Friday, December 15, 2006

Deniers Turning on Dr Jones?

Ah the paranoia is finally catching up! Check out this thread on Democratic Underground; it seems likely that this meme (absurd as it is) will catch on with the 9-11 nutbars:

Quote:
When Oct posters tried to discredit Jones by connecting him with Cold Fusion I thought that he had been a proponent of it. I also thought that conventional wisdom had shown cold fusion to be "kooky" science. After watching this video I see that there is no consensus on whether cold fusion research should be continued or not. That isn't what I am posting this for, though. The role Jones played in cold fusion was to put out results which he claimed disproved the Pons Fleischman research that had been going on for years. What bothers me about this is he was acting, according to this , on a tip from an "informant" at the DOE (Department of Energy). The DOE was, it appears, representing the interests of energy companies, of course, who did not want a source of cheap energy known. The movement against CF, in fact, seems to be driven by corporations and their pals in the government & Universities. So, could Steven Jones be a government operative or acting on the behalf of the powers that be? Making a name for himself in 9-11 only to be "disproven" later? How is he supporting himself? I don't trust his opponents at Scholars for Truth, either with their "Space beam weapons", I wonder about the legitimacy of the whole group , it is like a script, form two groups and divide which was exactly what we were told would happen. I was kind of mad at Spooked when he posted the anti-Jones thread and now, belatedly I'm seeing the point.
Steven Jones, conspiring with the oil companies to keep cheap energy away from us? You can see how the Deniers could incorporate that easily into their paranoid worldview. More important, there's a video with a catchy name: Heavy Watergate. It's hilarious from our standpoint, but will probably prove compelling to the kooks. Jones pops up in the movie at about 11:40. If you've read Bad Science, you'll be quite amused at the characterization. For example, it is claimed that Jones learned about Pons & Fleishmann's work from "an informant at the DOE". Of course, in Bad Science this "informant" turns out to be the guy in charge of research grants, and the reason he sent the info to Jones is because Jones was already working in the field and was probably the best man to judge the validity of the work.

The no-planers are also busy attacking Jones as well. Nico Haupt tries to tie him to the murder of a cold fusion proponent. Of course, the murder in question was actually committed by a pair of crackheads, but you know the CT response to that: They were patsies.

Note: If you read 9-11 Blogger, you will see a lot of support for Jones over there. I am not sure if this is Jones' last redoubt or if he is still considered the rock star of the movement.

40 Comments:

At 15 December, 2006 13:04, Blogger shawn said...

It's really sad how ignorant most Americans are of science. Cold fusion isn't just around the corner.

 
At 15 December, 2006 13:07, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I knew everyone would be dying to know what I think:

S. Jones is good guy.

 
At 15 December, 2006 13:46, Blogger shawn said...

S. Jones is good guy.

Well, yes, apart from the lying.

 
At 15 December, 2006 14:17, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't think much of his Mormanism, either, but I don't find it that much more far-fetched than basic Christianity.

 
At 15 December, 2006 14:42, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lol it seems Judy Wood has debunked Jones his Alluminium doesn't glow theory :)

JonesScientificMethod

Some more can be found here

Dunno if you already saw this ofcourse.

 
At 15 December, 2006 14:43, Blogger FatOllie said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 15 December, 2006 14:50, Blogger Simon Lazarus said...

Wait - I think I have it:

Dr. Joooooones was involved in cold fusion, like the doctor in that movie "The Saint" with Val Kilmer. Val Kilmer did a film with...Oliver Stone, who did a film on...THE WORLD TRADE CENTER!

Holy Mother of Ipsis! I found the conspiracy! Hollywood is behind it!

Yeah! That's the ticket!

 
At 15 December, 2006 14:53, Blogger Avery Dylan said...

Woaaaa, like hey man, Becsaue you know something is happening here and you don't know what it is, do you? Dr. Jones.

 
At 15 December, 2006 14:55, Blogger FatOllie said...

BG,

If you think that "basic Christianity" is odd but don't think the Saints' beliefs are much odder, then you don't know much about the LDS.

I'm not slamming either Christianity in general or Mormanism in particular (not here, anyway), I'm just saying that to a non-believer, the Saints' beliefs seem pretty far out there.

There is a lot of stuff to be found about the Mormans and their beliefs, but, unfortunately, not much from a fair and objective viewpoint. Probably Fawn Brodie's biography of Joseph Smith is as close to objective as anything you'll find. It's really not that critical of a look at Smith, but apparently, the Saints didn't see it that way as the book got her excommunicated.

 
At 15 December, 2006 15:06, Anonymous Anonymous said...

FatOllie said...

My main point was that it's all a bunch of hooey.

There is no strong evidence for an "afterlife". Their is no strong evidence for God. Although the I believe that the concept of personal responsibility is important for a healthy society, even the idea of free will is on shaky ground.

On the other hand, there is a heck of a lot of evidence that leads to MIHOP.

 
At 15 December, 2006 15:18, Blogger ScottSl said...

That link by Judy Wood is incorrect. Those photos from the Steve Chastain book are in fact NOT aluminum. I've spoken to the author. You can also check out the "Metal Talk" section from his website to see more detail.
http://stephenchastain.com/metaltalk.htm
Cheers....

 
At 15 December, 2006 15:26, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Scottsl,

Interesting comment and link. Thanks.

 
At 15 December, 2006 15:32, Blogger Alex said...

There is no strong evidence for an "afterlife".

But Larry Silverstein said....

Their is no strong evidence for God.

But the PNAC report mentions God...

 
At 15 December, 2006 15:37, Blogger FatOllie said...

BG, it depends very much on what you call "evidence." Most everything I've ever seen proposed as "evidence" is based either on lies or obvious misinterpretations. The rest results from screwed up logic and non sequiturs. I don't know of one verifiable accusation made that is significant enough to be called "evidence."

As for "hooey," it comes in degrees, with respect to religion as well as with respect to the CTers. Compare Alex Jones to that Bowman guy. Almost everything out of A. Jones's mouth is a lie or just plain stupid. I don't think that Bowman is correct, but his eyes don't glow in the dark nearly so brightly as A. Jones's or M. Reynolds's.

 
At 15 December, 2006 15:42, Blogger ScottSl said...

Thank you bg, its best others don't make the same mistake as ole Judy.

That of course doesn't mean Oxidized/Mixed Aluminum CAN'T turn yellow in daylight.....

 
At 15 December, 2006 15:54, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thx Scottsl, i found the post after some searching. I also found another post where someone asked about the flowing steel from the WTC.

This was his conclusion.

Summary: The flow is not steel because the structural steel would fail well below the metling temperature. The flow is likely to be a mixture of aluminum, aluminum oxides, molten glass and coals of whatever trash the aluminum flowed over as it reached the open window. Such a flow would appear orange and cool to a dark color.

 
At 15 December, 2006 16:02, Anonymous Anonymous said...

But this picture is from a popular mechanics article.

 
At 15 December, 2006 16:09, Anonymous Anonymous said...

FatOllie said...,

You are overstating the case against Alex Jones and Morgan Reynolds.

I realize Alex is into historionics, he is not a careful investigator or orator, and he paints the "enemy" as so vague that his tirades rarely lead to anything near a case for a prosecutor. However, when it come to 9/11 begin false flag terror, there's no intelligent dispute of that conclusion.

 
At 15 December, 2006 16:13, Blogger Richard said...

So does this mean that the WTC towers were not brought down by thermate?

 
At 15 December, 2006 16:16, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

Dr. Joooooones was involved in cold fusion, like the doctor in that movie "The Saint" with Val Kilmer. Val Kilmer did a film with...Oliver Stone, who did a film on...THE WORLD TRADE CENTER!


Dont Forget Indian Jones, Simon!!

 
At 15 December, 2006 16:18, Blogger ScottSl said...

We also have some of Steven's comments at the debunking911 site. He was very helpful
http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

 
At 15 December, 2006 17:06, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

I dont think any of them are govt agents. The reason the Scholars group has failed and schismed, is simple, they are arrogant, fame seeking intellectuals, all striving to be the "big deal" in their movement.

In their quest for fame within, they have forgotten the purpose behind their quests...sad really, but bring it on, as it will only hurt the truth movement as a whole. This in turn will mean, maybe, just maybe, this retarded crap we listen to day in day out, will eventually just GO AWAY!!

TAM

 
At 15 December, 2006 17:08, Blogger Alex said...

However, when it come to 9/11 begin false flag terror, there's no intelligent dispute of that conclusion.

*sigh*

You should really go join the creationists. You'd fit in much better over there.

 
At 15 December, 2006 20:01, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 15 December, 2006 20:41, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

I realize Alex is into historionics, he is not a careful investigator or orator, and he paints the "enemy" as so vague that his tirades rarely lead to anything near a case for a prosecutor. However, when it come to 9/11 begin false flag terror, there's no intelligent dispute of that conclusion.

"Histrionics"

you accuse him of being such, and going on tirades, yet how better are you in attacking the messenger as opposed to the message.

As for your last comment, I would reverse it, and say that..

"there is no intelligent person who believes, if based on any form of facts, or proof, that 9/11 was a false flag terror op."

TAM:)

Reposted with edits

 
At 15 December, 2006 20:56, Blogger ConsDemo said...

The reason the Scholars group has failed and schismed, is simple, they are arrogant, fame seeking intellectuals, all striving to be the "big deal" in their movement.

Actually it's even simpler than that. If you buy into baseless conspiracy theories, your grasp on truth is pretty tenuous and you have to suspect everyone around you. Paranoid behavior doesn't lead to strong relationships.

 
At 16 December, 2006 03:36, Blogger Democrat said...

I think that you can make it a little easier for yourself by just making a simple division

1) people that take the OS for absolute thruth

2) people that do not take the OS for absolute truth

The bucket full of 2's ranges from people that not everything has been investigated and perhaps certain things have been covered up through people that think laser beams from mars brought the towers down. That's a large pool of people and, personally, I cannot imagine anybody here that is not in bucket no.2. Even 911 commissioners were faced with disclosure of government actions and meetings afterwards that were not disclosed to them during their investigation.

Now that we have to realise that we are in bucket no.2 anyway, it is just a simple matter of dividing bucket no. 2 again in subparts, ranging from close to the OS 'till outright Mars invasions.

There is a simple obervation to this all: we all don't really know what happened on 911. We all just rely on statements, investigations and evidence. It's the interpretation of all this information that leads us to come up with different opinions. The interpretation can be debated, but there is no such thing as a fixed 911 CT movement with fixed ideas about what has happened.

There is no 'twoofer', just an opinion. If you don't buy a laser beam theory, that's fine, but stick to the arguments. Calling people names just because they question 911 is not a sound approach. Putting people in boxes upfront isn't either.

I hope we will get to know more and more about 911 each day with more and more people just questioning 911, whether it is the one side of bucket no.2 or the other, Mars invaded side of bucket no.2.

 
At 16 December, 2006 03:50, Blogger Democrat said...

"there is no intelligent person who believes, if based on any form of facts, or proof, that 9/11 was a false flag terror op."

This really is not an honest statement.

It pretends to make an upfront division between intelligent people and unintelligent people just for what a person believes. That is not a proper way of measuring someone’s intelligence in my opinion, but just a projection of your own opinion on the matter at hand, probably based on prevailing paradigms and publicly accepted dogma’s.

In fact, there are many, many facts and a lot of proof that 911 may have been a false flag terror op. I will just leave out the question what would constitute ‘a false flag terror op’ in this respect. Whether you believe such a thing or not is solely based on one’s acceptance and assessment of information (facts, proof, gossip, hearsay, own dogma’s and projections, etc.) available, and not subject to an objective line of reasoning. You can debate the arguments, but not an objective ‘switch point’ or ‘top of the hill’ from where the available information would no longer lead to ’19 hijackers alone’ conclusion to ‘a false flag terror op’. There is no objective path to a conclusion, just opinions based on arguments that can be considered good, bad, flawed, whatever.

It’s my take that most of you seem so fed up by opinions and arguments for a total inside job and many more problems inside government, using exotic theories, that you simply don’t assess arguments anymore and have put everyone seriously questioning 911 in that ‘exotics box’. That would be a shame, because (and that is my opinion) an intelligent person would consider, based on the available facts, proof and leads that 9/11 may have been a false flag terror op. It’s written on the wall and just needs one final push of evidence, one could say.

Well, TAM, that’s my view on things.

 
At 16 December, 2006 04:42, Blogger shawn said...

This really is not an honest statement.

It's totally honest and correct.

 
At 16 December, 2006 06:19, Blogger Richard said...

There is a simple obervation to this all: we all don't really know what happened on 911. We all just rely on statements, investigations and evidence. It's the interpretation of all this information that leads us to come up with different opinions.

Evidence isn't really something that is up for interpretation though. If evidence CLEARLY points to one conclusion yet you think it goes to the opposite your "opinion" doesn't hold the same weight as the evidence.

For example look at the evidence of sulfur found at GZ. A rational mind would say that this came from gypsum in drywall. However truthers say thermite. However, there are no traces of any of the other compounds found in thermate at GZ. Furthermore, thermite is not an explosive nor is it used in demolitions. Truthers also fail to provide a reason as to how the sulfur could not be from gypsum. If you presented this information to any sane person they would say "The sulfur came from drywall." All of the evidence points towards that, there is no room for interpretation.

 
At 16 December, 2006 06:21, Blogger Richard said...

You can "interpret" based on the evidence that the sky is neon green all you want, doesn't mean your right.

 
At 16 December, 2006 06:40, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

SO show me the FACTS, the cold hard FACTS that PROVES that 9/11 was a false flag op. I dont want opinion, or speculation, or "wow look at this coincidence", I want cold hard facts. Nothing less will do.

TAM

 
At 16 December, 2006 11:25, Blogger Democrat said...

You don't have cold hard facts either that the OS is true, or, more specifically, that 19 hijackers did it acting solely. You just rely on that government endorsed information, pretending that all evidence to the contrary does not exist or can be rationalised away.

It remains interpretation. Hell, it isn't even clear what hit the Pentagon, a basic fact still missing.

 
At 16 December, 2006 11:42, Blogger Alex said...

Hell, it isn't even clear what hit the Pentagon, a basic fact still missing.

Only if you're all hopped up on goofballs.

If you can convince yourself that the hundreds of investigators at the pentagon were actually planting evidence, it's clear that you have no interest in the truth, and are willing to believe anything as long as it's critical of the government. The Pentagon crash argument is perhaps THE best illustration of just how insane you people really are.

 
At 16 December, 2006 12:26, Blogger Democrat said...

Most of all, the damage pattern is blocking a final conclusion on a Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon.

I don't consider the 757 a hard fact at this point. There are many clues, but I want to see explained how it hits with the damage being done to the Pentagon.

You assume this to be correct, and you have every right to think so, but I am a little bit more sceptic here. That your conclusion on my stance automatically involves the 1000's involved in planting evidence is your problem, not mine.

 
At 16 December, 2006 13:09, Blogger ewing2001 said...

http://www.bloglines.com/blog/ewing2001?id=2382
Steven "Los Alamos" Jones/HeavyWaterGate: Cold Fusion Patent Holder linked to U.S. Army Future Weaponry Committee

By ewing2001

Steven "Los Alamos" Jones/HeavyWaterGate: Cold Fusion Patent Holder linked to U.S. Army Future Weaponry Committee

picked up from Internal article

(*thx to Gritzle70, 911Inside Jobbers Yahoo !)

(see also
Pre-9/11 Cold Fusion U.S. Patent, once blocked by Steven E. Jones, linked to suspicious murder
http://www.bloglines.com/blog/ewing2001?id=2364

ScrewLoose about ProfJones/"HeavyWaterGate": "Deniers Turning on Dr Jones?"
http://www.bloglines.com/blog/ewing2001?id=2374


As Gritzle70 found out, RANDOLPH R. DAVIS, who registered a patent on "Cold Fusion" (once blocked by Professor Steven E. Jones) only a few weeks before 9/11, also wrote a book about weaponry management.

At http://fermat.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5036&page=R1

you will find "Commercial Multimedia Technologies for Twenty-First Century Army Battlefields:
A Technology Management Strategy (1995)"

Scroll down the page and you will find the staff, involved in this book:

"....1994 Staff ROBERT J. LOVE, Study Director RANDOLPH R. DAVIS, Study Director, 1994 ALVERA GIRCYS, Senior Program Assistant ALLISON KNIGHT, Senior Program Assistant, 1994 NORMAN M. HAILER, Consultant . . ."

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/5036.html

Authors:
Committee on Future Technologies for Army Multimedia Communications,
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/deps/
National Research Council Authoring Organizations

Description:


This book responds to an request by the U.S. Army to study the applicability of commercial multimedia technologies to command, control, communications and intelligence needs on future battlefields. After reviewing Army's needs and discussing relevant commercial technologies within the context ...
Read More...

http://www7.nationalacademies.org/deps/
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/deps/DEPS_Program_Units.html
DEPS Boards and Committees

Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board (ASEB)
Director George Levin

Board on Army Science and Technology (BAST)
Standing Committees, Roundtables
Director Bruce Braun

Board on Assessment of NIST Programs (NIST)

(ed: Panel on Air and Ground Vehicle Technology, Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences)

Standing Committees, Roundtables
Director Jim McGee

Space Studies Board (SSB)
Standing Committees, Roundtables
Director Marcia Smith

etc...


More about Authors of
"Commercial Multimedia Technologies for Twenty-First Century Army Battlefields:
A Technology Management Strategy (1995)":


They're all part of the
COMMITTEE ON FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES FOR ARMY MULTIMEDIA COMMUNICATIONS


http://newton.nap.edu/readingroom/books/multi_army/committee.html
ROBERT J. LOVE, Study Director

RANDOLPH R. DAVIS, Study Director, 1994

ALVERA GIRCYS, Senior Program Assistant

ALLISON KNIGHT, Senior Program Assistant, 1994

NORMAN M. HALLER, Consultant

 
At 17 December, 2006 10:02, Blogger Alex said...

That your conclusion on my stance automatically involves the 1000's involved in planting evidence is your problem, not mine.

How stupid are you? Your "theories" would be impossible without personnel on the ground planting evidence. I said "hundreds" not "1000's", and the vast majority of those that were there would have had to be involved in the "coverup". I would absolutely LOVE to see your explanation of how you think the pentagon crash could have been faked without the aid of the hundreds of investigators, emergency response personnel, and military personnel on the ground. Go ahead, you've got my full attention.

 
At 17 December, 2006 13:56, Blogger Democrat said...

I have a theory:

doubt in the OS.

There isn't more to it full stop. I don't have to convince you. You may sort out life on your own.

 
At 17 December, 2006 21:11, Blogger Alex said...

Ah. You're one of the "I don't know what happened, but I know they're lying" idiots. Look up the word "paranoia" some time. And talk to your doc about getting some medication.

 
At 25 January, 2007 00:31, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You guys never research what people are actually talking about, you just react. Screw Loose Change is made by the same people as Loose Change . Just like 911 Myths is made by the same people as Screw 911 Myths. The "mistakes" are intentional so that they can be discredited.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home