Journal of 9/11 studies

Originally posted by AquariusDescending

I know by reading your posts, and by the fact that you don't bother to mention being a relevant professional, that you're not. And don't even act like your credentials would even begin to compare to Jones'. Get back to me when there is a Wikipedia page that (accurately) lists you as having done nuclear research internationally, let alone any of the other things Jones has done.

I have provided technical critiques of his shoddy experimental protocol, blatant ignorance, and unjustified conclusions throughout several threads and many posts.

A fool could do the same, with the same credentials.


My post still stands, "someone who has nowhere near the credentials of Dr. Steven Jones, attacking him personally and simultaneously not providing any technical critiques of his actual work from professionals with credentials comparable to Jones'." (ie, not you)

A fool could not properly critique Jones' paper nor understand the critiques of others. You are the example.
You claim to know I am unqualified because I chose not to tell everyone how many chemistry degrees I have and how many papers I published. You claim to know I am unqualified because you read my posts, but how qualified are you to make that determination? How many chemistry degrees do you have? How many papers have you published? Are you a reviewer for J. Analyt.Chem.?

As a point of reference, my chemistry credentials are much better than Jones' and, of course, yours. Certainly, Jones has done nuclear research but unfortunately his paper does not deal with nuclear science. He has no obvious analytical chemistry skills and has forgotten how to do science, as he predetermines his conclusions. Jones is trying to buffalo people who do not understand the faults with his paper. You are one of the suckers.

Originally posted by pteridine
A fool could not properly critique Jones' paper nor understand the critiques of others. You are the example.

My point was that even a fool is free to say whatever they want. Now find a way to redirect this back at me like that's how you win. You can be as snippy as you want, but you still don't have the education and experience of Jones, and you don't have a peer-reviewed paper refuting him. He's been doing what he does for decades already, probably since before you were born. And it's telling that you don't realize that career research scientists are versatile in fields outside of their field of expertise, especially other fields of science and engineering, since they all share common mathematics.

You claim to know I am unqualified because I chose not to tell everyone how many chemistry degrees I have and how many papers I published.

Would you refuse to believe I am the president of multiple nations even if I haven't told you what nations I'm president of yet and how many armies I command?

You claim to know I am unqualified because you read my posts, but how qualified are you to make that determination? How many chemistry degrees do you have? How many papers have you published? Are you a reviewer for J. Analyt.Chem.?

Am I the one criticizing Jones' work like I would know better than he would? No, looks like that's you. Already confusing this basic fact of our whole discussion goes to show that you must not have to understand formal logic to understand chemistry.

Originally posted by AquariusDescending

My point was that even a fool is free to say whatever they want. Now find a way to redirect this back at me like that's how you win. You can be as snippy as you want, but you still don't have the education and experience of Jones, and you don't have a peer-reviewed paper refuting him. He's been doing what he does for decades already, probably since before you were born. And it's telling that you don't realize that career research scientists are versatile in fields outside of their field of expertise, especially other fields of science and engineering, since they all share common mathematics.

Am I the one criticizing Jones' work like I would know better than he would? No, looks like that's you. Already confusing this basic fact of our whole discussion goes to show that you must not have to understand formal logic to understand chemistry.

Your phrase ending with "...like that's how you win" like doesn't like make like much like sense....like, but you do make an astute point. Continue to say whatever you want.
You have no idea how qualified I am to criticize Jones paper, how experenced I am, or when I was born. If you could understand my criticisms you could attempt to refute them. You don't and can't. You are not qualified to do anything but be a cheerleader for your hero, Jones. I have shown in many threads how the Jones' team failed in their analyses, used faulty logic, posted data that contradicted their conclusions, and generally wrote their paper to reach their predetermined conclusion.
I do not have a peer reviewed paper refuting him because he does not have a peer reviewed paper to refute. Bentham is not peer reviewed. Any group of competent reviewers would have roasted him and Jones knows it. I am often a reviewer for journals in organic chemistry, analytical chemistry, and catalysis and I will state to you that no editor would have permitted this paper to have been published in any primary scientific journal, as it is written. This is why it went into a vanity journal.
Some career research scientists are versatile and some are not. With the Bentham paper, Jones has shown that he is not. Common mathematics is of no concern here, Jones has failed at common arithmetic when it comes to energy release calculations and came to conclusions inconsistent with his own measurements.
You have no training to criticize Jones' work, so I do not expect you to do so. You also have no training to criticize any reviews of Jones work but you try to criticize me not because you know anything about the subject but only because I pointed out fallacies in Jones paper. I do know better than Jones; he is out of his depth in this area and I have shown it. You are not competent to argue this point so you talk about formal logic and chemistry as though you were making a strong case for something.

Of course, you are also free to say whatever you want about formal logic.



[edit on 7/2/2010 by pteridine]

reply to post by pteridine


It has been a while since your post and I must admit Jones' paper about thermite is pretty solid and it is standing up against the course of time.

You're barking at the moon and a member of the Flat Earth Society to say otherwise.

reply to post by beijingyank


Yes, I think we've all noticed the literally thousands of eminent scientists coming out in support of Jones' work. The indictment of Bush can only be months away.

Look, get it into your heads. No one is interested in refuting Jones' work in a "peer reviewed paper" because it has made zero impact. Only a tiny minority of internet amateurs are interested in it.

Originally posted by beijingyank
reply to post by pteridine

 

It has been a while since your post and I must admit Jones' paper about thermite is pretty solid and it is standing up against the course of time.

You're barking at the moon and a member of the Flat Earth Society to say otherwise.

It is "standing up against the course of time" because no one is paying attention to it. It is not in a peer reviewed primary journal and might as well be in the want-ad section of your local paper. Bentham is where people go to publish what fails to meet the standards of actual scientific journals. No scientific journal would publish this as it is written.

It is fortunate that some of us Flat Earth Society folk have the ability to take Jones to school. Apparently, Jones finds analytical chemistry and the scientific method way too inconvenient and tedious for his agenda so he short-cuts his way to his pre-determined conclusions. This works for the undiscerning crowd that needs to believe in the conspiracy but fails to work for those who are more astute.

As an example of how Jones cherry-picks data to support his predetermined hypothesis of thermate and all its later variants, notice how he arbitrarily assumed that the molten metal leaking from the South Tower shortly before it (ahem) was blown up was molten steel. Quite apart from not explaining why it did not leak out elsewhere if thermate (or some variant) was used extensively throughout the tower, Jones failed to mention (because it renders his hypothesis superfluous) the fact that Flight 175 hit the very floor housing all the racks of lead batteries used by Fuji Bank as back-up power for their computers. This was first revealed by an ex-employee of the bank to journalist Christopher Bollyn, who told Jones about it. In other words, it is far more likely that the molten metal leaking out of the very area of the tower that housed tons of lead batteries was merely mostly LEAD. But Jones ignored this explanation because it undermined his thermate hypothesis. As many others have pointed out, including Professor James Fetzer, professor emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth, Jones' scientific methodology is appalling. But then what can you expect from someone who believed that he found evidence of Jesus having lived in America.....

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by loveguy

 

Aw - did you check the authors of the other papers?

Steven "thermite" Jones, Kevin "Waterboy" Ryan, Richard Boxboy" Gage,
Graeme MC Queen.....

More nuts here than a jar of Planters.....

You cried like a little girl with a skinned knee a couple of years ago and discredited many of those people on the basis of not being peer reviewed.

Now you don't even attempt to debunk their work and jump directly to character assassination.

Your ethics are laughable.

It is "standing up against the course of time" because no one is paying attention to it...

It is fortunate that some of us Flat Earth Society folk have the ability to take Jones to school.

Although you just admitted that no one is doing that and then went on to justify why.

At least it took you 2 paragraphs to discredit yourself.

[edit on 21-8-2010 by jprophet420]

reply to post by jprophet420


Once more, you are confused about who posted what. Try addressing posts more carefully or stick to the philosophy books and pseudo-intellectualism.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by jprophet420

 

Once more, you are confused about who posted what. Try addressing posts more carefully or stick to the philosophy books and pseudo-intellectualism.

The only confusion is who gave you 2 stars for that utter crap. I even differentiated between the posts by saying at least it took you (quoted you) 2 paragraphs to discredit yourself. Then I posted the first sentence of 2 paragraphs that you wrote yourself, which just so happen to contradict each other.

And also the "once more" crack was completely unfounded. Just because I am not a JREFer does not mean anything else. When I am wrong I admit it and move on. If you cant quote me when you call me out don't call me out.

Originally posted by jprophet420

The only confusion is who gave you 2 stars for that utter crap. I even differentiated between the posts by saying at least it took you (quoted you) 2 paragraphs to discredit yourself. Then I posted the first sentence of 2 paragraphs that you wrote yourself, which just so happen to contradict each other.

And also the "once more" crack was completely unfounded. Just because I am not a JREFer does not mean anything else. When I am wrong I admit it and move on. If you cant quote me when you call me out don't call me out.

When I said no one is paying attention, I meant the scientific peers who would gain access to samples and repeat the work and confirm or refute it. That is because the paper was not published in a peer reviewed journal. It was not published in a peer reviewed journal because it is so substandard it could only be published in a vanity journal. I have shown why it is substandard on many occasions. As it is, it is blessedly invisible to most scientists except those who follow conspiracies and expose any scientific chicanery that they find.

I didn't think my comment was a "calling out." I am not sensitive to such from others and now realize that you are, so I will refrain from casual comments based on memory and seek hard evidence. It is fortunate that the penalties for "calling out" on the internet are less severe now than in past societies where duels settled such things.

If you wish to make one response to multiple posts, try to distinguish between authors. I suggest that you use the @ symbol with the name of the author and your response.

Originally posted by jprophet420
Although you just admitted that no one is doing that and then went on to justify why.

At least it took you 2 paragraphs to discredit yourself.

Good catch, lmao.

On one hand ranting about how Jones has been debunked, then on the other hand ranting about how no one will publish a paper to refute him because they don't care enough. And then he has the nerve to call YOU a pseudo-intellectual.

I always laugh at that part. They come here literally every day, but it's too much of a waste of time to actually submit an academic paper to a journal. No, what a waste of time. They'll just spend hours on this forum every day arguing with you personally instead.

And who is actually sticking up for the pedophile lovers over at JREF?

Originally posted by jprophet420
The only confusion is who gave you 2 stars for that utter crap.

The same "2 people" that always do. Whenever you see one of his posts without at least 2 stars, it means "they" haven't been by yet I guess.

I hate this whole starring system at ATS. I don't get it and it only annoys me. What is the rationale? To generate more clicks, more traffic and more advertising money? Because it goes completely against the grain of independent thinking. It's basically putting a peer pressure stamp on every post. Let anyone with an opinion, speak it for themselves, don't just piggy-back onto someone else.

And the great irony is that someone will star this too.

Edit: Too late. Someone already has.

[edit on 22-8-2010 by VirginiaRisesYetAgain]

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Clearly it is a violation of the rules, yet I don't see any warnings.

Gee I wonder why?

Wait a minute, my post got an instant warning...lol...



[edit on 22-8-2010 by beijingyank]

off topic of the thread but relevant to the thread, i really liked the old "way above top secret" voting system. You only got 3 votes a month so they really had to count. but I understand why it is they way it is now. and tbh i really really really really hate it when i get stars for being a "truther" as bad as I hate being called one.

But then I guess that makes this incredibly relevant to the thread and the title because it shows what an excellent, intentional job the MSM has done of creating a stigma.