Does Dr. Steven Jones hold any credibility?

Originally posted by snoopy
I don't dismiss Dr Jones, I just won't accept it until it's been peer reviewed because I have no way of really knowing.

But... Isn´t that exactly what has happened over the last six months??

Loads of scientists have agreed with Professor Steven Jones, and some are even incorporating his work in their teachings, causing some major political stirring here and there.

If you did not mean that by saying "peer review" please explain on what you do mean with peer review...

[edit on 27-7-2006 by HardToGet]

Originally posted by ANOK
Just because he believes what he does about Jesus has no relation to his knowledge in physics.

...I think your just looking for anything to justify dismissing what Jones says about 9-11 because you can't refute it.

ANOK,
I suppose it might be considered unfair to impugn Jones' ideas based on the fact that he believes Jesus came to the Americas. However, the nature of Jones' "Christ in the Americas" paper makes it uneccessary for anyone to do so.

See, the paper is pertinent to Jones credibility in another way. It is not merely that he believes that Jesus came to the Americas. It is that he cites evidence of this visitation, in several Mayan tales and a few Mayan reliefs. The real problem with this is that Jones delves into these pieces of "evidence" with his eyes closed and his blinders on.

Or would you suggest that Jesus Christ visited, and was revered by, the Maya who then afterward continued to sacrifice human beings by ripping their living hearts out from between two of their ribs, using a special blade constructed only for this purpose, in the strange belief that not to do so would actually result in the world coming to an end?

Please, would Jebus not have at least said something about this practice? If you don't think He would have, can you at least consider why Jones, a pious Mormon, would not have considered this question himself?

See, what Jones did is take a few things about the Maya out of context and used them to support his theory, never mentioning, possibly never even trying to discover, anything at all about the very people upon which he was basing his entire argument.

To all the skeptics: Does the above method sound familiar?

Harte

The critical issue is the question of applicable expertise. For instance if a physics professor were to write a paper about structural engineering, that is then “peer reviewed” by a theologian, well it just doesn’t cut it for me. Maybe it does for you, but I have my own personal criteria.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The critical issue is the question of applicable expertise. For instance if a physics professor were to write a paper about structural engineering, that is then “peer reviewed” by a theologian, well it just doesn’t cut it for me. Maybe it does for you, but I have my own personal criteria.

Nice. Professor Jones teaches physics, so I fail to see how that ties in with his religious beliefs in any way. What if I could find you a structural engineer (or more) that support Jones´ findings?

Will you then take his work more seriously? For the life of me I cannot understand that an intelligent person like yourself would support the official explanation after reading Jones´ reports and lectures.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The critical issue is the question of applicable expertise. For instance if a physics professor were to write a paper about structural engineering, that is then “peer reviewed” by a theologian, well it just doesn’t cut it for me. Maybe it does for you, but I have my own personal criteria.

Hi Howard,

It was interesting to find out you used to post at Chemtrail Central (as Wolf_Larson). After exposing you, I poked around the 9/11 forum a bit more, and I saw that a "Dusty" was recently posting messages very similar to yours.

It would probably be a full time job to keep up with your aliases.

It was interesting because in this thread "Dusty" also loves to talk about structural engineers. Fortunately someone posted a reply to this which "Dusty" ran from. So let me copy and paste for everyone's benefit:

How many would it take to convince you? Here are a few:

-Matthys Levy, Structural Engineer and Co Author of “Why Buildings Fall Down”

"If you've seen many of the managed demolitions where they implode a building and they cause it to essentially to fall vertically because they cause all of the vertical columns to fail simultaneously, that's exactly what it looked like and that's what happened." Video: www.freepressinternational.com/discovery.html


-Professor Shi Yongjiu – Architect - Expert on Steel Structure
Director of Civil Engineering Department, Qinghua University

Why WTC Steel Towers Collapsed at One Blow - September 20, 2001
“Professor Shi Yongjiu, director of civil engineering department of Qinghua University and an expert on steel structure, guesses that the lower part of the WTC twin towers may got seriously damaged.

According to steel structure's mechanical nature, the towers shouldn't collapse as late as an hour later after the planes slammed into. What's more, it should be in a way to topple over gradually instead of crashing down as seen in videotapes. It looks more like a directional blast in doing the job of destruction, so he feels that huge damages must have been done at the lower part of the towers.

...

He was surprised that a 40-storied supportive building [WTC 7] beside the towers should collapse 6 hours later...

english.people.com.cn...


-Van Romero, PhD (Physics) - Expert in Explosive Materials and the Effects of Explosions on Buildings
Vice President for Research and Economic Development
New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology
infohost.nmt.edu...

Explosives Planted in Towers, New Mexico Tech Expert Says
Albuquerque Journal, September 14, 2001

”My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse”

"It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that”

"It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points.”

Archived Link: www.world-action.co.uk...


-Former Army Sgt. Mark Johnson, Military Demolition Pro

"From day one on Sept. 11th, after seeing the footage of the airliner striking the WTC on CNN and seeing explosions happening on lower floors of both towers, I knew right then and there that the towers were purposely being imploded,"

Source:
www.arcticbeacon.com...


More expert opinions:


-Judy Wood, PhD (Civil Engineering / Mechanical Engineering)
Mechanical Engineering Professor at Clemson University
“The Case for Controlled Demolition”
www.911blogger.com...


-Jerry Russell, PhD (MS in Engineering)
“Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC”
www.attackonamerica.net...


-Frank Demartini - Former Harvard Engineering Professor
Manager, WTC Construction And Project Management
Died at the WTC

January 25, 2001: "The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jet airliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door,... this intense grid,... and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."
Video: www.prisonplanet.com...


-Kevin Ryan – Former Site Manager from Underwriters Labs (UL)
en.wikipedia.org...

On November 11, 2004, Ryan wrote Dr Frank Gayle (NIST), causing his firing from UL.

Excerpt: “This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company.” www.scoop.co.nz...

Academic Paper: “Propping Up the War on Terror: Lies about the WTC by NIST and Underwriters Laboratories”
(Scheduled for Publication in “9/11 and the American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out”, Interlink Books, 2006)
www.scholarsfor911truth.org...

March 15, 2006 Lecture: "A 9/11 Whistleblower Examines the Official Conspiracy Theory"
Monroe County Public Library, Bloomington, IN
One Hour Lecture MP3 34MB: news.wfhb.org...


GWB First Term (2000-2004) Employee:

Dr Morgan Reynolds
Retired professor of economics at Texas A&M University
Former chief economist at US Department of Labor says.... 9/11 = INSIDE JOB
www.nomoregames.net...

Other Government Insiders Who Say 9/11 Inside Job
www.911blogger.com...


Related:

Explosive Testimony: Revelations about the Twin Towers in the 9/11 Oral Histories
David Ray Griffin
www.911truth.org...

Aren't most all those people the same ones who constitute the s911t crowd? Nothing new there.

Dusty? Who the hell is Dusty?

Kevin Ryan is one of your "experts"

Originally posted by Vushta
Aren't most all those people the same ones who constitute the s911t crowd? Nothing new there.

You people fail to listen.
What does it matter which "crowd" they belong to?
They disinfo and debunking of experts is getting a bit stale, don´t you think?

Well, unless you kill all of them too, a new and official 9/11 investigation will be started, and soon.

And you may quote me on that.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Dusty? Who the hell is Dusty?

Someone who posted this:

Charlie Sheen, Professor Steven Jones, Professor Griffin, etc. are all amateurs compared to a structural engineer. So far none of their claims have been supported by a structural engineer.

He's just someone who is preoccupied with people who realize 9/11 was a sham - ridiculing them, trying to distract from the truth, ranting about Steven Jones, structural engineers, and posting on a message board you used to frequent. Yes, who is Dusty?

Originally posted by astonished
Yes, who is Dusty?

I have no idea, why don't you tell us (backing up your claims with evidence).

Anyway, who gives a toss who Dusty is and what bearing does it have on whether Dr Steve Jones is a credible expert or not?

Originally posted by HardToGet

Originally posted by Vushta
Aren't most all those people the same ones who constitute the s911t crowd? Nothing new there.

You people fail to listen.
What does it matter which "crowd" they belong to?
They disinfo and debunking of experts is getting a bit stale, don´t you think?

Well, unless you kill all of them too, a new and official 9/11 investigation will be started, and soon.

And you may quote me on that.

It more the 'crap' than the 'crowd' thats important. The same old garbage is just dragged out over and over and sold as something new. You can't polish a turd.

There is exactly zero chance of there being a 'new investigation'. Islamic terrorists carried out 911. Deal with it.

The topic of the thread is "Jones. Credible?"

If you think he is credible, why do you think he's credible? It seems like his tendency of jumping to conclusions and his 'scienitific methods' are totally bogus.



[edit on 28-7-2006 by Vushta]

Originally posted by Vushta
It more the 'crap' than the 'crowd' thats important. The same old garbage is just dragged out over and over and sold as something new.

So.. you think it is the "same old garbage" that impeaches Jones' credibility?

Please give examples of this "garbage" so we can see why you believe he is not credible. PLEASE POST SOURCES and CITATIONS.

Thanks,

[unnecessary quote of Entire previous post removed]


Please get over yourself.

As I stated in the previous post, I believe its his blatantly unscientific methods that discredit his 'research'.



Mod Edit: Quoting – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 7/28/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

Originally posted by Vushta
As I stated in the previous post, I believe its his blatantly unscientific methods that discredit his 'research'.

Pleae give examples of Dr. Jones' unscientific methods if this is the reason you are going to use to discreit him. It is good for debate to cite examples or sources for your arguments. Dr. Jones even includes a discription of the scientific method, how the NIST and 9/11 comission DID NOT follow it and how he has so I guess I just find this to be a weak argument.

You also admitted in another thread that you HAVE NOT READ his articles so what is the basisi for your statement?

Originally posted by Vushta
I'm not reading 172 pages of contextual hogwash.

Source: www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 28-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]

It is not our place to be able to determine if his papers are credible or not. this is what perr reviewing is for. So real experts can determine the validity instead of the rest of us who aren't knowledgable in such fields to figure it out. This works both way, not just in determining if it is invalid, but in determining it IS valid. In other words any of us without the proper credentials has a valid say in if it IS or ISNT valid.

Having said that, it is dissappointing that Dr Jones would use a journal to publish his paper that knows nothing and has nothing to do with civil engineering. All the while those in his own university who DO specialize in the field of expertise have claimed it to be inaccurate.

Meanwhile papers have been written showing how fire and structural damage could have brought down the buildings and those papers perr reviewed by engineers in that field and puplished in actual engineering journals.

And yet there are many who will insist Dr Jones paper is infalable, while those other perr reviewed papers are flawed. I cannot claim his findings are right or wrote, just as no one else here can. But there are many here who simply use this to push their agenda and aren't really concerned with the validity or not. And many prey on people not having the edcational background in such fields to win their arguments.

I don't think any arguments can be made for or against the findings until it has been poperly reviewed, otherwise it's just an issue of using his paper to push ones opinion.

I myself do not adhere to any religion, or religious beliefs. I do adhere to my own brand of spiritual beliefs, however. That said, I respect every religion in the world, and feel that there are - as in all things - valid and positive points which can be taken from them, as well as unfortunate and potentially harmful aspects that can be derived from them. I do not feel that religion calls one's credibility into question any more than non-religious beliefs.

We are a society based on quantification. If more evidence exists in support of a given fact than exists in denial of a supposition, we consider it to be credible. I have long taken issue with this. Evidence is perception. No matter what the preponderance of supposed evidence, we have only our perceptions - even when those perceptions are shared by a large number of professionals on a consistent basis - to support that evidence. Ultimately, nothing can be absolutely, unequivocally proven. In that sense, the only differences between religious faith, and scientific faith (and they are both faiths in my opinion, not qualitative facts, regardless of what anyone says to dissuade me from that view,) are the amount and complexity of evidence in support of them.

That said, I trust Steven Jones as much as I trust anyone else, which is to say, "Completely, and not at all." I give everyone the benefit of the doubt until given reason to do otherwise. That doesn't mean I consider him credible. It simply means I don't consider him to be necessarily unreliable either. I believe keeping an open mind one way or the other is the only way to determine the truth, even if that means resisting what instinct or the appearance of evidence seems to suggest. Today, more than ever, every iota of information can be manipulated at the hands of myriad forces, people, organizations, and agendas. We should assume nothing, least of all individual intentions.

[edit on 28-7-2006 by AceWombat04]

Originally posted by AceWombat04
...I do not feel that religion calls one's credibility into question any more than non-religious beliefs.

It's unfortunate that many refuse to look at the point being made about Dr. Jones' Christ in the Americas paper, and merely categorize any critique as being "anti-Mormon," "anti-religion" or whatever.

Dr. Jones published a paper that uses actual archaeological findings, not religious dogma, in an attempt to prove a tenet of Mormonism. In the process, he completely ignored the context within which the archaeological data were imbedded when found. Namely, the culture of the Maya themselves. That is one big, fat, humongous no no in Archaeology, but it's just another cynical tool in the hands of a pseudoscientist. This absolutely calls his credibility into question, though it does not call his abilities in Physics into question.

And Ace, if you don't think that a person's "non-religious beliefs" can call that person's credibility into question, then I must say that you have just not thought hard enough about what a "non-religious' (or religious, for that matter) belief can be.

What about a person that believes they are God? Is such a person "credible"?
What of a person that is racist? Is such a person "credible"?

At any rate, my problem with Jones is certainly not his faith. I mean, to me, Mormonism is crazy, but no crazier than many other beliefs, so why should I care? My problem is with the man's methodology which is exposed in his Christ in the Americas paper, where he displays his disposition to use whatever means is at hand to advance his philosophical views, regardless if he has to discard actual facts along the way. I'm disturbed by this, and the way it ties in to his political philosophy as evinced in his more recent paper - the 172 page PDF file, where he rants about PNAC. Makes me wonder if he would be amenable to using whatever means to advance that viewpoint as well, the way he so obviously did with his religious philosophy.

And really, why should I believe otherwise? I mean he completely ignored every pertinant fact in his Christ in the Americas paper, just to advance his religious philosophy. Why shouldn't I expect him to do the same thing regarding his political philosophy?

Originally posted by AceWombat04No matter what the preponderance of supposed evidence, we have only our perceptions - even when those perceptions are shared by a large number of professionals on a consistent basis - to support that evidence. Ultimately, nothing can be absolutely, unequivocally proven. In that sense, the only differences between religious faith, and scientific faith (and they are both faiths in my opinion, not qualitative facts, regardless of what anyone says to dissuade me from that view,) are the amount and complexity of evidence in support of them.

Sure, but another HUGE difference is that science develops new theories if new data are observed. Religion certainly cannot make the same claim.

Harte

Harte just got a way above vote for that post.

Jones et all consistently distort reality to fit their political viewpoints.

Originally posted by Harte
[At any rate, my problem with Jones is certainly not his faith. I mean, to me, Mormonism is crazy, but no crazier than many other beliefs, so why should I care? My problem is with the man's methodology which is exposed in his Christ in the Americas paper, where he displays his disposition to use whatever means is at hand to advance his philosophical views, regardless if he has to discard actual facts along the way.

Well spoken, even if I feel that the Jones paper on 9/11 makes sense.

Excellent post without bias: Way above.

Originally posted by Harte

... (Note: I removed elements of your post as well as my own not to avoid their content, or invalidate your post's content, as it is certainly worthy of thought and respect. I'm simply trying to cut down on the post length) ...

And Ace, if you don't think that a person's "non-religious beliefs" can call that person's credibility into question, then I must say that you have just not thought hard enough about what a "non-religious' (or religious, for that matter) belief can be.

What about a person that believes they are God? Is such a person "credible"?
What of a person that is racist? Is such a person "credible"?

That I disagree does not imply lack of thought or consideration. One could argue that such constitutes a conceit, but I don't think that's how you meant it (at least I hope not.) You don't seem the type to flame anyone. Your posts are both courteous and well thought out, so I doubt you intended any offense. Can I assume that's the case?

I would counter with the points others attempted to make earlier. If Einstein believed he were God, could he still not fashion mathematically sound equations? Likewise, if he were racist, would that necessarily invalidate his theory/theories? I personally hold that racism is reprehensible, however, I respect the life experiences - despite disagreeing with the conclusions derived from them vehemently - that inform people's views as at least as valid as my own. I'm not arrogant enough to dictate morals to anyone. All I can do is voice my sadness and heartache upon viewing the espousing of such views.

I have given the matter ample thought. I simply reached a conclusion different from your own. Neither is more or less valid or correct.

At any rate, my problem with Jones is certainly not his faith. I mean, to me, Mormonism is crazy, but no crazier than many other beliefs, so why should I care? My problem is with the man's methodology which is exposed in his Christ in the Americas paper, where he displays his disposition to use whatever means is at hand to advance his philosophical views, regardless if he has to discard actual facts along the way.
...
And really, why should I believe otherwise? I mean he completely ignored every pertinant fact in his Christ in the Americas paper, just to advance his religious philosophy. Why shouldn't I expect him to do the same thing regarding his political philosophy?

I don't believe you shouldn't expect that. I will never be found to say that you or anyone else should expect, believe, or conclude anything, one way or the other. I simply - personally, and with limitation to myself, and only myself - choose not to believe that this must be the case, or that he is necessarily less credible than anyone else. That isn't to say I believe he is necessarily just as credible as anyone else, either.

Sure, but another HUGE difference is that science develops new theories if new data are observed. Religion certainly cannot make the same claim.
Harte

In my view, this falls under the issue of the greater amount and complexity of scientific evidence. There is more of it, it is more complex, and what is and is not accepted as fact (or reasonably probable) changes with new or (seemingly) better input. I simply choose to believe that this does not necessarily make it more correct, reliable, or credible. I use the word "necessarily" a great deal for that reason; I am undecided, and am not arguing for or against either school of thought. My favored axiom is, "anything is possible."

I respect and enjoy reading your view and the views of everyone in this and other similar threads.