The Good Prof Jones Now Tells Us What To Think and Even What to Say?

by Scott Creighton

***UPDATE*** Apparently Prof Jones thinks so highly of the importance of the comment that he left on a thread at 911 Blogger, he has now posted it to the main page so that everyone is sure to see his valuable instructions on how to think and what to say about… his work.

I just found this little gem in forum over at WTCDemolition. Apparently Prof Jones is telling “truthers” at 911 Blogger how they should think, what they should consider as “valid”, and what the ultimate criteria for consideration of evidence should be.  “Peer Review” acceptance is apparently the end-all/be-all “truth meter” now.  And anything else isn’t “peer reviewed” isn’t “serious” according to Prof Jones.

Isn’t that the same thing the debunkers used to try and discredit us with years ago?

He goes on to say that his paper has the “imprimatur of peer-review” and that NOW we are no longer in the realm of “Big Foot and Elvis sightings”.  Well, that is according to Prof Jones,  his “active thermitic material” theory… is not in that realm, that is to say.  What does that bode for the rest of the 9/11 Truth Movement?

Is that where everyone else’s hard work in the 911 movement dwells Prof Jones?  With “Big Foot” and Elvis?

Forget the fact that for years Jones worked and accepted our accolades and respect without having been “peer reviewed” based solely on what we could see were the valid points he and others made about the problems with the “official story” of 911.

Here’s what you need to know (especially if you are not a scientist): UNLESS AN OBJECTOR ACTUALLY PUBLISHES HIS OR HER OBJECTION IN A PEER-REVIEWED ESTABLISHED JOURNAL (yes that would include Bentham Scientific journals), THEN THE OBJECTION IS NOT CONSIDERED SERIOUS IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD NOT WORRY ABOUT NON-PUBLISHED OBJECTIONS EITHER.

So how do you, as a non-scientist, discern whether the arguments are valid or not? You should first ask, “is the objection PUBLISHED in an ESTABLISHED PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL?” If not, you can and should say — “I will wait to see this formally published in a refereed scientific journal. Until then, the published peer-reviewed work by Harrit et al. stands. ”  Jones (see full comment left here at 911 Blogger, at the end of this article)

So now Prof Jones is actively telling 911 Truth advocates what they should consider as “serious” and worthy of consideration is ONLY what is “peer reviewed” and published?

Should Prof Jones’ rabble of minions care to do so, they might suggest to Prof Jones that he remember it wasn’t until April of 2008 that he himself was published in a “peer reviewed” journal.  For many years up until that time, his work was widely accepted as solid, scientific, and certainly “serious” by all of us “truthers”.

Up until that point, Prof Jones didn’t seem to have a problem with us giving consideration to unpublished, non-peer reviewed work.

Also consider this, just for the fun of it. By making that comment, Prof Jones has just given more ammunition to the debunkers.  Now, anything that isn’t peer reviewed and published, isn’t worthy of your consideration. All the other research all the other work is mute in comparison to the “Jones Theory”.

So much for thinking for ourselves and considering the validity of the arguments based on reasoning and logic. Now, Prof Jones has graciously told us how to think, what is “serious” and what isn’t, and what we should “say” while discussing these things.

———————————-

Jones full comment from 911 Blogger:

“Since the days of Sir Isaac Newton, Science has proceeded through the publication of peer-reviewed papers. Peer-review means a thorough reading and commentary by “peers”, that is, other PhD’s and professors. This paper was thoroughly peer-reviewed with several pages of tough comments that required of our team MONTHS of additional experiments and studies. It was the toughest peer-review I’ve ever had, including THREE papers for which I was first author in NATURE. (Please note that Prof. Harrit is first author on this paper.) We sought an established journal that would allow us a LONG paper (this paper is 25 pages long) with MANY COLOR IMAGES AND GRAPHS. Such a scientific journal is not easy to find. Page charges are common for scientific journals these days, and are typically paid by the University of the first or second author (as is the case with this paper) or by an external grant.

A peer-reviewed journal is also called a “refereed” journal. Peer-reviewers are almost always anonymous for scientific publications like this — that is standard in the scientific world. While authors commonly recommend potential peer-reviewers, editors usually pick at least one or two reviewers that the authors did NOT mention — and that is the case with this paper.

Debunkers may raise all sorts of objections on forums, such as “Oh, it’s just paint” or “the aluminum is bound up in kaolin.” We have answered those questions in the paper, and shown them to be nonsense, but you have to read to find the answers. I may also provide answers here and in emails, often quoting from the paper to show that the answers are already in it.

Here’s what you need to know (especially if you are not a scientist): UNLESS AN OBJECTOR ACTUALLY PUBLISHES HIS OR HER OBJECTION IN A PEER-REVIEWED ESTABLISHED JOURNAL (yes that would include Bentham Scientific journals), THEN THE OBJECTION IS NOT CONSIDERED SERIOUS IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD NOT WORRY ABOUT NON-PUBLISHED OBJECTIONS EITHER.

So how do you, as a non-scientist, discern whether the arguments are valid or not? You should first ask, “is the objection PUBLISHED in an ESTABLISHED PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL?” If not, you can and should say — “I will wait to see this formally published in a refereed scientific journal. Until then, the published peer-reviewed work by Harrit et al. stands. ”

BTW, there also has been no PUBLISHED REFEREED paper yet that counters either the “Fourteen Points” paper or the “Environmental Anomalies” papers we published last year.

IF it is so easy to publish in Bentham Scientific journals, or if these are “vanity publications” (note: there is no factual basis for these charges) — then why don’t the objectors write up their objections and get them peer-reviewed and published?? The fact is, it is not easy, as serious objectors will find out.
Our results have passed the gauntlet of peer-review (including in this case, review at BYU consistent with the fact that there are two authors from BYU).

We say that this paper has the “imprimatur of peer-review”. That is a significant breakthrough. You cannot say that of big-foot or Elvis sightings… We are now in a different world from such things, the world of the published scientific community. CAN YOU APPRECIATE THE DIFFERENCE? I hope so. And this is what has our opponents so worried IMO…”

Advertisements

12 Responses

  1. He sounds desperate. guess he paid to have his little opinion published and then wrote that the act of publishing created a standard of truth for his work. If that was true, then all bloggers spout out the truth…. after all, these blogs are ‘published material’.. read all over the world…. so anything published here, is the standard of truth. There, so be it. Willyloman, you are the standard for your peers. and the test for detonation cord should be made.

  2. Without passing judgment on Dr. Jones, his work or his peers; peer review sometimes doesn’t work as Jones claims.

    Just take the recent examples of the FDA, big pharma and medical journals ‘peer reviewed’ studies. Fraud in this area has been rampant for years.

    http://www.naturalnews.com/025852.html

    http://www.naturalnews.com/023074.html

    We also have peer reviewed studies for both sides of the global warming debate. They can’t all be right.

    And couldn’t you also say that the official 9/11 story has been peer reviewed and approved. I guess Popular Mechanics doesn’t count but the Perdue University and NIST reports come to mind.

    I hope that Dr. Jones is on the level with his studies but ‘peer review’ is not always what it seems.

    • From what I have gathered from Jones’ comments the peer review came from another BYU professor? Just one?

      And something else. He says repeatedly in the article that until they know what the red material is, until they figure that out, they can’t tell if it is a low or a high explosive material, which is tremendously important. If if isn’t a high explosive, it was not capable of demoing the concrete or of blowing the columns out. It wouldn’t have the detonation velocity for it with or without the organic material.

      There are also things coming out about Bentham Press… not being very well thought of in the journalistic community. So i don’t know, but he seems to be spending a lot of time trying to manage the perception of this work, rather than just sitting back and letting people in the community digest it for themselves. And that is never a good sign.

  3. So now Prof Jones is actively telling 911 Truth advocates what they should consider as “serious” and worthy of consideration is ONLY what is “peer reviewed” and published?

    IMO, what Jones is saying is that peer reviewed is the only material that will be accepted by the MSM and get some traction.

    As long as 9/11 truthers keep squabling about this or that, claiming that they have the inside scoop on what really happened and they alone, and the others don’t, the real 9/11 culprits will keep sitting comfortably in their million dollar homes, drinking their 12 yo Scotch and laughing their asses off, knowing that no serious 9/11 investigation will ever go forward, since the movement is too fractured.

    • Greg;

      That may be what he appears to be saying, but how are the debunkers going to use it? How is the MSM going to use his own words against us later relating to something that isn’t “peer reviewed”? The fact that he is openly saying this research of his “now” brings us out of the bigfoot and Elvis sighting realm is rather difficult for me to accept. We were never in that realm. He doesn’t say that this is going to silence the critics who “thought” we were in that realm….

      And what happens when the entire 911 movement jumps on board with this “active thermitic material” theory and then in it turns out to be wrong? Even his own peer reviewed paper says that he has to find out what that red material is – what the organic material is – what happens then to the credibility of the movement? Are we back, as Jones suggests, in the realm of Bigfoot?

      All that said, why won’t he test for other explosive residues like he suggests in his paper?

      Why is he responding to me about “taggants”, knowing full well that det cord doesn’t have them, and pretending not to get the emails I sent him that specify 3 ways to test for high explosive residues in the WTC dust?

  4. The 9/11 Truth Movement appears to be infiltrated and controlled at the top. If Jones becomes the only source of “reputable” 9/11 investigation then one peer review that finds serious fault with his methods or conclusions can topple him and in effect the whole 9/11 truth movement. This may well be the setup. Our govt. has vast tentacles and craftiness. Remember Lenin’s dictum….The best way to control the opposition is to run it.

  5. Another thing Greg,

    if you go to that link, read the comments. People that aren’t praising Jones’ work are quickly down voted, and one guy who keeps tryin to put up information about another avenue of investigation is chastised by Rep and then by another Lemming over there for not talking about the wonders of Jones’ paper.

    And why would Jones NEED to put up a comment explain to people how to think about this new paper of his in the first place?

    No. Cam got it right. This is a set-up.

    Jones himself admits in the comments section over there that there may be as much as 90 tons of this “unexploded” material and a low of “tons” of it? What does that mean they actually used? 100 tons? More?

    How the hell would they get that in the building?

    Also notice that Jones first started telling people when this came out, that they shouldn’t speculate on HOW it was used…

    They should focus on WHO COULD HAVE MADE IT…. instead…

    Why is that? In a criminal investigation does the investigator PROVE that Smith and Wesson made the gun or do they investigate how it was used?

    The fact is, he himself states in his paper that if the material didn’t achieve high explosive detonation velocity, then it COULDN’T have been used by itself to demo those towers.

    So, why are we looking for some deep-cover agency that could make his “active thermitic material”? What is the point of that?

    He needs to do exactly what he said people should do in his paper… test for the residual trace fingerprints of other, commonly used in the demolition industry, high explosives.

    Till he does that, everything he says and does is suspect to me. Especially when he what he is saying is that everything else in this movement is equated with Bigfoot.

  6. Observe Prof. Jones connections with establishment enclaves of universities. Vanderbilt, the quasi masonic Brigham Young, and Stanford…very well aligned with the establishment inner connected elite. The Hoover Institute (Stanford) is easily identified with the corporatist ruling class (Chelsea Clinton’s school).They have made misinformation and disinformation an art form for the elite. Anthony Sutton warned against forming organizations and groups to oppose the rulers…his conclusion…they will easily buy it up or infiltrate it. Oppose with vigor, interrelate, but don’t create a formal organization…they know how to take these over and out.

  7. What cam said, i add this to it.

    Clearly we observe the 9-11 truth movement infutrated and being subverted.

    THAT, RIGHT THERE, is indication that someone somewhere, and we know “who the who’s are, finds this subversion tactic very necessary, instead of the USUAL tactic, of just ignoring the matter. Their very involvement is indicitive of their fear.

  8. Willy,,, YOU,,, may be closer to the truth than someone wants. Someone,, somewhere, may be getting uncomfortible.

    And consider this. You can’t understand why their attitude is, as you say. You can’t see the reason, the rationality when all along, it is there right in front of you. It’s called SUBVERSION.

  9. good night Jan……………………………………………..

    nite Greg

    nite George

    GOODNITE JD!!

    See ya all Fri morn.

  10. […] The Good Prof. Now Tells Us What To Think an&#100&#32&#69ven What to Say […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: