usually when people make complete cockheads out of themselves here, they just skulk off.

no, no, no, no./

Why is it being called an 'academic thesis'?

There is a complete debunking of the infamous Steven Earl Cold Fusion Jones' simplistic balderdash "Why Indeed" paper and it is also a "Why Indeed".

When Jones has addressed the issues within then the debate may continue. In the meantime he is a known disruptor of serious science since 1984. Hmm, funny year huh?

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/why_indeed.html

Please post Jones' response here for other researchers? Most of us do not go to controlled forums and prefer the open resources. If you are here to attack you will be gone soon. If you are here to research then you are welcome. Stating you are going to attack does not show good faith at research.

just read the paranoid whinging bullshit u wrote below and that should prove once and for all you're a cockhead.

oh and that thing where you pretended to be a chemist and thought oil was a hydrocarbon. that didn't help.

'he clearly states that there is no known explanation for the molten metal except thermite'
he has brainwashed u well. what about exotic weaponry?. did he do tests to prove it can't be so?. what about a tactical nuke?. what about a big fat missile full of military explosives?. if you're gonna keep pushing this thermite crap around you might aswell know what the alternatives are hey?

because lets sum up jones actual evidence:
he runs around with a test tube of dust saying 'i tested it, i tested it!!"

at least u called it a HYPOthesis this time

your understanding of the word thesis, we're starting to think you're a garden variety idiot. do you understand the word has a meaning?

and for the record, once and for all, is oil a hydrocarbon?

Midex where is the answer to the ancient debunking of the Baby Face Jones "Why Indeed" paper?

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/why_indeed.html

You asked, it has been there a long time... where is his answer?

you've worked out the difference. GOOD WORK!!!.
now can we agree before moving on that oil is a mineral and gas/ petrol is a hydrocarbon?. you see, your slim understanding of chemistry and the english language concerns us. and while you can't grasp either we're not that interested in your little tanty.

while you're at it, you might want to remember that jones work is a collection of ideas and thoughts, as we all know the steel wasn't examined. it doesn't have to be debunked because it proved nothing in the first place.

Jones paper

again you contradict yourself. Re-read your first posts and then return to answer.

Why do you describe it as 'an academic thesis'?

so they tap the well, and pure hydrocarbons pop out. you my friend are a fuckwit, i won't bother responding to u again.

p.s. u might want to write to shell and tell them to not bother refining crude oil into the hundreds of different compounds anymore cos it's already done.

and jones examined the steel?. cripes they wouldn't even let nist do that. he must be connected. nudge nudge wink wink. maybe giuliani himself dropped off a sample. ntsb,nist and fema were never allowed onto ground zero. you might want to stop babbling like a dickhead. you're looking stoopider all the time.

AND WHY ON EARTH DO YOU KEEP RABBITING ON ABOUT NO-PLANES?
i think you're just one of our usual spammers. ur pathetic

by the way, nist didn't get samples. they got comparable new steel. and you contradicted yourself. you say he tested samples, but nist wouldn't give him any. where did he get them?. keeping in mind that nist didn't have any in the first place?

Is there some errant code, an "un-closed" bracket, for instance, somewhere?

Sorry to interject in this "discussion", I didnt want to spam a new blog post.