DR Jones & the War Against Cold Fusion

[mirandapriestly]

When Oct posters tried to discredit Jones by connecting him with Cold Fusion I thought that he had been a proponent of it. I also thought that conventional wisdom had shown cold fusion to be "kooky" science. After watching this video I see that there is no consensus on whether cold fusion research should be continued or not. That isn't what I am posting this for, though. The role Jones played in cold fusion was to put out results which he claimed disproved the Pons Fleischman research that had been going on for years. What bothers me about this is he was acting, according to this , on a tip from an "informant" at the DOE (Department of Energy). The DOE was, it appears, representing the interests of energy companies, of course, who did not want a source of cheap energy known. The movement against CF, in fact, seems to be driven by corporations and their pals in the government & Universities.
So, could Steven Jones be a government operative or acting on the behalf of the powers that be? Making a name for himself in 9-11 only to be "disproven" later? How is he supporting himself? I don't trust his opponents at Scholars for Truth, either with their "Space beam weapons", I wonder about the legitimacy of the whole group , it is like a script, form two groups and divide which was exactly what we were told would happen.
I was kind of mad at Spooked when he posted the anti-Jones thread and now, belatedly I'm seeing the point.
Cold Fusion video (very interesting) with Steve Jones Heavy Watergate, The War Against Cold Fusion:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2229511748333360205&q=heavy+watergate

excerpt with Steve Jones (I recommend the whole vid though, to see what was done to Cold Fusion research)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=F4NtIqsqTE8&mode=related&search=

[wildbilln864]

1. great post Miranda...

I hadn't heard this. It's interesting indeed.

[mirandapriestly]

2. Thanks wb, I'm wondering who can be trusted

among all the 9-11 "truth" people. It seems as though there are two groups (I'm not talking about this forum, I'm generalizing about "the internets" and various 9-11 researchers). There are those who follow the hijackers, but that's sort of like following Santa Claus on his trip from the North Pole - a lot of it is either fiction or you are following patsys or doubles who had nothing to do with 9-11. Then there are those who come up with some great stuff, and 90% of what they say seems true, but then they start talking about "orbs" and space weapons and they have silly names like "planehuggers" that they keep trying to put in wikipedia, etc... So even though they actually say some stuff that is true and revelatory, they then discredit it by intentionally (I think)sounding "kooky". I heard Dr Jones say he believes that 11 and 175 hit the towers because there is "evidence" and I thought, "No there isn't". Those videos could have been and probably were faked and for some reason there was no NTSB investigation of any of the crashes which is UNHEARD OF, so no, whatever you think as far as the planes go there is no evidence. Then I saw this and decided , Jones is probably misleading us on this, if he would do something that lousy to stop research he is not the kind of guy who is going to something because he believes he is doing the "right thing".

[John Q. Citizen]

4. I trust Hopsicker because he has a track record of doing investigative

reporting, he has been proven correct in the past and at the present. He doesn't promote theories that he hasn't himself done the footwork on, whether it be about the collapses or Shanksville or the lack of air defense on 9/11. Hopsicker has been very consistent and mostly focused on his area of expertise, which is the nexus of intelligence organizations, organized crime, drug running and politics.

I trust Tarpley for much the same reasons. He has focused on publishing histories of false flag operations going back to the 70's with his ground breaking work on the assassination of Italian Prime minister Moro. He has a track record also on publishing scholarly works on the Moro assassination, the Unofficial Biography of George H W bush, and his current history on 9/11 as a false flag operation. He is basically a political historian and has been for a long time.

I trust Paul's Terror Time Line as an invaluable resource. It is focus on one area, collecting a time line of publicly available information. I trust the Jersey Girls. They are focused on getting a real investigation.

I trust the janitor from the WTC, an eyewitness to what happened from where he was at.He's focused on his experiences and on getting answers as relates to those experiences. I trust the open mics that picked up the sounds of numerous secondary explosions at the WTC and the numerous eyewitnesses who reported the same secondary explosions.

As far as the divide at the 9/11 scholars for truth, I don't know what to think. Most of these people (not all) are kind of Johnny come latelies to the world of political intrigue. They don't have established track records in this area. They are all over the maps as to their focus. That in itself doesn't necessarily mean anything, but it does go to the trust issue.

As for cold fusion, one thing I find intriguing about it is that one of the main research areas associated with it is as a triggering device for small 4th generation fusion hydrogen bombs.
If the history of fission nuclear power is any guide, the bombs come first and domestic energy production is an after thought as a way to pay for/offset the costs of producing the bombs. So who at the Scholars for 9/11 is a proponent of the small fusion bomb theory? (anyone?) and who is discounting that theory? (anyone?)It seems easy to check out, because trititum has a half life of 12 years, and who better to check it out than Dr. Jones? It would require some specialized equipment and knowledge but it could be eliminated as a possible cause of the heat and pyroclatisity observed at the towers and ground zero. But to my knowledge it hasn't been tested. It has been ridiculed by some as preposterous, and perhaps it is, but it would be nice to have at least one possibily ruled out completely.

We are faced with a lot of puzzling evidence in the 9/11 event, which the official commission report doesn't deal with at all. In fact the 9/11 report seems to muddy more than clarify. This is true from whatever angle one looks at the events, be it the hijackers, the collapses, the hot spots in the the rubble, the handling of evidence, the planes, the air defense questions, and the official time line of key people and the events. In purely a sociological sense, 9/11 was our Reichstag fire, an event to be debated for generations, and an event which changed the course of our history. With no apparent resolution.

One guide as to who to trust is, does the person clarify events or do they muddy up the understanding of events?

A recently declassified FBI report shows that the FBI investigated reports of Oswald contacting the Soviet embassy in Mexico City about a week prior to the JFK assassination. The FBI determined conclusively, as shown in the recently released declassified report, that someone had impersonated Oswald, and that Oswald in fact didn't contact the embassy at all. Some unknown party did, pretending to be Oswald. The importance of that, of course, is that someone was out trying to spread disinformation about Oswald a week before the assassination. So much for the lone gunman theory. However, there is no indication from the report that it was a double, just an impersonation. So why wasn't this report available to the Warren Commission, or if it was, why was the official story for years that Oswald contacted the Soviet embassy?

Whoever controls the information also controls the popular reality. Look to those who aren't attempting to control information but instead are trying to disseminate information that is verifiable. Because information that isn't verifiable is worthless and deserves to be treated with suspicion.

[mirandapriestly]

8. Oh, yeah, Tarpley is cool

Hopsicker is good, I think, but I'm not sure about the witnesses themselves , I thought they were being manipulated by other sources.
I'm not sure what you mean by a fusion bomb and 9-11, I don't think anyone has said that, my point was that in the past he ruined the research of Pons Fleischman and it was through an "informant" at the DOE which made me think, well, does he have a government "informant" on 9-11? The DOE protects the oil interests and I'm sure oil interests have a stake in 9-11. No one is saying there was a cold fusion bomb in 9-11. Well, I'm sure someone is, lol.
Information that is verifiable because it comes from intelligence/fbi sources is not really verifiable, imo, considering the history of false flag and the U.S.

[FogerRox]

32. Ever see any connections between Tarpley & LaRouche?

LaRouches intell operation is excellent in Italy/Europe, P2. Tarpley cites his former employer, EIR news service in Synthetic Terror. While Mike Rupert covers much of the same ground in Crossing the Rubicon, Mike avoids the Schiller Institute agenda, and does a comparitivly superb job of sourcing his book compared to Tarpley. Tarpley has appeared on the LaRouche Connection many times:
http://www.larouchepub.com/tv/tlc_biographies.html

LaRouche runs a cult & is a Fascist, of a competing variety, compared to Bush. Tarpley is his long term associate. They have their own agenda, and it is not progressive democratic politics.

[mirandapriestly]

33. I have reservations about him actually

and just about every "personality" around this thing.

[FogerRox]

36. Welll yes, but separately

The LaRouche connection is disturbing. Just as a book reviewer, Ruperts book is a far better product, research, sources, cites.

[SidDithers]

3. Glad to see that you guys are finally coming around...

to agreeing with those of us who claimed, from the beginning, that Jones was full of crap.

Sid

[mirandapriestly]

6. I didn't say that, I said he has been connected to the government

and why would they feel the need to put out 9-11 disinformation? I'm saying something completely different.

[MervinFerd]

5. Nutty theories are dis-information? Hmmmmmm.

Where have I heard this before?

Glad to have you on board, Miranda.

I will see how long it takes to get you on the Secret Shadow Government payroll. May take a few weeks. -Nasty- bureaucracy.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[greyl]

9. Ahem.

Guess which of these statements about Jones and his paper were made by so called OCTers, and which were made by Inside Job Cultists (IJCs):

"Am I the only one who thinks Carl Rove is behind this poison well?"

"Tucker Carlson loves Jones...The fact is Jones helps Bush by letting him conflate this conspiracy with his real conspiracies. Why do you think Tucker Carlson is the only moron to have Jones on his show? Tuckers not a government shill??? You think hes looking for "Truth"... Heh!"

"What we have here in the case of Dr. Steven E. Jones is the phenomenon of celebrity mixed with the seductive appeal of authority.
Many cters proudly cite his work because "he's a doctor" as if they were doctors themselves, but those same cters usually exhibit incompetence of their own toward scientific thinking, judged from a high school level of science."

"He is either a nut or a sane disinfo agent. Or a nutty disinfo agent."

"You shouldn't take anyones site as gospel truth - Especially Jones or the 911 conspiracy community which have errors and wild assumptions on just about every point."

"It's true, I admit it. I don't think Dr. Steven E. Jones is credible. I also hope to persuade others that Dr. Steven E. Jones shouldn't be taken at his word just because he's a "Dr.""

"...he has a track record of abandoning fundamental scientific principles and logic to matters of faith. His work on 911 has more in common with his paper on Jesus than real science."

They were all made by so called OCTers, and this only a tiny sample.
Maybe some people need to watch South Park 1009 - The Mystery of the Urinal Deuce again.

edit: and maybe, just maybe, it's high time some re-evaluated their extreme bias against those saying things counter to ones beliefs, and their ready acceptance of those who reinforce ones beliefs. If you're trying to figure out who to trust, you're putting the cart before the horse. Don't trust anyone, without solid reason to do! It's best to work on critical thinking skills so that one can trust ones own evaluation of the evidence, opinions, and possibilities.
Start by looking here with a fresh perspective.

[SidDithers]

13. Here's some more good ones...

From when Jones resigned from BYU:

It's a rare scholar that will sacrifice security for truth. Very rare. This professor is, indeed, a true American hero.

I wondered why BYU was letting him have freedom of speech
So, I was disgusted , but not surprised to hear he had taken leave. They must have told him he couldn't talk about it any more, so he left. God, this is America? It is more proof, IMO, that there IS something to hide. This makes me feel more strongly in support of him, although I do wish he would deal with more unexplained issues.

Archive surfing can be so much fun.

Sid

[Anarcho-Socialist]

10. You don't get it

Do you really believe that non-L/MIHOPers on this board hold the opinions they do because of some "guy wearing a suit on television"?

What do the terms 'empiricism' and 'scientific method' mean to you?

[mirandapriestly]

11. lol, that is downright hilarious.eom

[Anarcho-Socialist]

12. There's nothing like the good ol' fashioned

question dodge. :D

[mirandapriestly]

22. Only when they involve 19 hijackers

several who turn up alive. Because of blaming 9-11 on Muslims, the Bush administration has killed hundreds of 1000s of innocent people. Your posts should be ashamed of themselves for supporting their lies.

[mirandapriestly]

34. It isn't a "nutty" theory any more than what you believe

or "say" you believe. that's not my point, but of course, if you believe the 19 hijacker story, perceptiveness is not your strong point.

[LARED]

35. Getting on the payroll is easy

But it take months to get the secret decoder ring.

[SaiGirl]

14. Los Alamos weapons developers ---- retiring to "9/11 truth" leadership

HeavyWaterGate: Consultant of Army Future Weaponry Committee linked directly to Tesla Science!

Steven "Los Alamos" Jones/HeavyWaterGate: Cold Fusion Patent Holder
linked to U.S. Army Future Weaponry Committee
http://www.bloglines.com/blog/ewing2001?id=2382

++++++

Consultant of Army Future Weaponry Committee linked directly to
Tesla Science, but all links are DOWN!!

:

NORMAN M. HALLER Technical Consultant
works under
ROBERT A. FUHRMAN, chair, Lockheed Corporation (retired), Pebble
Beach, California
AIR FORCE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BOARD

part of Air Force Hypersonic Technology Program
http://fermat.nap.edu/html/hypersonic/


Review and Evaluation of the Air Force Hypersonic Technology Program
Publication Year:1998
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/6195.html


4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS links to
http://tesla.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6195&page=37

links down, also at
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://tesla.nap.edu


++++++++++++++++
http://www.engin.umich.edu/alumni/engineer/04SS/achievements/leadership.html
Robert A. Fuhrman, (BSE AA '45) was a prominent leader at Lockheed,
holding a number of key positions before retiring as vice chair and
chief operating officer. Fuhrman, a member of the National Academy of
Engineering, also sat on the President's National Security
Telecommunications Advisory Committee and the Defense Science Board.

http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/
Kenneth J. Krieg
Under Secretary of Defense

http://www.acq.osd.mil/help/bio_krieg.html
Kenneth J. Krieg is the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology and Logistics. The Senate confirmed him to this position in
June 2005...

...He joined the Department of Defense in July 2001 (!) to serve as
the Executive Secretary of the Senior Executive Council (SEC). ...
...Before moving to industry, Mr. Krieg worked in a number of defense
and foreign policy assignments in Washington, DC, including positions
at the White House, on the National Security Council Staff, and in
Office of the Secretary of Defense.

[mhatrw]

15. It's classic COINTELPRO.

It would be insulting if they weren't doing everything they usually do to coopt any establishment threat from the inside in order to divide, disparage, discredit and demoralize it.

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

[SidDithers]

16. So your claim is what?...

that Dr. Jones is a government agent of some kind, planted in an effort to discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement?

Sid

[mhatrw]

17. Sorry, duplicate post. n/t

[mhatrw]

18. My claim is that anybody sanctioned as a "leader" of this "movement"

by almost any level of corporate media acclamation is inherently suspect. Luckily, the 9/11 official conspiracy theory is so fraught with plot holes, suspicious occurrences and obvious disinformation that almost any attention paid to anything about the subject of 9/11 is counterproductive to those trying to protect the sanctioned mythology.

If there is any hope, it is in the proles (and their blogs).

[greyl]

20. Could you repeat that, but put it a different way? nt

[petgoat]

19. We all need to be very skeptical of anyone who tells us what

we want to hear.

The story of Dr. Eugene Mallove is an interesting one regarding
cold fusion. Haven't investigated it deeply myself, so I don't
know what to think.

http://www.pureenergysystems.com/obituaries/2004/EugeneMallove/

[mirandapriestly]

21. what do you mean, pg, you mean Dr Jones?

Thermite does seem like something that would work, but he never really explained it as thoroughly as necessary. I mean it is something that can be, but it's not something that must be and I had a hard time accepting that he would jeopardize his position at the University like that. How can he afford to be jobless now? Is someone else paying him? I also wondered if he intentionally did poorly when he went on that bowtie creeps' show. Then he said there was "proof" for the planes. Well, there isn't proof of the planes. The plane videos are edited. Why, I don't know.

[petgoat]

24. I mean Dr. Jones, I mean anybody. In propaganda spook land

your closest ally could be compromised, I could be compromised,
Dr. Jones, Dr. Griffin, Jim Hoffman--any of us could. And even
if we started out honest, spooks are expert at blackmail.

When something seems too good to be true, watch out.

Which is just a general principle. I've got nothing against or on
Dr. Jones, but I'm not building any fortresses on his foundation.
His thermate theory is the only reasonable explanation I've heard for
the mysteryious sulfidation attacks on the WTC steel as documented in
FEMA Appendix C.

He strikes me as a nice sincere man, who perhaps grew weary of the
obscurity of his labors at Salt Lake City. He was surely highly
paid as a BYU professor, real estate is cheap in SLC, and he probably
paid off a nice house there twenty years ago.

[mirandapriestly]

23. Look at the thermite threads

begun by the corporate media derived conspiracy theorists. There's three or four of them. That also indicates to me that perhaps it is a distraction. They seem to be focusing on the lack of photographic evidence of thermite on steel, which Jones conveniently failed to provide.

[jberryhill]

26. Cool, I'm part of a conspiracy now!

Dang. Where do I pick up my check?

You know, I've been engaged in internet discussions since way back in the 1980's on usenet news groups (go ahead and google away).

Back then, very few people used pseudonyms, and most newsgroup posting software was set up to put people's real names into the headers of the posts. With all of the allegations about "trolls" and paid disinformation agents and yadda yadda yadda, the simplest way to troll-proof a discussion is simply to have people post using their real names.

[Bolo Boffin]

27. My real name is in my profile.

But that shouldn't be interpreted as a request for anyone else to reveal their personal info.

[MervinFerd]

28. I'll need some info to get your checks started.

But, first, proof of authenticity.

Can you post a picture of a squirrel and a pigeon taken near your house? A close-up to show the animals and a wider shot to show the locale.

Then, we'll get back to you.

[jberryhill]

29. Squirrels I got

but I'm fresh out of pigeons. We have a mockingbird that doesn't tolerate other birds, or our neighbor's cat.

[MervinFerd]

30. Read this; it is apparently real.

The perp is a staffer for the repub Wyoming congressman

From Josh Marshall:

http://www.attrition.org/postal/z/033/0871.html

[John Q. Citizen]

31. Uh, you mean Montana, right?

[MervinFerd]

37. Probably----they're both square states. nt

[MervinFerd]

25. Bump. Because this thread is just -too- weird to lose. nt

[SidDithers]

38. I agree...

I'm not sure what the IJC's think of Jones anymore. First he was their leading expert, then he was a hero for resigning from BYU, but now I don't know what they think of him.

It's all so very confusing.

Sid