http://911blogger.com/news/2014-01-11/ae911truthorg-continues-grow-and-response-judy-wood
AE911Truth.org continues to grow, and a response to Judy Wood
Posted by ProfJones on Sat, 01/11/2014 - 8:23pm
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth recently passed another milestone, achieving over 20,000 members. As of today, there are 2,132 architects and engineers signed up AND 18,144 other supporters, for a total of 20,276.
I continue to support AE911Truth and congratulate their recent campaigns for public awareness and pending lawsuits against NIST. I have expressed my concerns regarding NIST analyses and lack of transparency through the years. I am glad to see this further action being taken.
Richard Gage recently gave a nice summary of the progress of AE911Truth.org, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q18pZXIaiOY#t=1586 . He quipped, "Steven Jones had a PowerPoint. I stole it seven years ago." Yes, he used my slides but it was with my permission. When I was "early retired" in January 2007, I found it increasingly burdensome to travel and Richard has picked up that role, and I for one appreciate that!
Are you aware of the articles available at AE911Truth.org? When I am asked about the hypotheses of Judy Wood, which happened again recently, I'm glad that I can point to FAQ #3: http://www.ae911truth.org/news-section/41-articles/505-faq-3.html - a well-written response.
Many are aware that Judy Wood continues to attack Richard Gage, me, and Niels Harrit by name -- see for example her talk here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1NbBxDGSkI (especially towards the end).
I should like to add that Wood's attack on me (in this talk) for a vote in 1989 regarding cold fusion claims is misleading and most unfair. The question I raised was -- did Pons and Fleischmann see deuteron-deuteron fusion as they claimed? My main argument then as now is that the observation of anomalous excess heat does not PROVE that d-d fusion is the cause, contrary to claims at the time. Even Fleischmann before his passing in 2012 finally admitted that he should not have called it "fusion". For more on this question, please see my talk-abstract at the 18th International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF-18) held at the University of Missouri at Columbia in July 2013. http://iccf18.research.missouri.edu/ I was there all week and pleased at the corroborating results presented by Professor Kasagi and others. Some of the startling results have recently been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. And I assure you, that work is not over...
Finally, I strongly support the initiative of AE911Truth to bring public attention to the anomalous fall of WTC7, at free-fall acceleration for over 100 feet. NIST finally admitted to this inconvenient fact. I have spoken regarding the anomalous fall of WTC7 numerous times, but happily acknowledge that AE911Truth is extending the public awareness regarding WTC7 more than I ever did!
According to Wikipedia Jones is a scientist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones
Steven Earl Jones is an American physicist. For the majority of his career, Jones was known primarily to other scientists for his work on muon-catalyzed fusion.What it doesn't mention is his Over-Unity "research", something usually called, Perpetual Motion machines, or more bluntly, a scientific hoax. His research "activities" can still be found online:
Dr. Steven E. Jones' circuit gives evidence for 8x overunity
pesn.com/.../9501835_Steven_E_Jones_demonstrates_overunity_circuit/May 27, 2011 - Professor Jones has developed a variation of the 'Joule Thief' circuit and has shown evidence that its output is eight times greater than the
Physicist Steven E. Jones shows evidence for overunity: circuit and ...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_fGKtmp8Cc
Dr. Steven E. Jones' circuit gives evidence for 8x overunity ...
Jun 14, 2011 - 20 posts - 9 authorsRetired Physics Professor, Steven E. Jones is working on a simple overunity circuit that he has seen go as high as 20 times overunity
PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
www.overunity.com › ... › Solid States Devices › solid state devices
Replication of Dr. Steven E. Jones' circuit gives evidence for 8x ...
www.overunity.org.uk › ... › Current projects being worked onJun 27, 2011 - 1 post - 1 authorDr. Jones - Current Research and Historical Notes - OverUnity Research
www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2168.0Jul 11, 2013 - 25 posts - 4 authorsBy BYU Professors Jae Ballif, William Evenson, and Steven Jones
To learn more about Over-unity, go to the Wikipedia page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over-unity
You'll notice it redirects to, you guessed it, perpetual motion:
Perpetual motion describes motion that continues indefinitely without any external source of energy.[2] This is impossible in practice because of friction and other sources of energy loss.[3][4][5] Furthermore, the term is often used in a stronger sense to describe a perpetual motion machine of the first kind, a "hypothetical machine which, once activated, would continue to function and produce work"[6] indefinitely with no input of energy. There is a scientific consensus that perpetual motion is impossible, as it would violate the first or second law of thermodynamics.[4][5]Since Jones is a scientist, he would know there is a scientific consensus that what he's claiming to do, create free energy, is scientificly impossible. And make no mistake: Over Unity research is all about "free energy". Google search:
Over unity Free EnergyThe only reason Over Unity isn't on Jone's Wikipedia page is, so far, it hasn't been covered by a credible media source. So it's rather ironic Jones is making pot shots at Judy Wood, who shares an interest in "Free Energy":
There is little difference between Jones and Wood: they are both using quasi scientific credentials to promote scientific hoaxes and frauds. If anything Jones is more culpable because he has the education to know he's promoting a scientific hoax. Judy Wood OTOH is a victim of a complex confidence game, managed and manipulated by Jone's old friend Jim Fetzer.Free-Energy Technology Demonstrated on 9/11 - Dr. Judy Wood
www.drjudywood.com/articles/soldier/soldier.htm
KEY EVIDENCE (videos) - Dr. Judy Wood
www.drjudywood.com/wtc/key.htmlThis evidence is central to it all. 9/11 was a demonstration of a new technology; free energy. It can be used for good,
Jones' other claim to shame is the Bentham Open Journal fiasco:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qROovaGUEI
Dprjones invites Jones to a debate which it doesn't appear Jones has ever excepted. If readers know otherwise, feel free to comment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deNNnTNeKQ4
The Bentham Journal appears to be vanity press that went to great lengths conning the participation of real scientists:
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6664637.html
[now only in wayback machine.]
Hoax Article Accepted by “Peer-Reviewed” OA Bentham JournalIn spite of this, the Bentham Paper is still being used as "proof" Jones, and now by extension AE911truth aka Richard Gage, have a scientific basis to their claims. Take this comment:
Does this raise more questions about author-pays models or this publisher?
Norman Oder -- Library Journal, 6/11/2009
In an Open Access (OA) version of the 1996 Sokal affair, when a hoax article was accepted by an academic journal, Cornell University librarian and graduate student Phil Davis successfully submitted a manuscript full of gibberish and credited to pseudonymous authors at The Center for Research in Applied Phrenology to The Open Information Science Journal (TOISCIJ), which “claims to enforce peer-review.”
- Article credited to Center for Research in Applied Phrenology
- Bentham claims one-time error
- Payment models require new vigilance, say hoaxers
Davis chose the journal “[a]fter being spammed with invitations to publish in Bentham Science journals earlier this year.”
In April 2008, British journalist Richard Poynder reported on Bentham’s ambitious strategy to launch 200 OA journals and the negative reaction to its recruitment of contributors, especially given that many researches were solicited for publications outside their expertise.
(One apparent solicitation—though its provenance is not clear—has varying font sizes and typefaces, suggesting a cut-and-paste aspect to the recruitment of editorial board members.)
Reaction
While Bentham’s U.S. representative did not respond to a query from Library Journal, its United Arab Emirates-based subscription manager told the Chronicle of Higher Education that it was one-time error (and said no one else would comment).
One commenter on Scholarly Kitchen, Jeppe Nicolaisen, wrote that he long ago withdrew from the TOISCIJ’s “so-called editorial board because I felt something was wrong” and said he was “a bit shocked” to see his name still on the board.
(Another Bentham editor resigned in April after Bentham published a controversial article about 9/11 without her knowledge.)
Library holdings
According to WorldCat, the journal appears in the catalogs of four North American academic libraries (University of Iowa, Florida Atlantic University, University of Alberta, and Oregon State University), as well as five libraries in Australia and libraries in Qatar and Hong Kong.
The implications
Davis received confirmation four months after submission not from an editor but from Sana Mokarram, the Assistant Manager of Publication, who requested that he pay the $800 author fee. He then retracted the manuscript, titled “Deconstructing Access Points.”
He previously had tried to submit another fake manuscript to a different Bentham publication, The Open Software Engineering Journal; it was rejected, though the publisher encouraged him to suggest board members and submit another manuscript.
Davis concluded, “While one should be careful not to generalize these results to other Open Access journals using similar business models, it does raise the question of whether, at least in some cases, the producer-pays-to-publish model may unduly influence editorial decision-making. One may also question whether publishers like Bentham see a lucrative opportunity from the OA movement, considering that academic libraries are establishing author publication funds to pay Open Access charges.”
His partner in the project, Kent Anderson, executive director of international business and product development at the New England Journal of Medicine, commented separately on Scholarly Kitchen, advising, “It's important that everyone in academic publishing realize there is a feeder issue at play -- the swelling pools of author-pays funding, how they're being managed, and policies around their use.”
He suggested that blaming publishers is too easy, but rather “it may be the administrators of the funding who have shown an Achilles' heel--lax oversight, a lack of transparency, motivations to support the "publish or perish" culture of academia today, and an inability to hold publishers accountable for services rendered.”
In debate
Peter Suber, an OA advocate, noted on his blog widespread suspicion about Bentham, noting that Bentham Editorial Director Matthew Honan would not tell Poynder who owns the company.
“The question is whether we're dealing with a very weak journal or with something larger,” Suber wrote, noting that many more traditional journals charge author-side fees.
“Anderson is right that institutions paying publishers should take responsibility to monitor how their money is spent,” he observed. “But the principle is a general one.”
Tom Wilson, publisher and editor-in-chief of the free journal Information Research, suggested that any process in which money changes hands is flawed.
f(failure(Millette)) = Judy Wood?Leaving aside that Judy Wood is just a victim of the 911 "truth" fraud, let's look at Millette. His paper can be read here:
Hello Dr. Jones. Although the malicious attempts by Judy and her followers to divide the truth movement are annoying, they are also a bit amusing for those of us that do not have our names smeared in public by them, because they signal an end to the era of the JREF-type (so called) debunkers of the thermite hypothesis, which are being phased out due to their incompetence. Ironically, they may have initiated their own demise when their much hyped study by Dr. Millette backfired spectacularly in public as they failed to get it published.Simon001 on Sun, 01/12/2014 - 12:42pm.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112webHiRes.pdf
Simon mocks Millette for not getting his paper published. But whether or not Millette's paper is "published" isn't the point. The point is he has demonstrated there was no thermite or thermite analogues in the dust:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=9732067&postcount=3722
I didn't ask Jim Millette these theoretical questions, though. I asked him, can you find thermite in the WTC dust? His answer: no thermite. Simple. It wasn't there, so it's irrelevant whether it CAN be used to bring down a building; it WASN'T THERE so it couldn't have been used to bring down the three tall buildings on 9/11!Millette has something Jones dreams he could have: scientific credability in the scientific and engineering community. From Millette's paper:
Revised Report of Results: MVA9119
Progress Report on the
Analysis of Red/Gray Chips
in WTC Dust
Prepared for:
Classical Guide
Denver, CO
James R. Millette, Ph.D.
Executive Director
MVA Scientific Consultants
3300 Breckinridge Boulevard
Suite 400 Duluth, GA 30096
Supercedes Report Dated 29 February 2012Looking up MVA:
01 March 2012
Home - MVA Scientific Consultants, Inc.This is not a fly by night operation. Nor is it someone who has a degree in physics but negligible experience in the field of his claims. On a related note, 911blogger co owner Jkeogh was a physics student. Therefore he also knows Jones "research" into overunity is a fraud. And, given jkeogh's involvement with AE911truth.org and Rethink911.org, you'd think he'd be concerned about a scientific fraud promoting Richard Gage's projects. The alleged increase of AE911Truth members aside, perhaps this indicates how desperate the scammers are for promoters.
www.mvainc.com/MVA Scientific Consultants, Inc. provides analytical microscopy for environmental, litigation, manufacturing, and pharmaceutical industries.
The traffic at 9/11 blogger is nothing short of abysmal. Not counting Gold's misguided involvement, most people who believed there was a real basis for this research got a shock in 2009 when not only was the Bentham Journal exposed as a vanity press, then in 2011 Jones embraced perpetual motion/free energy, but when no remaining "sane" person who had public presence(Richard Gage, etc) objected.
A sure sign they were all in bed together by 2011. Why do they bother pretending otherwise?
But while these numbers might be a cause for celebration in selling the 911 "truth" con, there's another interpretation. Change this:
As of today, there are 2,132 architects and engineers signed up AND 18,144 other supporters, for a total of 20,276.
to this:
As of today, there are 2,132 architects and engineers signed up AND 18,144 other people defrauded, for a total of 20,276.Keep bragging about increasing membership, Jones, All you're bragging about is how many more people have been conned.
