On Zubaydah with links to documents:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/31/governmen...
-and-
TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum
"Steven Jones is an agent" SPAM (57 posts)
-
Posted 14 years ago #
-
This stuff is indisputable and potent, if you can push it properly it puts the government on the defensive. (Assuming anything ever will, now that rot and apathy predominate and MSM don't do investigations and ten times Watergate goes by weekly without a stir.) There were also new confirmations of Sibel Edmonds's story.
Stuff like this comes out on an almost weekly basis. Its potential to move something and reopen 9/11 (in which case your CD theories might also be proven) is a lot greater than the endless CD debate. But almost no one in the remaining "movement" seems to know shit about it. Most of them disdain having knowledge of the official story or being able to deconstruct it, they're looking for the magic key and that's why they're on the CD train.
Thanks, Nick. This is what I've been saying too.
Posted 14 years ago # -
Just to wrap up the issue that much of this thread has been talking about . . .
While some on here are requiring an independent verification of the paper's findings before supporting them, that suggests that the debunkers themselves have no role to play whatsoever except to just toss around claims on forums that everyone else needs to run around and refute.
In reality, a paper is submitted to a journal and there is a peer review process. If it passes that process, it is published and the findings then stand until someone else refutes them via a peer-reviewed publication in a journal.
There has been no peer-reviewed "refutation paper" published, and it has now been over a year since the paper has been out there.
Experiments take time and papers take time, but debunkers were working overtime after the paper was published to spread their false claims -- and continue to -- without ever publishing a single experiment on the dust themselves. Fascinating. Almost sounds like NIST . . .
Replicating the findings independently helps them to be accepted more broadly, but, scientifically, the findings stand until they are refuted.
From Steve's original posting about the paper:
The peer-review on this paper was grueling, with pages of comments by referees. The tough questions the reviewers raised led to months of further experiments. These studies added much to the paper, including observation and photographs of iron-aluminum rich spheres produced as the material is ignited in a Differential Scanning Calorimeter (see Figures 20, 25 and 26). http://www.911blogger.com/node/19761
Perhaps now there will finally be a review of the SCIENCE explored by Profs. Harrit and Jones and by Drs. Farrer and Legge and their colleagues, as repeatedly requested by these scientists. We challenge ANY university or established laboratory group to perform such a review. http://www.911blogger.com/node/19761
And for the record, the paper was also reviewed independently by physicists at BYU and approved for publication, before it was published, as Steve mentions.
Posted 14 years ago # -
i think you use the word 'debunkers' in a way that makes me uncomfortable
i think it is clear that many of us here are NEUTRAL on the subject. I've heard Nicholas refer to his position as 'agnostic.'
I think the term 'debunkers' has connotations that are somewhat derogatory in that many of the enemies of this movement take that label for themselves.
i think there have been very valuable points made in this thread - with a very small percentage of direct criticism of Jones' work that could be labeled as an attempt at 'debunking.'
no. instead i think this discussion has been balanced, fair and realistic - and addresses the status of Jones' work in the scientific community - and whether it has been independently verified. It is a legitimate question. Frankly i am getting a little tired of the pressure to simply line up and shut up and never ever ever ask questions about CERTAIN subjects. some of us here still reserve the right to ask questions - for the sake of the legitimacy of this movement - and for the sake of our own intellectual integrity.
debunkers attempt to 'prove wrong' the theories and assumptions of others. I would be first to admit that i lack the scientific expertise to judge his work. I am not trying to debunk Jones' work. But - i will also require a broader consensus among a wider body of qualified experts and scientists before declaring - as a non-scientist political activist who speaks to the general public - that nano-thermite was found at the WTC.
i'm sorry but I cannot believe my ears when you state that Jones' work stands until refuted - simply because it was published. The fact that it has not yet been refuted simply does NOT prove that it is the truth. The ONLY thing i know to be the truth is the inherent fallibility of man. And last time I checked Dr. Jones was not a deity.
Posted 14 years ago # -
By debunkers I mean SLC, Ryan Mackey, Mark Roberts, etc -- not 9/11 activists and researchers. People on here are basically asking questions and asserting views (aside from Mark, who does try to debunk in the same manner as debunkers -- with quick remarks not well thought out).
i will also require a broader consensus among a wider body of qualified experts
Yes, and with the same requirement for NIST?
The problem is that the wider body of qualified experts cannot evaluate NIST's findings since their computer simulations are proprietary, among other things. There is an illusion that many experts have actually looked at NIST's findings in detail and agree with them, but that's not really the case. I'd say the people who have looked closely at NIST's findings, actually reading the reports, amount to tens of people, and mainly those were people highly focused on particular areas, such as how certain materials behaved in the fires, not broadly questioning the overall findings. They had Q & A's in various formats during the final report creating processes.
Early on in the scholars group, one person went around his university to numerous the engineering profs and asked them if they agreed with NIST on the WTC outcome -- most said yes.
But had they read the NIST report? None had.
Did they know that some disputed the report? They did not.
That's the ugly truth of the situation.
We just have to make sure to have the same requirements for both sides.
Posted 14 years ago # -
Yes, and with the same requirement for NIST?
The problem is that the wider body of qualified experts cannot evaluate NIST's findings since their computer simulations are proprietary, among other things. There is an illusion that many experts have actually looked at NIST's findings in detail and agree with them, but that's not really the case. I'd say the people who have looked closely at NIST's findings, actually reading the reports, amount to tens of people...
As a matter of fact that's what it looks like.
But still, "the same requirement for NIST" only serves to leave the issues in the air. Again, I urge professionals to study these questions and engage in the scientific debate until something like a consensus of the community based in physical evidence can be achieved. (At the same time, I urge the mass of the obviously unqualified to stop tainting it with the many misconceived notions they falsely imagine constitute proof.)
Meanwhile, there's no question that the government has lied, distorted and omitted important facts about 9/11. There's no question that Zubaydah is a construct (in the sense that he is not the important figure he was built up to be). And yet information supposedly sourced from him prompted a series of terror panics and, of course, was used in the 9/11 Commission's account of the attacks. There's no question that the top men in the chain of command went AWOL during the two hours of the 9/11 events, either by indisputable evidence (such as live video) or according to their own statements, and that official accounts have not addressed this issue. There's no question that I can go on to another 20 analogous points concerning foreknowledge, prior surveillance of the alleged hijackers (and their apparent protection from enforcement), more than negligent "failures" suggesting facilitation and so on that should be familiar to anyone reading this on this forum... There's also no question that Afghanistan and Iraq were both planned and intended before Sept. 11 - all except for a casus belli that would have flown with the people.
I think an approach focusing on these matters provides whos and whens, a comprehensible narrative, history and context, motives, credibility, and, above all: puts the government on the spot for its lies. Once established, the question of why they are lying follows, and opens the way for a real investigation.
Posted 14 years ago # -
But - i will also require a broader consensus among a wider body of qualified experts and scientists before declaring - as a non-scientist political activist who speaks to the general public - that nano-thermite was found at the WTC.
Fair enough, but can we agree that there is no scientific and peer-reviewed evidence presented thus far that disputes the paper? That other attempts at independent verification were highly consistent with Jones' findings. More startling, however, is that there haven't been any inconsistencies. They could not confirm that the material was nano-thermite, but that is not the same as saying that they've concluded it's NOT nano-thermite. So far, the only argument against the thermitic paper from a debunking standpoint, at least as far as I'm aware of, are those of internet trolls on SLC and JREF and the like.
I respect your staying neutral and desiring as much verification as possible, but let's look at the reality of the situation. While I don't consider controlled demolition the focal point of the movement, or at least not the desired one, there hasn't been anything thus far to contradict the Harrit/Jones paper.
Posted 14 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.