See Steven Jones Lie About His "Peer-Reviewed Paper"

[spooked911]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVlMonWMMzg

[Make7]

1. A transcript of that exchange posted in March.

The final responses got cut off in that video clip.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=77503&mesg_id=78684

(It's at the end of the post.)

:boring: Make7

[SidDithers]

2. Kick...nt

Sid

[LARED]

3. It must be hard on the CT community to see

an icon go down in flames.

[mhatrw]

5. Sure. Everything in the world is personality based.

Everything we believe is based on hero worship. :eyes:

[LARED]

8. What are you talking about?

Jones was viewed as a credentialed, credible, CT crusader for the CT community. He is exposed as a fraud and the best you have is some goofy notion about hero worship.

[mhatrw]

13. First, he hasn't been "exposed as a fraud" except to those who have

been trying to kill the messenger since the first time this poor guy ventured a public opinion about 9/11.

Second, even if he were somehow proven to be as big as farce as the NIST's physical survey of WTC rubble, who cares? How does it affect anything but the most arcane speculation (as in thermate vs. thermite) concerning the events 9/11? You yourself have categorized Jones' arguments as nothing more than "conspiracy site rehashes" over a dozen times.

[SidDithers]

6. It really is an amazing fall from grace....

but not at all unexpected. As long as he was refusing to publish in a recognized physics or engineering journal, his days as a "credible" investigator were numbered.

Sid

[LARED]

9. True

Did any members of the objective rational world really believe he was going to have his work peer reviewed?

I will say that because he is a tenured professor, I am willing to cut him some slack and assume he was misguided enough to get his work peer reviewed, got laughed at, and then was in it too deep to exit gracefully.

[G Hawes]

12. Point of order.

He wasn't tenured, actually.

That said, I otherwise agree with your posts in this thread.

[mhatrw]

14. Here, here.

If we all repeat saying the same thing over and over in congratulatory agreement with each another, it will make our argument appear that much stronger. This confers the illusion of consensus.

Who's next?

[G Hawes]

16. Do you have a problem with the truth?

He wasn't tenured. It's a fact. Do you have a problem with that?

Edit to add: and, for the record, the phrase is not "here here" but rather "hear, hear". You could (and should) at least get the basics right when you're attempting to appear intelligent.

[mhatrw]

17. Eye Eye, Matey.

We are both obvious lovers of truthiness.

[SidDithers]

20. Aye, Aye...

but I'm sure you knew that too.

Sid

[screembloodymurder]

22. The man was calling for an independent investigation.

Why should he have to present a paper. The 911 Commission was a partisan farce. Jones simply asked that a real investigation be done.

[SidDithers]

24. He wrote THE paper that CTers used to support the CD fantasy...

but published it on the web rather than through usual peer-reviewed scientific or engineering journals.

Sid

[LARED]

25. and

Jones claims it was peer reviewed

[SidDithers]

28. Indeed he did...nt

Sid

[truth01]

4. Steven Jones is a man who speaks and seeks the truth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

Peer review (known as refereeing in some academic fields) is a process of subjecting an author's scholarly work or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the field.

It is used primarily by publishers, to select and to screen submitted manuscripts, and by funding agencies, to decide the awarding of monies for research.

The peer review process is aimed at getting authors to meet the standards of their discipline and of science generally. Publications and awards that have not undergone peer review are likely to be regarded with suspicion by scholars and professionals in many fields. Even refereed journals, however, have been shown to contain error, fraud and other flaws that undermine their formality.

The people from NIST and from the 9/11 Coverup commission have refused numerous offers to debate Steven Jones and David Ray Griffin.

Perhaps they are reluctant to even try to defend the "official Conspiracy Theory" in public.

WTC 7 was transformed into rubble in 6.5 seconds. Official Theory after 5+ years. Still trying to come up with an explanation.

Perhaps I can help - here is one that fits the evidence.

Explosives.

[wildbilln864]

7. Steven Jones...

is credible! Those who tirelessly try to discredit him are wasting their time.

[LARED]

10. Credible?

You just watched a video of him lying?

[wildbilln864]

11. wrong again...

I didn't watch it!

[wildbilln864]

19. This computer won't run it..

but I son't have to watch it to know he's right!
And as usuall, you're wrong!

[truth01]

18. I watched the video - See my earlier comment

I watched the video - See my earlier comment

[mhatrw]

15. Where did he lie?

What is your point in making this attempt to discredit him?

[LARED]

21. He is lying about his paper being peer reviewed

See here of what he claims is a peer reviewed paper.

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/#Papers

And here for a transcript for him stating something about a book when pressed for an answer about the peer review.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=77503&mesg_id=78684

[Anarcho-Socialist]

23. No! A 9/11 Truth researcher lying? Dylan Avery would be appalled

:D

[mirandapriestly]

26. The point is, he is not a truth researcher, he is probably part of

a disinformation campaign, but subtleties are lost on you folks.(and obvious things)

[SidDithers]

27. He became "part of a disinformation campaign" ...

as soon as he started criticizing other parts of the Truthiness Movement.

Up until then, he had been a ScholarHero, defender of The Thermite Theory, and a shining example of all that was good in the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Strangely enough, his science (good, bad or other) hasn't changed a bit, and yet your opinion of him has. Why is that?

Sid

[John Q. Citizen]

29. His thermate theory is still better science than the shameful excuse

put forth by the 9/11 Commission when they hired NIST to show how the planes and kerosine caused the collapses.

That's starting with the conclusions, and it isn't science. It's politics

[Make7]

30. The 9/11 Commission hired NIST to investigate the collapses?

That seems rather unlikely. NIST's official investigation began in August 2002 (with preliminary work beginning as early as June) and the 9/11 Commission was created in November 2002.

Perhaps I am just not clear on what you meant by that.

- Make7

[LARED]

31. Pretty ironic

That's starting with the conclusions..........

[John Q. Citizen]

32. You are correct. FEMA apparently enlisted NIST. n/t