Email Exchanges Between Dr Judy Wood and Dr Steven Jones

Here are two letters from Dr Jones to Dr Wood, May 7, and two responses from Wood to Jones, May 8.

As you can see, Jones (who has ties to Los Alamos) is still trying to discredit Dr Wood and her WTC directed energy weapon theory, despite all the new information coming out!


janedoe0911.tripod.com...
janedoe0911.tripod.com...

Could you elaborate? I'm obviously not fully up to date on the scandal, or whatever it is that's going on..

I can't see what either has to gain from a 'fight' with the other unless one or both is working to a hidden agenda. Dr Wood would have been better off ignoring Dr Jones, who appears, on the evidence of this exchange, to be baiting her.

Wood is a moron or a plant:

"I decline a peer-reviewed approach, but would ask that you publish this letter as you've indicated you would."

But JUDY... why on EARTH would you decline having someone VALIDATE your results?

The Journal of 9/11 Studies IS peer reviewed, so, you want them to publish your "letter" SANS review unlike the rest of their publication? why do you get a free pass?

[edit on 9-5-2007 by Pootie]

Originally posted by Pootie
Wood is a moron or a plant:

"I decline a peer-reviewed approach, but would ask that you publish this letter as you've indicated you would."

But JUDY... why on EARTH would you decline having someone VALIDATE your results?

The Journal of 9/11 Studies IS peer reviewed, so, you want them to publish your "letter" SANS review unlike the rest of their publication? why do you get a free pass?

[edit on 9-5-2007 by Pootie]

No, if anyone is a plant, Jones is. After all, he did help discredit cold fusion because he was researching a different form of it and was jealous of Pons and Fleischmann's discovery. A letter between two scientists is NOT a research paper, so it need not, and should not, be subject to peer-review as Wood did not submit her letter for publication. Wood cannot expect him to publish it in his journal without peer review. But if he agreed informally to do so without review, he should honor his promise. Jones is just being awkward to Wood because he wants to make her lose face.

[edit on 9-5-2007 by micpsi]

Originally posted by micpsi
No, if anyone is a plant, Jones is. After all, he did help discredit cold fusion because he was researching a different form of it and was jealous of Pons and Fleischmann's discovery. A letter between two scientists is NOT a research paper, so it need not, and should not, be subject to peer-review as Wood did not submit her letter for publication. Wood cannot expect him to publish it in his journal without peer review. But if he agreed informally to do so without review, he should honor his promise. Jones is just being awkward to Wood because he wants to make her lose face.

lol

Actually:

In 1988, Fleischmann and Pons applied to the US Department of Energy for funding for a larger series of experiments; up to this point they had been running their experiments "out-of-pocket."

The grant proposal was turned over to several people for peer review, including Steven E. Jones of Brigham Young University. Jones had worked on muon-catalyzed fusion for some time, and had written an article on the topic entitled Cold Nuclear Fusion that had been published in Scientific American in July 1987. He then turned his attention to the problem of fusion in high-pressure environments, believing it could explain the fact that the interior temperature of the Earth was hotter than could be explained without nuclear reactions, and by unusually high concentrations of helium-3 around volcanoes that implied some sort of nuclear reaction within. At first he worked with diamond anvils on what he referred to as piezonuclear fusion, but then moved to electrolytic cells similar to those being worked on by Fleischmann and Pons. In order to characterize the reactions, Jones had spent considerable time designing and building a neutron counter, one able to accurately measure the tiny numbers of neutrons being produced in his experiments. His team got 'tantalizingly positive' results early January 1989, and they decided in early February to publish their results.

Both teams were in Utah, and met on several occasions to discuss sharing work and techniques. During this time, Fleischmann and Pons described their experiments as generating considerable "excess energy", which could not be explained by chemical reactions alone. If this were true, their device would have considerable commercial value, and should be protected by patents. Jones was measuring neutron flux instead, and seems to have considered it primarily of scientific interest, not commercial. In order to avoid problems in the future, the teams apparently agreed to simultaneously publish their results, although their accounts of their March 6 meeting differ.

In mid-March, both teams were ready to publish, and Fleischmann and Jones had agreed to meet at the airport on the 24th to send their papers at the exact same time to Nature by FedEx. However Fleischmann and Pons broke that apparent agreement - they submitted a paper to the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry on the 11th, and they disclosed their work in the press conference the day before. Jones, apparently furious at being "scooped", faxed in his paper to Nature as soon as he saw the press announcements.

At least Jones produced free neutrons... which he himself admitted has no commercial value.

Pons and Fleischman made a simple chemical reaction which generated heat. Had they done anything more, the technology would be in use today.. know why it isn't??? It is FAKE. That is why they were "debunked".

They also LIED to and TRICKED Jones... I wonder why he might not like them very much.

Wood is just a fruit loop... FOCUSED ENERGY WEAPONS...

[edit on 9-5-2007 by Pootie]

That is a totally false and biased report of the work of Pons and Fleischman. It was not faked. Jones debunked their work because he regarded them as competitors. To use ad hominems towards Wood demonstrates that you care not for scientific arguments. Wood has accumulated considerable evidence of anomalous features of the destruction of the WTC that cannot be explained by explosives (and certainly NOT by Jones' suggestion of thermate). His detection of thermate is not a smoking gum because it can be explained in terms of thermate used by workers at Ground Zero to clear the debris. Whether that is true or not, believers in the government account of 9/11 will no doubt use it in order to dismiss Jones' discovery of thermate. Therefore, it amounts to a red herring and cannot be regarded as an irrefutable smoking gun that the towers were demolished.


[Mod edit: Removed entire quote of preceeding post. Please see ABOUT ATS: Warnings for excessive quoting, and how to quote. Thank you - Jak]

[edit on 10/5/07 by JAK]

Originally posted by micpsi
That is a totally false and biased report of the work of Pons and Fleischman. It was not faked. Jones debunked their work because he regarded them as competitors. To use ad hominems towards Wood demonstrates that you care not for scientific arguments. Wood has accumulated considerable evidence of anomalous features of the destruction of the WTC that cannot be explained by explosives (and certainly NOT by Jones' suggestion of thermate). His detection of thermate is not a smoking gum because it can be explained in terms of thermate used by workers at Ground Zero to clear the debris. Whether that is true or not, believers in the government account of 9/11 will no doubt use it in order to dismiss Jones' discovery of thermate. Therefore, it amounts to a red herring and cannot be regarded as an irrefutable smoking gun that the towers were demolished.

When did I say that Jones' thermate ONLY theory was correct? When did I say it was a "smoking gun"? You are just trying to put words in my mouth.

Pons and Fleischmann LIED TO AND TRICKED Jones. THEY DID NOT PRODUCE COLD FUSION. I would be pissed off too. you are posting about something you know nothing about.

Jones may be misled, if he continues to insist that ONLY thermate was used, however, that is not how I see what he has said. He has spoken on the WHOLE RANGE OF ALUMINOTHERMICS from weak thermite to nano-thermates in solgel. Melt to BOOM. Personally I think there were NOT ONLY aluminthermics used, but at least Jones is ASKING QUESTIONS. Why do you think his paper was originally written as THIRTEEN QUESTIONS?

Wood is a certifiable nut case claiming she has FACTUAL evidence of FEWs... not science. A non-reviewed theory thrown out as fact. She is planting the "red herrings" and trying to use her "research" to challenge the NIST without review or virtually ANY support.

Agree to disagree bro.

[edit on 10-5-2007 by Pootie]

Originally posted by micpsi
That is a totally false and biased report of the work of Pons and Fleischman. It was not faked.

Source for this?

Pootie, I wouldn't worry much about what he has to say and is just stirring the pot .

Who cares about Jones's research in Cold Fusion, atleast he was trying to look into it with a scientific nature, can give him credit for that.

But Dr Judy Wood, either has her own agenda or something rather because she seems to be less logical and scientific than Jones.

I agree that Judy Wood is 'out to lunch' completely. I watched one of her lectures, where she had cartoon characters she was referencing and I saw an interview she did.

She just is not qualified for this type of research and the vast majority of people are taking back with her nonsense.

The fact is, Jones is asking credible questions and some of those questions have gone unanswered.

I think people here should question sincerely why this person CB_Brooklyn goes to great lengths to discredit Steve Jones.
This person has an agenda, to discredit Steven Jones and to tell you that CNN used Cartoon like CGI.

I think it is obvious what is happening.

[edit on 10-5-2007 by talisman]