in a non-debunked, non-challenged peer reviewed scientific journal.

You denials will not change reality. An anonymous forum poster making a forum post on some obscure sub-forum does not constitute debunking. I'm sorry for you if you think it does.Why is it that a scientific fraud as Jones is requires debunking?

[SteveAustin]

You present Jones as an expert but he has no clue on 911 issues. He has written a book about Jesus in North America and he worked on Cold Fusion. You support the idiotic ideas of Jones with no ability to support his dirt dumb conclusions. Just like your Holocaust denial, your willful ignorance on 911 is exposed on each post.

You owe me a new irony meter as your post just broke mine!

[16.5]

Then it should be no problem for him to get his paper published. Heck he doesn't have to publish it in Bentham, he can choose any other publication where he does not have to pay for it himself.

So let him publish it and allow the world to see his information, otherwise it is nothing more than unproven hot air.

Couple of problems Steve-o:

1. Jones won't send his paint chip dust to independent labs.

2. The original article was junk.

3. At the end of the day, testing of a sample is about as routine as you can get. The only thing that article is good for is teaching college freshman how not to do it.

The only difference here it was done by morons working far outside their field of expertise, completely unconcerned about their academic reputations that had been shredded long before, willing to put up $800 and willing to lie about the peer review process.

But keep pushing this "super thermite" nonsense, PLEASE! The tears of your failure nourish us.

Still waiting on the explanation why they asked for the $800 check after discovering the article was a hoax.

[dtugg]

So they worked for free? How does that work exactly.

I see. You are pretending that you have really horrible reading comprehension skills in order to make twoofers look bad. Excellent job!

[A W Smith]

Why is it that a scientific fraud as Jones is requires debunking?

Especially since he hasn't published yet.

[SteveAustin]

From the same wikipedia link:

A New York Times article says that while peer reviewers were quite critical of Pons and Fleishchmann's research they did not apply such criticism to Jones' much more modest, theoretically supported findings. Although critics insisted that his results likely stemmed from experimental error,[9] most of the reviewing physicists indicated that he was a careful scientist. Later research and experiments supported the metallic cold fusion reports by Jones.

I remember how exited I was about the Fleischmann and Pons results.

From the NYT article that you cited without reading.

Mmmmm BA dude, nothing you quoted in that same article contradicts or takes away or dismisses or even lessens what 911investigator quoted, you do realize that right? It would be a real sad state of affairs if you did not realize that as it would only point to the blinders you have on!

[~enigma~]

Especially since he hasn't published yet.
I seriously doubt if any reputable scientific journal would publish anything by him since his foray into scientific fraud.

[SteveAustin]

In a program on Myth busters they loaded a car roof with several hundred pounds of thermite and ignited it.
When the smoke and flames had cleared away the roof of the car was only slightly damaged.
At that rate they'd have to use tons of thermite for demolishing an outside toilet.

You do realize that nano-thermite can be created many different ways right? for many different purposes right?

Have you bothered to do any research into nanotechnology and nanothermite or are you only parroting what the JREF cult leaders say because it reinforces your world view?

[SteveAustin]

SteveAustin,

I just started reading this thread this evening. Why won't you provide the link for the story about 1000 disinfo agents? Sounds very interesting.

If there is truth in your claim about disinfo agents, then please prove those "dishonest debunkers" wrong. Thank you

LOL if you just started reading it tonight then I guess you missed the part where it was posted and the 2 dozens times I mentioned to people like you who keep repeating the same question you just have that it was linked already.

Do all "debunkers" believe that simply repeating a fallacy like this will change reality?

[BigAl]

You do realize that nano-thermite can be created many different ways right? for many different purposes right?

Have you bothered to do any research into nanotechnology and nanothermite or are you only parroting what the JREF cult leaders say because it reinforces your world view?

There is no evidence that "nano-thermite" can be used for man-made demolition.

There is no evidence that nan-thermite at WTC.

The examples of nano-thermite we know of are for cutting tiny tiny objects.

[dtugg]

You do realize that nano-thermite can be created many different ways right? for many different purposes right?

Have you bothered to do any research into nanotechnology and nanothermite or are you only parroting what the JREF cult leaders say because it reinforces your world view?

Hey Stone Cold, do you have any proof that superdupernanotherm*te can can cut through steel columns? No, of course you don't.

[SteveAustin]

Hmmmmm, then riddle me this: if Bentham knew it was a hoax, why did they ask for the $800?

Attempting to build a straw man argument are we?

You think that by asking me what someone I do not know nor never meant was thinking is a way to counter the truth? Seriously?

Let's play you devil's advocate game for a second then...

Maybe Bentham wanted the fraudsters (because at this point all Bentham knew was that someone tried to submit a fraud) to pay for making Bentham waste their time on this crap paper.

Maybe it was part of their attempt to find out who was really behind the crap paper so that they could expose the fraudsters. After all when you submit a fraud paper are you really going to use your real credentials?

[SteveAustin]

Obviously not as common as you think.

Having been here at JREF for quite a few months now I can see that it is not!

[dtugg]

Attempting to build a straw man argument are we?

You think that by asking me what someone I do not know nor never meant was thinking is a way to counter the truth? Seriously?

Let's play you devil's advocate game for a second then...

Maybe Bentham wanted the fraudsters (because at this point all Bentham knew was that someone tried to submit a fraud) to pay for making Bentham waste their time on this crap paper.

Maybe it was part of their attempt to find out who was really behind the crap paper so that they could expose the fraudsters. After all when you submit a fraud paper are you really going to use your real credentials?


I see, in your fantasy world, the frauds at Bentham believed that they were going to get $800 for a paper they knew was a hoax? They actually thought that somebody was going to pay $800 to publish absoloute nonsense in their sham journal? Man you twoofers are so divorced from reality it's funny.

And for your first excuse, I see that you think the frauds at Bentham might be so fraudulent that they would have accepted money for a paper they never intended to publish. Too funny!

Oh, and if they knew it has a hoax, why did one of their editors quit over this debacle?

[A W Smith]

LOL if you just started reading it tonight then I guess you missed the part where it was posted and the 2 dozens times I mentioned to people like you who keep repeating the same question you just have that it was linked already.

Do all "debunkers" believe that simply repeating a fallacy like this will change reality?


Steve-0
Nobody linked to anything that claimed a "paid internet 9/11 debunker group of 1000" existed

and you cannot link to such a claim as proven in the very thread

[SteveAustin]

Hey Stone Cold, what do you have to say about your guru's revelation that the superdupernanothem*te was only a fuse for conventional exposives? Does this sound plausible to you?

My guru? I think you are mistaking me for someone else! But of course we both know the truth is that labeling jones this way is just another way of ridiculing jones instead of attacking the argument you attack the arguer, the classic JREF cult tactic.

[16.5]

Attempting to build a straw man argument are we?

You think that by asking me what someone I do not know nor never meant was thinking is a way to counter the truth? Seriously?

Let's play you devil's advocate game for a second then...

Maybe Bentham wanted the fraudsters (because at this point all Bentham knew was that someone tried to submit a fraud) to pay for making Bentham waste their time on this crap paper.

Maybe it was part of their attempt to find out who was really behind the crap paper so that they could expose the fraudsters. After all when you submit a fraud paper are you really going to use your real credentials?

A straw man? So responding to your post constitutes a "straw man"? Wow.

Anyway, I love the fact that you are blatantly accusing Bentham of fraud, requesting the $800 with no intention of publishing the article because they knew it was a hoax.

That is some fine thinking hoss!

/hypocritical troll is hypocritical.

[dtugg]

My guru? I think you are mistaking me for someone else! But of course we both know the truth is that labeling jones this way is just another way of ridiculing jones instead of attacking the argument you attack the arguer, the classic JREF cult tactic.

And shockingly, you avoided the question.

[SteveAustin]

Why is it that a scientific fraud as Jones is requires debunking?

Who was it that said you should judge an argument based on the argument and not where it comes from?

hmmmm... seems JREF cult members only follow that advice when it advances their own beliefs and ignore it the rest of the time.

[BigAl]

Who was it that said you should judge an argument based on the argument and not where it comes from?

Jones' colleagues kicked him out of his position at U.U. His papers and speeches show him the academic fraud he is for the claims he makes of of thermite/themate/nano-anything at WTC.

[~enigma~]

Who was it that said you should judge an argument based on the argument and not where it comes from?

hmmmm... seems JREF cult members only follow that advice when it advances their own beliefs and ignore it the rest of the time.
You can judge his "stupidity" if you want. I see it as verbal diarrhea coming from a proven scientific fraud. So once again, why does a fraud require debunking?

[dtugg]

Did you guys know that Jesus came to America? Steven Jones says there is evidence so it must be true!

[SteveAustin]

Couple of problems Steve-o:

1. Jones won't send his paint chip dust to independent labs.

2. The original article was junk.

3. At the end of the day, testing of a sample is about as routine as you can get. The only thing that article is good for is teaching college freshman how not to do it.

1. As I mentioned elsewhere on this thread about this very point...does NIST not have their own dust samples they can use? Geez how thorough was their "thorough" investigation if they don't even have any dust samples but must have the help of a private citizen for them to do their jobs properly?

2. What a great statement of opinion, do you have anything to back up your opinion? Like a peer reviewed article in some science journal or anything? What's that? You don't? Oh well, better luck next time.

3. Yes it was so routine that NIST and all of it's paid contractors did not bother do do this simple little routine testing. How thorough was that "thorough" NIST investigation again?

The only difference here it was done by morons working far outside their field of expertise,

Ah yes first attack the arguer. Then make a false claim, I mean after all Niels Harrit is a chemist no? What about the other scientists that worked on the paper? Did not their combined expertise give the research a much more thorough examination?

completely unconcerned about their academic reputations that had been shredded long before, willing to put up $800 and willing to lie about the peer review process.

So you admit that the academic reputations of the "Official investigators" is a big issue. Thank you for finally admitting that as a valid reason for not trusting them

But keep pushing this "super thermite" nonsense, PLEASE! The tears of your failure nourish us.

Will do, and when I wipe those tears from laughing so hard that I am finally able to type again I will continue to show you for the fraud you are.

Still waiting on the explanation why they asked for the $800 check after discovering the article was a hoax. .

Ah yes this old trick, well I decided to play devil's advocate just for you...

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4981117&postcount=241

And now I'm still waiting on a peer reviewed paper in a scientific journal that refutes the Harrit paper! But I will be waiting a very very very long time won't I!

[SteveAustin]

There is no evidence that "nano-thermite" can be used for man-made demolition.

There is no evidence that nan-thermite at WTC.

The examples of nano-thermite we know of are for cutting tiny tiny objects.

Arguments from ignorance rock don't they BA?

[dtugg]

Stone Cold, according to your guru Harrit, there were hundreds of tons of conventional explosives in the towers in addition to the superdupernanotherm*te. Does this make sense to you?

[BigAl]

1. As I mentioned elsewhere on this thread about this very point...does NIST not have their own dust samples they can use? Geez how thorough was their "thorough" investigation if they don't even have any dust samples but must have the help of a private citizen for them to do their jobs properly?

NIST (Or the EPA or some other agency) has lots of dust samples. They all show how absurd Jones' claims are. JREF thread have cited these published papers.

NIST doesn't have Jones' samples because he hasn't offered them, or at least he hasn't told us he has and that is the #1 way we'd know.

[dtugg]

Arguments from ignorance rock don't they BA?

Then you can demonstrate that superdupernanotherm*te can be used to destroy skyscrapers? You'll be the first twoofer to do so. Something tells me that I shouldn't hold my breath.

[BigAl]

There is no evidence that "nano-thermite" can be used for man-made demolition.

There is no evidence that nano-thermite at WTC.

The examples of nano-thermite we know of are for cutting tiny tiny objects.



Arguments from ignorance rock don't they BA?

How so?