Is Steven Jones actually a government disinfo comapaign

Originally posted by mmiichael
Jones came along just as the 9/11 Truth Movement was declinig. There was infighting and divisions. A lot of the brighter lights started to see it for what was becoming - a cult. The 2004 POPULAR MECHANIC article answered a lot of questions for the general public and membership was down.

It has morphed into a rallying point for the angry, the disenfranchised, the paranoid. A loose community with a literature you can add to and new friends to share your outraged indignation of the the rich and powerful. A politics with no real goal, just the common belief that the US is a monolithic monster capable of any and all evil.

Jones had a PHD some credibility as a physics professor. Importantly he introduced a new magic word - 'thermite.' So now you can throw that word around and impress disbelievers. The fact that any form of thermite would not really work as an explosive in a controlled demolition, and that Jones had done his tests on ordinary paint, were not issues.

So he has gone from being an obscure dismissed prof to a heroic champion of Truth and Justice, with a noble cause. Somewhere along the way there are a few bucks in it for him, I'd imagine.


Mike

Jones did not come in the "truth movement" as it was declining. He appeared in the "truth movement" with his "controlled demolition - a hypothesis to be tested" after Dr Judy Wood already offered scientific PROOF that the government's version of events is false:

www.drjudywood.com...


The Popular Mechanics article was for the sole purpose of debunking PROPAGANDA. They did not debunk the PROOF as offered by Dr Judy Wood.

Jones sole purpose in the "truth movement" is to distract people from the PROOF that already exists.

And since the media is completely controlled, they publish story's about Jones' "hypothesis" instead of Wood's PROOF.

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn

Jones did not come in the "truth movement" as it was declining. He appeared in the "truth movement" with his "controlled demolition - a hypothesis to be tested" after Dr Judy Wood already offered scientific PROOF that the government's version of events is false:

The Popular Mechanics article was for the sole purpose of debunking PROPAGANDA. They did not debunk the PROOF as offered by Dr Judy Wood.

Jones sole purpose in the "truth movement" is to distract people from the PROOF that already exists.

And since the media is completely controlled, they publish story's about Jones' "hypothesis" instead of Wood's PROOF.

I actually respect Wood much more than Jones. I think she is sincere but her analysis based on incomplete and distorted evidence is severely wanting. Jones is too obviously in it for attention and the inevitable financial rewards.

Somewhere there must be an good overview of the whole Truth Movement, but I haven't seen it. From what I've picked up, there was a growing grassroots level movement among concerned Americans that came into full force in 2002. It attracted intellectuals, academics, scientists, serious thinkers. It was jokingly characterized as being housed in Starbucks cross country particularly in San Francisco.

Those who track it found it started to dissemble in 2004, as the real facts started to emerge from NIST, FEMA, etc. Infighting within the loose community only served to make it look dubious.

Today it is characterized more as a cult, with millions of underinformed people worldwide accepting the vast array of commercial and agenda driven websites, videos, and books as proof. Conspiracy forums thrive on it, manipulation is rampant, and in the process the real truth gets lost.

Myself I see evidence of incompetence and deception on the part of the US admin and it's agencies. This needs to be investigated further by independent and objective journalists. And there are serious minded people doing the job. The cult level inquiries seemed obsessed with the controlled demolition aspect, aided by a mountain of videos and photographs. There is so much misinformation and internally conflicting data coming from them, if there is any solid evidence they've uncovered, it's hard to separate it from the junk science and hyper-speculation.

Like the JFK assassination, history is becoming trampled over and buried by muddy boots. Disinformation is flying from all sides. It will be a real task to separate fact from wishful fiction for future generations.


Mike


[edit on 20-6-2009 by mmiichael]

I actually respect Wood much more than Jones. I think she is sincere but her analysis based on incomplete and distorted evidence is severely wanting. Jones is too obviously in it for attention and the inevitable financial rewards.

Just wondering how you arrived at that conclusion, as he was employed as a professor prior to his involvement. He went from good job to unemployed for his beliefs.

The truth movement split with Jones on one side and Fetzer on the other based off of the theories they wanted to believe.

Point is, to me, Jones is a perfect plant. Respected professor from a respected university who suddenly decides 4 years after the fact to hold a seminar. After this, the entire movement truly did flourish. It was no longer just some Internet ramblings or video on You Tube, it was someone who wanted to give an alternate reality to the real events.

When he was done in the months that followed 3 groups emerged.

The Official Story, the truth movement and the out of the box theories.

Now you do not have just 2 sides but three which lends to even more disinfo from THREE POV's. Not good.

You see, in 1989 Steven Jones was investigated for stealing research for cold fusion during a patent application by BYU.

Maybe he owed someone a favor. Trace BYU and BUsh's connections to the school.

Fire him and make him a martyr for a cause....

Originally posted by esdad71
The truth movement split with Jones on one side and Fetzer on the other based off of the theories they wanted to believe.

Point is, to me, Jones is a perfect plant. Respected professor from a respected university who suddenly decides 4 years after the fact to hold a seminar. After this, the entire movement truly did flourish. It was no longer just some Internet ramblings or video on You Tube, it was someone who wanted to give an alternate reality to the real events.

When he was done in the months that followed 3 groups emerged.

[...]

You see, in 1989 Steven Jones was investigated for stealing research for cold fusion during a patent application by BYU.

Maybe he owed someone a favor. Trace BYU and BUsh's connections to the school.

Fire him and make him a martyr for a cause....

You know more about this stuff than I do. My impression was the Truther Movement in it's original incarnation was in it's prime 2002-4. It was a concerned citizen thing that has devolved into a dogma for the disenfranchised.

Your thesis of Jones being a disinformation agent is intriguing. Knowledgeable professionals and academics I've spoken to consider him an attention seeking nobody.

Cold fusion was taken seriously for a few months. Jones actually got burned by Flesichmann & Pons who jumped the gun on him getting it intro print. The common bond was all 3 were trying to put themselves on the map and get a gadzillion in funds for follow-up research.

Jones is for certainrecieving under-the-counter contributions for his efforts from 9/11 Fundamentalists.

I expect if this doesn't pan out he will be experimenting on the newly discovered Roswell debris that is said to be a retroengineered alien technology that gave us memory metals. (Don't think I'm making this up - there's already a thread on it.)

A lower profile gig, UFOs, but steady work and attention for someone with credentials and not worried about losing credibility.


Mike


[edit on 20-6-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by esdad71
The truth movement split with Jones on one side and Fetzer on the other based off of the theories they wanted to believe.

Point is, to me, Jones is a perfect plant. Respected professor from a respected university who suddenly decides 4 years after the fact to hold a seminar. After this, the entire movement truly did flourish. It was no longer just some Internet ramblings or video on You Tube, it was someone who wanted to give an alternate reality to the real events.

You see, in 1989 Steven Jones was investigated for stealing research for cold fusion during a patent application by BYU.

Maybe he owed someone a favor. Trace BYU and BUsh's connections to the school.

Fire him and make him a martyr for a cause....

...
Your thesis of Jones being a disinformation agent is intriguing. Knowledgeable professionals and academics I've spoken to consider him an attention seeking nobody.

Cold fusion was taken seriously for a few months. Jones actually got burned by Flesichmann & Pons who jumped the gun on him getting it intro print. The common bond was all 3 were trying to put themselves on the map and get a gadzillion in funds for follow-up research.

Jones is for certainrecieving under-the-counter contributions for his efforts from 9/11 Fundamentalists.

I expect if this doesn't pan out he will be experimenting on the newly discovered Roswell debris that is said to be a retroengineered alien technology that gave us memory metals.

Ridiculing the "messenger" notwithstanding, I advise both the new and "neutral" readers of this forum to actually count the sources provided by the "expert debunkers" lately on this (and other) threads. Talk is cheap...

Also from the grievously misinformed and behind the times "debunking" chapter:

www.spacedaily.com...

DoE To Revisit Cold Fusion

back in vogue
by Charles Choi
New York (UPI) Apr 02, 2004
The U.S. Department of Energy is planning to give cold fusion a warmer reception after many years of skepticism and even ridicule as the agency pursues an official review of the controversial technology. James Decker, deputy director of DOE's Office of Science, said the review actually began last fall when he met with scientists to discuss the state of cold fusion research.

"They told me about a lot of research on cold fusion that has been done since the last review that was conducted about 15 years ago," Decker told United Press International.

He described the physicists with whom he met as possessing "excellent credentials," including Peter Hagelstein of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, David Nagel of The George Washington University in Washington, and Michael McKubre of SRI International in Menlo Park, Calif., a non-profit research institute that contracts for the government, businesses and other non-profits.

Based on their data, he said, a new review into cold fusion is warranted.

"The Office of Science will pass along the material to reviewers with appropriate expertise," Decker said.

Where cold fusion researchers were long shunned for their investigations -- as were mainstream scientists who remained curious about the controversy -- now they are heralding the renewed interest in the mystery as potentially world-shaking.

"Finally, after years of actively stopping such research on the subject, a few brave souls in the organization are starting a process that should have been undertaken years ago," said Ed Storms, a retired radiochemist from Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. ...

www.spacewar.com...

world.std.com...

The 2009 Colloquium
on Lattice-assisted Nuclear Reactions (LANR)
The Science and Technology of Deuterated Metals, Engineering and Devices

Saturday, June 20, 2009
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA

Theme: Successful Mathematical Formulae
and Engineering Concepts in LANR
(Lattice Assisted Nuclear Reactions; Cold Fusion)

(**) This Colloquium is part of the continuing Lattice-Assisted
Nuclear Reactions (Cold Fusion) Colloquia series, conducted
to increase scientific/engineering education in this field since 1991.

Space is limited.

edit: duplicate post removed by author.

[edit on 20-6-2009 by rhunter]

Originally posted by rhunter
Ridiculing the "messenger" notwithstanding, I advise both the new and "neutral" readers of this forum to actually count the sources provided by the "expert debunkers" lately on this (and other) threads. Talk is cheap...

You're right. Talk is cheap. I don't like bunk.

I tremendously respect research scientists working to discover new things, not with agendas to draw attention to themselves with controversial experiments while disregarding basic protocols.

I don't know if there's a link online somewhere, but what I've read in a couple journals is that Cold Fusion gets a second look for new reasons. There is some indication of excess heat. But it is now thought to be an electrochemical response still to be determined. If I recall, the 1989 explanation was it being from a low level nuclear reaction producing neutron radiation. These claims have been discredited or withdrawn. Remember fusion is even more dynamically explosive than fission.

Something seems to happen with a net energy gain, but not it's not fusion, as Jones et al claimed.


Mike

Originally posted by mmiichael
I actually respect Wood much more than Jones. I think she is sincere but her analysis based on incomplete and distorted evidence is severely wanting. Jones is too obviously in it for attention and the inevitable financial rewards.

Somewhere there must be an good overview of the whole Truth Movement, but I haven't seen it. From what I've picked up, there was a growing grassroots level movement among concerned Americans that came into full force in 2002. It attracted intellectuals, academics, scientists, serious thinkers. It was jokingly characterized as being housed in Starbucks cross country particularly in San Francisco.

Those who track it found it started to dissemble in 2004, as the real facts started to emerge from NIST, FEMA, etc. Infighting within the loose community only served to make it look dubious.

Today it is characterized more as a cult, with millions of underinformed people worldwide accepting the vast array of commercial and agenda driven websites, videos, and books as proof. Conspiracy forums thrive on it, manipulation is rampant, and in the process the real truth gets lost.

Myself I see evidence of incompetence and deception on the part of the US admin and it's agencies. This needs to be investigated further by independent and objective journalists. And there are serious minded people doing the job. The cult level inquiries seemed obsessed with the controlled demolition aspect, aided by a mountain of videos and photographs. There is so much misinformation and internally conflicting data coming from them, if there is any solid evidence they've uncovered, it's hard to separate it from the junk science and hyper-speculation.

Like the JFK assassination, history is becoming trampled over and buried by muddy boots. Disinformation is flying from all sides. It will be a real task to separate fact from wishful fiction for future generations.


Mike


[edit on 20-6-2009 by mmiichael]

True, Dr Wood is very sincere. However, I don't believe her research to be incomplete. It may lack some information that others would consider necessary for an investigation (i.e. the serial number of the device used); but, fact is:

Dr Wood is a material engineering scientist. She received her PhD from a major university, Virginia Polytech. She taught as a professor of mechanical engineering at a major university, Clemson University.

Dr Wood's 9/11 research is a forensic investigation of the evidence and analysis of the evidence. There's no doubt about it, directed energy weapons were used on 9/11 to turn the WTC into dust.

The idea of the majority of the Towers turning to dust is not hypothesis, nor is it theory. It is fact.


Her court case claims fraud against the government (and the American people) by the contractors hired by NIST to investigate the "collapses".

Dr Wood is the first scientist to file a Request For Correction with NIST.

Dr Wood got NIST to confirm, in writing, that they did NOT analysis the collapses.

In the legal filings, Dr Wood mentions that NIST contracted with sponsors of the Directed Energy Professional Society (such as ARA, and SAIC) for the NIST report. ARA and SAIC are two of the many defendants in the case.

She also mentions that she contacted the US Military's Directed Energy Directorate (DED) (located in Albuquerque, which incidentally, is where ARA is headquartered). The DED did NOT deny that DEW were used on 9/11.

Originally posted by mmiichael
Cold fusion was taken seriously for a few months. Jones actually got burned by Flesichmann & Pons who jumped the gun on him getting it intro print. The common bond was all 3 were trying to put themselves on the map and get a gadzillion in funds for follow-up research.

Mike
[edit on 20-6-2009 by mmiichael]

See the link below for info of Jones' Cold Fusion distraction. (Unfortunately many of the links have been moved, but will be corrected hopefully in the near future.)

forgot to add the link:
www.checktheevidence.co.uk...

[edit on 21-6-2009 by CB_Brooklyn]

[edit on 21-6-2009 by CB_Brooklyn]

Questions for Steve Jones, Richard Gage and their Supporters

www.checktheevidence.co.uk...

I'm going to get extreme here.

I think this whole focus on the controlled demolition is a farce.

The US may have facilitated 9/11, most likely factions in the admin and intelligence knew something of tremendous magnitude was coming down the pike and for their own purposes 'let it happen.'

Two airliners filled with fuel crashed into the WTC, acting as gigantic bombs. Ravaging fires and death ensued. The most shocking event in modern US history. Yet, as the story goes the supposed insiders insisted on a Hollywood style climax with the building falling down that day.

So Youtube videos are endlessly analyzed, debris is searched for thermite, theories fly as to why exactly the buildings fell down.

But the really serious issues, who knew what, what foreign powers were involved, what could have been done that wasn't, who is guilty, get lost in the search for how destroyed building were further destroyed.

In the end the Truth Movement is the best friend of any people who should be found and punished for acts of treason. They are essentially given a free pass as the questions that need to be addressed are nearly forgotten in the quest to find hidden bombs instead of hidden agendas.

The deflection campaign is succeeding. We see it right here.


Mike





[edit on 21-6-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael

I'm going to get extreme here.

I think this whole focus on the controlled demolition is a farce.

The US may have facilitated 9/11, most likely factions in the admin and intelligence knew something of tremendous magnitude was coming down the pike and for their own purposes 'let it happen.'

Two airliners filled with fuel crashed into the WTC, acting as gigantic bombs. Ravaging fires and death ensued. The most shocking event in modern US history. Yet, as the story goes the supposed insiders insisted on a Hollywood style climax with the building falling down that day.

So Youtube videos are endlessly analyzed, debris is searched for thermite, theories fly as to why exactly the buildings fell down.

But the really serious issues, who knew what, what foreign powers were involved, what could have been done that wasn't, who is guilty, get lost in the search for how destroyed building were further destroyed.

In the end the Truth Movement is the best friend of any people who should be found and punished for acts of treason. They are essentially given a free pass as the questions that need to be addressed are nearly forgotten in the quest to find hidden bombs instead of hidden agendas.

The deflection campaign is succeeding. We see it right here.


Mike





[edit on 21-6-2009 by mmiichael]

We have a winner. This is not going to an extreme but realizing that there was much more to 9/11 then demo'd buildings. It is all deflection to keep us from looking at 93, Flight 587 and the intel failures that led to 9/11.

The government was not as vigilant as it felt it was on 9/11. Complacent and not sharp is a good way to describe us. We were fat on money made in the 90's and even though the USS Cole was attacked there was no immediate thought to threat that someone would 'actually' do what they did.

I am still trying to find more on Jones but it is hit and miss. The only other thing I can confirm is that his work with Cold Fusion was about as close to scientific as his thermite testing.

First there is a Cold Fusion debacle that was also released early because f Soviet findings. Is this more evidence of working for the government and a way to provide power? The government buys up patents all the time. Is there a DARPA connection?

www.wired.com...

I mean, the tech we see is always 50 years behind what they are developing for the military 10 years from now.

Steven Jones is an interesting character once you start looking back...

Originally posted by esdad71
there was much more to 9/11 then demo'd buildings. It is all deflection to keep us from looking at 93, Flight 587 and the intel failures that led to 9/11.

The government was not as vigilant as it felt it was on 9/11. Complacent and not sharp is a good way to describe us. We were fat on money made in the 90's and even though the USS Cole was attacked there was no immediate thought to threat that someone would 'actually' do what they did.

We're on a forum where "my government lied to me" is emotionally more appealing than "my government is incompetent"

Rending one's garments in outraged indignation is the normal state in 9/11 discussion.

The real bad guys must find this obsession with exactly how many seconds it took for the buildings to collapse a riot.

I am still trying to find more on Jones but it is hit and miss. The only other thing I can confirm is that his work with Cold Fusion was about as close to scientific as his thermite testing.

First there is a Cold Fusion debacle that was also released early because f Soviet findings. Is this more evidence of working for the government and a way to provide power? The government buys up patents all the time.

You may be onto something about Jones. My feeling is he's not that exotic.
A physics prof at a Mormon College with little to lose on the credibility front, attaching himself to immediate media attention pseudo-scientific projects. Fame, fortune, prestige, popularity.

Most likely the government doesn't even know he exists. A minor 'cause de celebre' on the conspiracy circuit.


Mike



[edit on 21-6-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by esdad71
We have a winner. This is not going to an extreme but realizing that there was much more to 9/11 then demo'd buildings. It is all deflection to keep us from looking at 93, Flight 587 and the intel failures that led to 9/11.

How many times was Flights 93 and 587 mentioned in the media? Lots.

How many times were WTC standard controlled demolitions mentioned in the media? Lots.

How many times was WTC DEW mentioned in the media? Once.


The distractions are Flights 93, 587 and WTC standard CD. They're a distraction from the EXOTIC weaponry that the 9/11 perps want kept secret. This is not hard to understand.

]reply to post by CB_Brooklyn


How many times was Flights 93 and 587 mentioned in the media?

No,not Lots. 93 had a good story that became at least 3 movies and had a tag line of Lets roll that was used to spark patriotism. I believe it was shot down. Mineta and Cheney. 587 came and went fast....As far as 587, there is a thread on this board that shows an explosion, not wind shear. It is a atollnooth video. It believe it was a shoebomb just like Reid attempted and did not complete. They have the name of the man accidently released in canada and was too late for the 9.11 operation.

How many times were WTC standard controlled demolitions mentioned in the media? Yes, even on PBS and Main Stream Magazines such as Popular MEchanics but nothing about 93...keep them looking to the WTC 7 and super nano holographic thermite....

How many times was WTC DEW mentioned in the media? You win there....

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
How many times was Flights 93 and 587 mentioned in the media? Lots.

How many times were WTC standard controlled demolitions mentioned in the media? Lots.

How many times was WTC DEW mentioned in the media? Once.


The distractions are Flights 93, 587 and WTC standard CD. They're a distraction from the EXOTIC weaponry that the 9/11 perps want kept secret. This is not hard to understand.

We aren't here to argue the merit of your particular claim. But there must be hundreds of ATS threads that address exotic weaponry in gory detail.

I'm not sure why passenger airliners filled with fuel smashing into the tallest buildings housing the controls of American enterprise, and a side order of a plane going into the Pentagon aren't exotic enough.

Medium tech can be as destructive as high tech if your choice of targets and execution are planned well.

And they were.

The real issues are who knew in advance, how much, why was the intelligence seemingly asleep at the wheel, etc.

No Youtube video analysis of destruction and collapse can answer those questions.

Mike

Well a soft spoken humble professor ... is a dis info agent ... what did he gain...? what did he lose...? -- and Cold Fusion advance was squashed and he was involved in that too... you maybe on to something ... cuz, right now he may want revenge and taints his evidence...
let a jury weigh it ... its not for me to judge...

Did you see the CBS segment on Cold Fusion from a couple months ago?


Cold Fusion Is Hot Again
60 Minutes: Once Considered Junk Science, Cold Fusion Gets A Second Look By Researchers
www.cbsnews.com...

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn

How about addressing the issues in the link I gave....... you know, the one you conveniently deleted when quoting my last post?

The 9/11 Truth Movement, Free Energy Suppression, and the Global Elite’s Agenda
www.checktheevidence.co.uk...

Sounds like you already made up your mind of what to believe, so why do you bother responding?

A sampling of the site, one stop shopping conspiracy, and the index tells me these DVD salesman have made up their mind where the money is.


Disclosure/ET
9-11 and Fake Terror

Gosh - no discussion of the actual evidence then - no discussion that the DVDs can be gotten free. You just decide "what's in the book" by reading the cover? OK - if that's how you do things, it's up to you. Meanwhile....
========
Why has this new paper been published now by Jones, Harrit et al? What important 9/11 evidence are Steve Jones and the Co-authors ignoring or unable to address?
This is a quickly composed article, posted as a response to the re-cycled and morphing thermite theory, which has again been “dressed up” in what appears to be an authentic Scientific Paper. As all 9/11 researchers should know, appearances can be deceptive. So, let’s scratch the veneer of apparent credibility and look at the evidence and issues Steve Jones and his cohorts won’t address.

Could Jones, Harrit et al have published this paper because too many people are finding out about the Hurricane (Erin) parked outside NYC on 9/11? Are they also realising the connection of the effects seen at the WTC to those of the Hutchison Effect:

www.drjudywood.com...

www.drjudywood.com...

Exactly what is the Bentham Open Journal? It costs $800 to get a paper published on there:

www.bentham.org...

Perhaps it is too much to expect or ask reviewers to look into the background of the evidence as a way of validating the paper.

www.bentham.org...

Though the editor in chief is listed, no other details about reviewers on the editorial board are available – apart from their name and country. I.e. their qualifications and areas of specialism are not listed (at least not on this page).

A further detailed critique of the Bentham Paper can be found starting here:

www.rushmessageboard.com...

When studied closely, there is no verifiable evidence that thermite played ANY SIGNIFICANT role in the destruction of the WTC. (It MAY have been used in cutting some of small amounts of remaining steel in the clean up operation). If it were truly significant, why didn’t Jones and his team submit his research in their legal challenges to NIST (see below).

2005 - Jones says "thermite carried in in loads"

2006/7 - Jones says "probably thermite AND superthermite"

2008 - Jones says "Paint on thermite"

2009 - Jones says "Active thermitic compounds"

So which one is correct? Or is this "morphing as we go" to string people along - and distract them from the verifiable evidence that thermite/superthermite/nanothermite/DOD thermite/superthermate can never explain - such as

The severe lack of debris:

www.checktheevidence.co.uk...

Upside down cars at the WTC

www.drjudywood.com...

Straight-line hurricane movement

www.drjudywood.com...

Magnetic field disturbances at the PRECISE moment of "1st impact".

www.drjudywood.com...

Recently, I compiled a list of questions and comments regarding Steve Jones and his research, and posted them here.

continued at: /911qath