My Humble Critique of a Small Fraction of Dr. Jones' Excellent Legacy

Hide All / Expand All

---

---

Señor El Once : ~my~ humble critique of a small fraction of Dr. Jones' excellent work for the 9/11 Truth Movement

2012-02-14

Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,

It was not my intent to be a joker when I linked you between threads within this blog, so I am sorry if I left that impression. I just didn't want to bore the readers of two different threads with the same material that you claim to not having a hard time grasping, yet with really no indication that you do judging from your consistent malframing and skew.

I gave the summary of ~my~ humble critique of a small fraction of Dr. Jones' excellent work for the 9/11 Truth Movement, recognizing that the vast majority I have no issues with and applaud him for his legacy. My ire is localized. Dr. Jones, more so than any other individual or group outside or inside the 9/11 Truth Movement, takes speculation about 9/11 being a nuclear event out of the picture and fills its vacuum with nano-thermite.

- He refers to govt reports that say radiation of types X, Y, and Z were measured at certain levels. (Interesting that he condemns the govt for slow-walking and unscientific work in other 9/11 reports, yet he accepted this radiation report without question. Given the govt track record, these reports on radiation levels deserve further scrutiny.)

- He deduces that known nuclear weapons of type A, B, and C were not used, because the measured radiation types X, Y, and Z were at insufficient levels to match those known weapons. (Garbage in / Garbage out.)

- He concludes without more substantiation in a scientific slight-of-hand that no nuclear weapons were used, just because data didn't line up with publicly known nuclear weapons of type A, B, or C. What about potential nuclear weapons of type E, nuclear reactors of type F, or cold fusion type G?

- He stops any further speculation about what could have resulted in the anomalous measured radiation X, Y, and Z.

- He takes the anomalous radiation measurements off of the table through the scientific slight of hand of redefining "background levels" to be 55 times greater than their previous levels. Thus, measured radiation was at or below the new background level. (This comes from Dr. Ed Ward.)

- In the realm of nano-thermite, he lets the science-challenged yeomen like you extrapolate it to explain features in the destruction that it cannot. The support for nano-thermite being explosive enough (in reasonable quantities) to achieve pulverization is weak, but worse is its ability -- even in combination with other slow-burning incendiaries -- to account for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots without unreasonably massive quantities of such.

- Dr. Jones is the one who publicly framed Dr. Wood's work as "beams from space" and "space beams." (From Mr. Andrew Johnson)

- Granted that many of us are reading historical exchanges between Dr. Jones and others for the first time and out of context on various web-sites. The impression I get from the language and tone from Dr. Jones sometimes uncharacteristically takes a negative tilt. He didn't shy from playing the disinfo card against others, and it wouldn't surprise me -- like the "space beam" taunts -- if we discover him pre-emptively doing so.

- Dr. Jones participation on behalf of the US govt in getting cold-fusion research shut down (at least as far as the public was concerned) for a couple of decades is noteworthy as well. (From Dr. Wood and Andrew Johnson.)

And I STILL have not come across a serious scientific critique of the Jones-Harrit paper. I even took off my black sunglasses to make sure I wasn’t missing any details.

The only things that DO exist originate with that stooge Greening, over at the JREF forums, where all is hi-fives and “yuk yuk ain’t we cute”.

Truth & Shadows and humble Maxwell's Silver Hammer might just change where such speculation is found on the internet via this very posting.

I have never spent significant time on JREF, and I think this is because they didn't approve my registration, so I couldn't participate. Reading what people link me to proves that JREF's "yuk yuk yuk" is well deserved and a blessing to us all, just like the Three Stoogies of old. Negative examples can have positive influences.

Hide All / Expand All

---

Señor El Once : Why of all the low-down, dirty-rotten, under-handed, back-stabbing, yellow-belly tricks

2012-02-14

Mr. HybridRogue1 writes on one thread:

Point blank; my patience has gone from thin to nonexistent. adios mr eleven.

~Secret Agent Man

And in another thread, Mr. HybridRogue1 writes:

And in so doing see that you haven’t grasped mine. And I am not going to try to get you to again. It is futile.

~Secret Agent Man

Why of all the low-down, dirty-rotten, under-handed, back-stabbing, yellow-belly tricks, you pull this one? When the going gets tough, you get out!

Checks-and-balances, Rogue Agent Hybrid. I'm so easily duped by whatever theory crosses my plate, hashing it out against a well-read, articulate entity -- even when in disagreement -- such as yourself is most helpful. As you saw from my benchmarking efforts with Mr. Shack, the facts behind my opinions can change, necessitating changing those very opinions. Do you have such abilities, Secret Agent Man?

Of course, I understand when it is wise for nonsense to be dropped like futile battles regarding beliefs that fast-burning nano-thermite whether or not in combination with a slow-burning incendiary can reasonably and realistically in a logistics sense account for the duration of hot-spots observed in the rubble. So no sense us cranking that one up again. I'll let you chalk up your defeat to me simply being more bat-shit crazy than you.

I know you're anxious to take Dr. Wood's textbook down a peg or two. You're more than welcome to help in that endeavor, but ... come on! Show some objectivity! Be an intelligent thinker on the matter. Such a Q-group agenda ain't going to happen if you aren't even on the same page to know where we're looking for errors.

By that same token, you'll easily be able to prove me wrong on the "Q-Groupie" ad hominem's lobbed your direction simply by demonstrating the ability to acknowledge nuggets of truth sifted out of the dross of disinformation, and then reflecting how such truth nuggets might have (or not) applicability in the bigger 9/11 picture. Sounds charming, no?