Pagan presents "absolut(e) scientific evidence" of 9/11 "truth"

[Gravy]

He says he has such evidence. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2434520&postcount=230)

Let's have it, pagan. Many people read these threads. Here's your chance to show them that a member of the truth movement isn't totally incompetent!

No more stalling. No more excuses. Present your absolute evidence.

[Rahne Everson]

Should I make some popcorn or will this be over by the time it's done?

[WildCat]

I predict pagan will present no scientific evidence in this thread, but he will squirm, dodge, whine, pontificate, and squeal.

[Gravy]

I'm genuinely curious to see this "absolute scientific evidence that the official version of 911 is false." I'm not being sarcastic. I have no idea what he's got in mind. I haven't even heard rumors of some big new development in the "truth."

[Pardalis]

Should I make some popcorn or will this be over by the time it's done?

I'll pass on the popcorn, pagan has this racist intolerant rethoric that makes my stomach turn.

[Unfit4Command]

[truth movement]
d00d!! t3h Fr33F4LL!!! Fa5t3R than Fr33f4LL!!!! SQUIBS!!! PEOPLE HEARD "BOOMS" COMING FROM A BURNING AND FALLING BUILDING!!!
[/truth movement]

[JAStewart]

Hah.

*is waiting*

[T.A.M.]

:whistling :popcorn1 :popcorn2 :popcorn1

TAM:)

[stateofgrace]

:whistling :popcorn1 :popcorn2 :popcorn1

TAM:)

:whistling :popcorn1 :popcorn2 :popcorn1

And again.:)

[pagan]

He says he has such evidence. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2434520&postcount=230)

Let's have it, pagan. Many people read these threads. Here's your chance to show them that a member of the truth movement isn't totally incompetent!

No more stalling. No more excuses. Present your absolute evidence.

I'm not a scientist. I'm just a very intelligent sceptic person. So I don't produce any science. But, fortunately, we have real scientists in our movement.

If you want to read their discoveries? Read the articles in this journal.

http://journalof911studies.com/

[WildCat]

Hah.

*is waiting*

♫♪♫The waiting is the hardest part
Every day you see one more card
You take it on faith, you take it to the heart
The waiting is the hardest part ♫♪

[Gravy]

I'm not a scientist. I'm just a very intelligent sceptic person. So I don't produce any science. But, fortunately, we have real scientists in our movement.

If you want to read their discoveries? Read the articles in this journal.

http://journalof911studies.com/
Many of us have. Please point to those that contain the "absolut scientific evidence that the official version of 911 is false."

Fair enough? It's your claim, and it's a whopper. Proceed.

[T.A.M.]

Surely if you are such a smart person, you could at least point us to the evidence you feel is conclusive in proving the official story false. We can take it from there, but since you did make the statement, you should at least have the politeness to point us to what evidence you feel is conclusive.

TAM:)

[Carnivore]

I'm not a scientist. I'm just a very intelligent sceptic person. So I don't produce any science.

http://journalof911studies.com/


Sigged! :D

[T.A.M.]

If we are going to name people based on what they "produce", than the majority of the twoofers I'd have to name "Colon".

TAM:)

[WildCat]

I'm not a scientist. I'm just a very intelligent sceptic person. So I don't produce any science. But, fortunately, we have real scientists in our movement.

If you want to read their discoveries? Read the articles in this journal.

http://journalof911studies.com/
:dl:

I love the one where the guy melts aluminum and pours it on the rusty steel, and the thermite article written by the lawyer! Equally funny are the papers devoted to other nutters in the troof movement, thanks for the laugh pagan!

You do have a real peer-reviewed scientific journal to post, don't you?

[pagan]

Many of us have. Please point to those that contain the "absolut scientific evidence that the official version of 911 is false."

Fair enough? It's your claim, and it's a whopper. Proceed.

Proceed? All the evidence are in this journal.

http://journalof911studies.com/

I want to stress, that one of the articles is a reply to your hero Dr Greening.

I belive that he has not yet replied?:)

Believe me, we look forward to it.

[T.A.M.]

:dl:

I love the one where the guy melts aluminum and pours it on the rusty steel, and the thermite article written by the lawyer! Equally funny are the papers devoted to other nutters in the troof movement, thanks for the laugh pagan!

You do have a real peer-reviewed scientific journal to post, don't you?

Is that the Stephen Jones experiments where he tries to compare "Organic debris" in the molten metal of the WTC, with adding 6-10 wood chips to a cup of molten alluminum...priceless.

[WildCat]

Proceed? All the evidence are in this journal.

http://journalof911studies.com/

I want to stress, that one of the articles is a reply to your hero Dr Greening.

I belive that he has not yet replied?:)

Believe me, we look forward to it.
Several here have replied to Ross's nonsense, why don't you bump one of those threads?

[T.A.M.]

So I guess Pagan and ACE are on opposite sides. Pagan says the journal is the conclusive proof, yet an article this month explains away the notion of the STAR WARS energy beam, ACEs pet belief...tsk tsk tsk.

TAM:)

[Gravy]

Proceed? All the evidence are in this journal.

http://journalof911studies.com/

I want to stress, that one of the articles is a reply to your hero Dr Greening.

I belive that he has not yet replied?:)

Believe me, we look forward to it.And once again you would be wrong. Terrible start, pagan. See R. Mackey's rundown of the Ross/Greening exchange here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1911440&postcount=4236), with a good explanation of why Ross is wrong.

Next paper, please, pagan? Remember, you've seen absolute scientific evidence that the official version is false.

[Redtail]

Proceed? All the evidence are in this journal.

http://journalof911studies.com/

I want to stress, that one of the articles is a reply to your hero Dr Greening.

I belive that he has not yet replied?:)

Believe me, we look forward to it.

Ok, How about you point out 1 bit of scientific evidence there that proves the official account is false?

[WildCat]

BTW, a few days ago I was doing some plumbing repairs which required me to lead in a new pipe where the old one had corroded away. Much to my surprise, the molten lead was cool to the touch within a few minutes of removal from the heat... I fully expected it to stay molten for weeks using Troofer Logic.

[WildCat]

BTW pagan, when will Ross publish his earth-shattering findings in a real engineering journal? I asked him this personally before, never did get a firm answer from him. But that was last summer, maybe he knows more now?

[T.A.M.]

In medicine we have a humor mag called "Stitches". Maybe if Engineering has a similar rag, he could try there.

TAM:)

Edit: Removed comment about Ross due to error.

TAM:)

[pagan]

And once again you would be wrong. Terrible start, pagan. See R. Mackey's rundown of the Ross/Greening exchange here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1911440&postcount=4236), with a good explanation of why Ross is wrong.

Next paper, please, pagan? Remember, you've seen absolute scientific evidence that the official version is false.

As far as I am concerned nothing has been refuted yet in the 911 journal.

But, I thank you for the link, I will study it.:)

[jhunter1163]

I think I've seen that mag, TAM. There was an article in it entitled "Acute Management of the Zipper-Entrapped Penis". Either that or the National Lampoon. Either way, it's worth a read.

[T.A.M.]

As far as I am concerned nothing has been refuted yet in the 911 journal.

But, I thank you for the link, I will study it.:)

oooh, I'm gonna tell ACE on you. He will tell you in no uncertain terms that the WTCs were brought down by a high energy beam weapon, but your journal, with nothing in it refuted, says that such a method is highly improbable (February 2007 issue).

pathetic, when the twoofers can't even come to a common conclusion.

TAM:)

[Gravy]

Ross is a mechanical engineer by training, IIRC. It's good to see a truther put some numbers to paper, but I'm not sure that Ross understands why he's wrong.

Remember that other "paper" of his: the seismic study with Craig Furlong that purported to prove that a large explosion hit the north tower long before flight 11 did? What an embarrassment! (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63740&page=10#394)

[stateofgrace]

I'm not a scientist. I'm just a very intelligent sceptic person. So I don't produce any science. But, fortunately, we have real scientists in our movement.

If you want to read their discoveries? Read the articles in this journal.

http://journalof911studies.com/

Oh I see. You are very intelligent and very sceptical. Well why is it you will not use your intelligence and extent your sceptism to the articles you have linked?

Why does your sceptism allow you to simply accept them at face value?

Why do you not view every single article in the link with sceptism and use your intelligence to analyse them correctly?

You see what you want to see, you embrace all that up holds your already predetermined conclusions that is why. You expect everybody here to do all the work for you and you are too lazy or blind to do it yourself.

You are not intelligent Pagan, you are not a sceptic, you are somebody that believes only what you want. You believe anything that supports your preconceived notions that Americans murdered 3000 of their own.

[T.A.M.]

I think I've seen that mag, TAM. There was an article in it entitled "Acute Management of the Zipper-Entrapped Penis". Either that or the National Lampoon. Either way, it's worth a read.

One of my favorite sections from past issues was "Foreign Bodies in the ER". needless to say, the things that have been pulled out of human orifices is astounding.

TAM:D

[T.A.M.]

Ross is a mechanical engineer by training, IIRC. It's good to see a truther put some numbers to paper, but I'm not sure that Ross understands why he's wrong.

Remember that other "paper" of his: the seismic study with Craig Furlong that purported to prove that a large explosion hit the north tower long before flight 11 did? What an embarrassment! (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63740&page=10#394)

My bad. You are correct. They have so many wackos speaking outside their field I get them confused. Who was the electronic engineer then. Is Ross the guy Ed Bagely Jnr introduced in a video...thought for sure the guy was an electronic engineer...but heh, I could be wrong.

TAM:)

[WildCat]

One of my favorite sections from past issues was "Foreign Bodies in the ER". needless to say, the things that have been pulled out of human orifices is astounding.

TAM:D
I swear, I slipped in the shower!! The gerbil somehow got out of his cage, it was a tragic accident! Oh, the humanity! :boxedin:

[WildCat]

My bad. You are correct. They have so many wackos speaking outside their field I get them confused. Who was the electronic engineer then. Is Ross the guy Ed Bagely Jnr introduced in a video...thought for sure the guy was an electronic engineer...but heh, I could be wrong.

TAM:)
I think you're thinking of Jeff King (plaguepuppy), who seems to be keeping a low profile these days.

[JAStewart]

I'm not a scientist. I'm just a very intelligent septic person. So I don't produce any science. But, fortunately, we have real scientists in our movement.

Ficksed it.

[T.A.M.]

Ya thats him....damn, Gord Ross/Jeff King...both names with 4 letters each...simple names, ok,,,not losing my mind, just a little error.

TAM:)

By the way, how do you do that "crossed out" type thing?

TAM:)

[Rawkarma]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1425245fc5187121f2.gif

[pagan]

Ficksed it.

I'm not a scientist. I'm just a very intelligent sceptic person. So I don't produce any science. But, fortunately, we have real scientists in our movement.

My problem is the first part. I have this monumental ego. This is really a giant weakness, isn't it? But to get into this over self esteem. You have to be a true sceptic, and see through all the BS?

So, essentially my mess. to you is the same as in this forum, be a sceptic.

[T.A.M.]

my problem is my IIRC is broken.

TAM:)

[Gravy]

As far as I am concerned nothing has been refuted yet in the 911 journal.

But, I thank you for the link, I will study it.:)Well, you've been given examples of two solid refutations on this page. I also wrote one. Fortunately for me, no math was necessary. Does anyone know if Brumsen's forum for discussion of the "Journal of 9/11 Studies" is still around? I forgot what it was named. That's where mine is.

So that's three.

pagan, here's something that I hope you will seriously consider: if any of those "Scholar" papers contained "absolute scientific evidence" that the official version of 9/11 is wrong, why won't they present them for peer review?

I mean, this is EARTH-SHATTERING NEWS, RIGHT?

Geez, I hope you learn something from this.

[WildCat]

By the way, how do you do that "crossed out" type thing?

TAM:)
[strike]

[WildCat]

Well, you've been given examples of two solid refutations on this page. I also wrote one. Fortunately for me, no math was necessary. Does anyone know if Brumsen's forum for discussion of the "Journal of 9/11 Studies" is still around? I forgot what it was named. That's where mine is.
Nope, it's been disappeared.

[JAStewart]

My problem is the first part. I have this monumental ego. This is really a giant weakness, isn't it? But to get into this over self esteem. You have to be a true sceptic, and see through all the BS?

So, essentially my mess. to you is the same as in this forum, be a sceptic.

can't pull that one on me.

I used to be a 911 denier UNTIL I found this forum (among other things)

[ConspiRaider]

My problem is the first part. I have this monumental ego. This is really a giant weakness, isn't it? But to get into this over self esteem. You have to be a true sceptic, and see through all the BS?

So, essentially my mess. to you is the same as in this forum, be a sceptic.
Everything clear as mud, except the bit about the ego.

I think your towering ego just collapsed at faster-than-freefall speed.

But the real question is:

When is WildCat gonna finish his bathroom?!?

I just drunked a pitcher of green beer and me back teeth is floatin'...

[pagan]

Well, you've been given examples of two solid refutations on this page. I also wrote one. Fortunately for me, no math was necessary. Does anyone know if Brumsen's forum for discussion of the "Journal of 9/11 Studies" is still around? I forgot what it was named. That's where mine is.

So that's three.

pagan, here's something that I hope you will seriously consider: if any of those "Scholar" papers contained "absolute scientific evidence" that the official version of 9/11 is wrong, why won't they present them for peer review?

I mean, this is EARTH-SHATTERING NEWS, RIGHT?

Geez, I hope you learn something from this.

I'm always willing to learn something new.
This is very important, isn't it?

I will study your links very intensly, also your refutation (please give a link).

I must confess that I don't expect much. But, I have to go... Back tomorrow.

[EternalSceptic]

Ficksed it.

Sounds [rule8]ish in german :P

(could not resist)

[WildCat]

When is WildCat gonna finish his bathroom?!?
Funny that. I went to the tile store this morning to pick up my tile that came in yesterday. Parked by the loading dock, the man drove the fork lift over to the shelf my pallet of tile was on, picked it off the shelf, pulled it slowly out, and then the whole stack of tile (which was packed on one side of the pallet) tipped over and fell off the pallet 10 feet down and smashed into a million pieces. :mad: $1,000 worth of tile... so now I have to wait for them to get more in.


I'm a bit suspicious, because the angular momentum of the tile was not conserved and it seemed to fall faster than freefall speed.


So the plus side is, I get to drink tonight instead of laying tile! :cool:

[The Demon's Head]

Where's the evidence? Could it be that no truther has any evidence? Surely the evidence troofers preach about would have surfaced by now.

[jsiv]

I love the one where the guy melts aluminum and pours it on the rusty steel, and the thermite article written by the lawyer! Equally funny are the papers devoted to other nutters in the troof movement, thanks for the laugh pagan!

You do have a real peer-reviewed scientific journal to post, don't you?
Does it count if it was peer-reviewed by Judy Wood and Jason Bermas?

[Gravy]

Nope, it's been disappeared.Thanks. I found a copy on my hard drive. I had made several follow up posts with photos, but this is sufficient:

In this paper "The Flying Elephant: Evidence for Involvement of a Third Jet in the WTC Attacks (http://worldtradecentertruth.com/JetDixon4.pdf)", Mr. Dixon introduces a 10-second video clip shot from Brooklyn. The aircraft in that clip is not near Manhattan or New York State. The plane's size, attitude and flight path are entirely consistent with a flight that has departed from Newark Airport. A brief chat with a New Yorker like myself who sees these planes every day might have saved Mr. Dixon a lot of confusion.

Mr. Dixon claims as a "fact" that this plane is "loitering." He additionally describes the plane's flight as a "fly-by" of the towers. The 10-second clip he uses to make this judgment shows a plane heading north above New Jersey. That is all. Additionally, the idea of an airliner "loitering in close proximity to the towers for several minutes" is not a tenable one. Only a small plane would be able to describe a relatively tight circle with the towers at its center.

Mr. Dixon then introduces a single low-resolution photo of a plane traveling south or southeast. No provenance is given for the photo. We only know that it was taken after the north tower was hit and before it collapsed. Mr. Dixon claims, without providing evidence, that this plane appears to be "making another pass" directly above the south tower at about 2,200 feet in altitude. He says the plane is "recklessly close" to the smoke plume. If that were true we would be able to clearly see details of the plane, as we can of the north tower. Also, if the plane was close to the towers, it would not be a large airliner. The Twin Towers were 208 feet on each side, but the length of the plane's image is less than one-fifth of that. It seems clear from the aircraft's shape and lack of visible detail that the photo shows a large aircraft at a great distance from Manhattan. Mr. Dixon provides no evidence that this is the same plane as is in the video.

Dixon: At 9:03am, "UA175" approaches from the south at an improbably high speed and impacts the South Tower. CNN aired this "amateur video" of the event, which captures (without notice by Aaron Brown or Paula Zahn) what is evidently the same jet seen in the Camera Planet segment, making a similar northwest pass (but farther west, approximately over Battery Park) as the South Tower hit occurs."

Why does Mr. Dixon surround the flight designation UA175 with quotation marks? Is he unsure that flight 175 hit the south tower? He doesn't say. Likewise, do his quotation marks mean that he questions the video's provenance? He gives us no reason to do so. He also gives no evidence that flight 175 is traveling at an "improbably high speed." And amazingly, he states that the speck we see for two seconds or less is "evidently the same jet" as in the earlier video clip! Mr. Dixon does not explain why he thinks the speck is a jet and not prop plane or a helicopter in the middle distance. Enlarging the picture 1600% reveals an object that could be a plane. That's the best I can say about it. If it is a large jet, it is, again, over New Jersey. I measured this object to be less than one-fifth the size of flight 175, although Mr. Dixon says it is nearby. If it is a helicopter, it is well to the north and west of the WTC, probably over the Hudson River or New Jersey. Finally, Battery Park is at the very southern tip of the island, not west of the WTC.

Dixon: "At 9:04am, Diane Sawyer of ABC News made remarks on-air about the "circling" jet she and her colleagues "all saw" prior to the second strike. She admits she "just assumed" it was the same one that struck the South Tower."

Diane Sawyer does not say that she saw a plane circling, and she does not finish her "I just assumed" comment. Here is her comment in context, with ABC News correspondents Charlie Gibson and Don Dahler.

GIBSON: "In a second, that looks like a good-sized plane, came in and hit the World Trade Center from the other side. So this is obviously, or would seem to be, and again I'm dealing in speculation, but it would seem like there is a concerted attack against one of the towers of the World Trade Center under way."

SAWYER: "We had seen a plane coming in from the other direction earlier. I had noticed it. Had you, Charlie? I didn't know if that plane had then circled wide and came back from another direction, but we all watched it, and I just assumed... "

GIBSON: "Don, could you hear that? Could you hear that plane as it came in?"

DAHLER: "I did not hear that plane, but I had to step inside the window because the fire crews were so loud--the sirens--that I couldn't hear you."

Dixon: Notable in this context are reports by FDNY personnel that they received a warning about a third aircraft. Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, in an interview with Firehouse Magazine in April 2002, explained "We had a report from OEM that there was possibility of a third plane coming in."

There were reports that a third plane might be coming in. It made sense to err on the side of safety. No one knew then that the terrorists were done with New York and were focussing on Washington, D.C.

Dixon: Even more intriguing, in the Naudets' documentary 9/11, a firefighter is filmed explaining what caused the collapse of the South Tower: "The FBI thinks it was a third plane."

Understandable, in the massive confusion of the moment. Surely Mr. Dixon isn't suggesting that he thinks a third plane may have ACTUALLY hit one of the towers?

Dixon: "Much research has focused on the details and effects of various military exercises apparently underway on 9/11, especially "live-fly" NORAD drills designed to mimic multiple terrorist aircraft attacks on high-profile US targets."

To my knowledge, none of this research has turned up a single shred of evidence that "live-fly" exercises involving simulated terrorist attacks happened on 9/11.

Mr. Dixon, to whom is the existence of such drills "apparent?"

Dixon: Despite the well documented confusion among NORAD personnel as to whether the attacks were "real world or exercise"

That "well documented confusion among NORAD personnel" was immediately resolved. This from cooperativeresearch.org's 9/11 timeline:

Boston flight control says, “Hi. Boston [flight control], we have a problem here. We have a hijacked aircraft headed toward New York, and we need you guys to, we need someone to scramble some F-16s or something up there, help us out.”

Powell replies, “Is this real-world or exercise?” Boston answers, “No, this is not an exercise, not a test.” Powell gives the phone to Lieutenant Colonel Dawne Deskins, regional Mission Crew Chief for the Vigilant Guardian exercise.

Deskins recalls, “I picked up the line and I identified myself to the Boston [flight] controller, and he said, we have a hijacked aircraft and I need to get you some sort of fighters out here to help us out.”

Deskins later says that initially she and “everybody” else at NEADS thinks the call is part of Vigilant Guardian. After the phone call, she has to clarify to everyone that it is not a drill.

NORAD commander Major General Larry Arnold in Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida, also says that when he hears of the hijacking at this time, “The first thing that went through my mind was, is this part of the exercise? Is this some kind of a screw-up?”


So, the "confusion" consisted of people understandably wondering if the hijacking report was part of an exercise, and immediately being told that it was real, not a drill. End of confusion.

Another take on this situation, from an ABC News special that aired on 9/11/02:

CHARLES GIBSON, ABC NEWS At a command Center in Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida, Major General Larry Arnold hears about a bogey, an unidentified aircraft.

MAJOR GENERAL LARRY ARNOLD, AIR FORCE The first thing that went through my mind was, is this part of the exercise? Is this some kind of a screw-up?

CHARLES GIBSON, ABC NEWS Back in upstate New York, Master Sergeant Maureen Dooley is supervising radar operations.

MASTER SERGEANT MAUREEN DOOLEY, AIR NATIONAL GUARD We have a real hijack going on. So then, you know, boom, we're all in, in the urgency.

CHARLES GIBSON, ABC NEWS Lieutenant Colonel Dawne Deskins is the Mission Crew Chief for the exercise.

LT COLONEL DAWNE DESKINS, AIR NATIONAL GUARD And I picked up the line and I identified myself to the Boston Center controller, and he said, we have a hijacked aircraft and I need to get you some sort of fighters out here to help us out.

COLONEL ROBERT MARR, US AIR FORCE So what I did was call General Arnold, said boss, I need to scramble Otis.

MAJOR GENERAL LARRY ARNOLD, AIR FORCE And I said go ahead and scramble them, and we'll get the authorities later.
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/pentagon/attack/abcnews091102_jenningsinterviews.html

Excerpt from an article in the Toronto Star about 9/11 activities at NORAD's Cheyenne Mountain headquarters:

An hour into his shift, something unscripted happens. NORAD's Northeast Air Defence Sector (NEADS), based in Rome, N.Y., contacts the mountain.

The Federal Aviation Administration has evidence of a hijacking and is asking for NORAD support. This is not part of the exercise.

In a flash, Operation Northern Vigilance is called off. Any simulated information, what's known as an "inject," is purged from the screens.
Someone shouted to look at the monitor displaying CNN.

"At that point, we saw the World Trade Center, one of the towers, smoke coming out of it. And a minute later, we watched the live feed as the second aircraft swung around into the second tower," says Jellinek.

He had one question for the people on the line from NEADS: "Was that the hijacked aircraft you were dealing with?" he asked.

Yes, it was, came the reply.

And then, Jellinek says, "it got really, really busy." http://www.911readingroom.org/bib/whole_document.php?article_id=92

Dixon: Was the "third jet" an actor in such an exercise? Was it meant to confuse defensive response? Was it monitoring (or controlling) the attacks? Was it a back-up in the event miss on the towers? Was it one of these? www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=90 (http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=90)

Mr. Dixon has provided no evidence that any aircraft were unidentified or acting abnormally, aside from the two involved in the NYC attacks.

Dixon: If it is a civil aircraft, records of its take-off and landing must exist. A FOIA request to the FAA should be filed.

Mr. Dixon, since you are the one claiming that a suspicious aircraft existed, you should be the one to file the FOIA request. Waiting for others to do so is illogical.

Dixon: If it is military, it is automatically suspect. Any proper investigation of 9/11 must account for this aircraft.

Mr. Dixon does not explain why a military aircraft would be "automatically suspect." He has not provided any evidence of suspicious behavior by any of the aircraft described in his paper, or any reason to believe that it is unusual to capture an aircraft on film on a clear weekday prior to the 9/11 air traffic stoppage, when the cameras are pointed towards Newark Airport's approach and departure paths.

-Mark Roberts

[ConspiRaider]

Funny that. I went to the tile store this morning to pick up my tile that came in yesterday. Parked by the loading dock, the man drove the fork lift over to the shelf my pallet of tile was on, picked it off the shelf, pulled it slowly out, and then the whole stack of tile (which was packed on one side of the pallet) tipped over and fell off the pallet 10 feet down and smashed into a million pieces. :mad: $1,000 worth of tile... so now I have to wait for them to get more in.


I'm a bit suspicious, because the angular momentum of the tile was not conserved and it seemed to fall faster than freefall speed.


So the plus side is, I get to drink tonight instead of laying tile! :cool:
Ah HAH!

So instead of laying tile, you might lay pipe tonight? :)

I'll bet you any money that if you investigate (skeptically of course) this incident, you'll discover that Marvin Bush runs the security of that loading dock!!!one!!11

It's not MIHOP, it's not LIHOP.

IT'S BAWTOP!!!!1111one!!eleventy!!!!1111
(Broke All Wildcat's Tile On Purpose)

[cloudshipsrule]

Here's a snipet from a randomly selected article on the Journal of 9/11 Studies:

"One suspects that more explosive than usual was employed in all three buildings to guarantee
that the collapse would be well controlled and thus would exhibit no hesitation or tendency to
lean. The extra explosive would pulverize more of the concrete than usual and so produce a
denser dust cloud than seen in commercial demolitions."

Now, I'm no scientist either, but I know crap when I see it. I step over it and move on. Where's the peer review on this drivel? It's conjecture, with no scientific backing. It's supposition with no real evidence. It's crap like this that is laughed at by the actual scientific community (not the fringe loonies that you associate yourself with, pagan), and the reason troofers don't get the respect they don't deserve anyway. All of the CT theories I've come across are a joke to real professionals in structural-based scientific fields.

Now, pagan, do you have a link to an actual site that shows actual peer-reviewed material that could hold up under even minute scrutiny from a layman in an unrelated field that happens to have some common sense?

Waiting......

[WildCat]

Ah HAH!

So instead of laying tile, you might lay pipe tonight? :)

I'll bet you any money that if you investigate (skeptically of course) this incident, you'll discover that Marvin Bush runs the security of that loading dock!!!one!!11

It's not MIHOP, it's not LIHOP.

IT'S BAWTOP!!!!1111one!!eleventy!!!!1111
(Broke All Wildcat's Tile On Purpose)
But wait, can there be a conspiracy if there's no video? :confused:

[GlennB]

And once again you would be wrong. Terrible start, pagan. See R. Mackey's rundown of the Ross/Greening exchange here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1911440&postcount=4236), with a good explanation of why Ross is wrong.



I must admit Mackey's critique of Ross's paper is a whole lot more rigorous than mine, which reduced quite easily to "it's complete b#llocks".

[The Demon's Head]

Here's a snipet from a randomly selected article on the Journal of 9/11 Studies:

"One suspects that more explosive than usual was employed in all three buildings to guarantee
that the collapse would be well controlled and thus would exhibit no hesitation or tendency to
lean. The extra explosive would pulverize more of the concrete than usual and so produce a
denser dust cloud than seen in commercial demolitions."

Nothing about the WTC collapse was controlled. If it was controlled, WTC 7 would not have collapsed due to no damage, but WTC 7 was badly damaged.

[ConspiRaider]

But wait, can there be a conspiracy if there's no video? :confused:
You Toilet. You Tub. You Tile. You Tube!

[Gravy]

I must confess that I don't expect much. But, I have to go... Back tomorrow.I'm glad you're willing to read these replies. Why must you confess that you don't expect much? The works stand or fall on their merits. If you allow your expectations to interfere with your judgment, that's a problem. If not, great. See you tomorrow.

[Gravy]

You Toilet. You Tub. You Tile. You Tube!You slay me!

WildCat, can I borrow you tomorrow? I'm having a tub drain issue that can only be fixed by going through the wall and floor. I'll provide the beer.

[WildCat]

You slay me!

WildCat, can I borrow you tomorrow? I'm having a tub drain issue that can only be fixed by going through the wall and floor. I'll provide the beer.
Gonna take a lot of beer to get me all the way to Brooklyn! Sounds like a real PITA problem.

[Horatius]

Ah HAH!

So instead of laying tile, you might lay pipe tonight? :)

I'll bet you any money that if you investigate (skeptically of course) this incident, you'll discover that Marvin Bush runs the security of that loading dock!!!one!!11

It's not MIHOP, it's not LIHOP.

IT'S BAWTOP!!!!1111one!!eleventy!!!!1111
(Broke All Wildcat's Tile On Purpose)



It's not a real CT until we find the secrets "they" didn't want you to know. I suggest that it was the use of Uranium Dioxide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_dioxide#Colour_for_ceramics_glaze) as aglaze on the tiles. The Tile Lobby couldn't just dispose of these tiles, so they planned to sell them to unsuspecting homeowners, and then smash them all at the loading dock. They were hoping you'd be so ready to lay tile today, that you'd then go out and buy more immediately. So they get more money, and get rid of these poison tiles all at once!

[ConspiRaider]

It's not a real CT until we find the secrets "they" didn't want you to know. I suggest that it was the use of Uranium Dioxide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_dioxide#Colour_for_ceramics_glaze) as aglaze on the tiles. The Tile Lobby couldn't just dispose of these tiles, so they planned to sell them to unsuspecting homeowners, and then smash them all at the loading dock. They were hoping you'd be so ready to lay tile today, that you'd then go out and buy more immediately. So they get more money, and get rid of these poison tiles all at once!
But of course!

And THAT'S why They didn't use a shaped nuclear device at the loading dock because there was already Uranium Dioxide on the tiles and like forces repel (duh, physics). The tile would have bravely remained intact.

I hear Wildcat isn't remodeling an outhouse. Therefore his Bathroom Is An Inside Job!!!!one111!!eleventy!!!

[Gravy]

Gonna take a lot of beer to get me all the way to Brooklyn! Sounds like a real PITA problem.

I'll sing ye home, laddie:

La La La La La La La La La
Ooh, Ooh

It's gonna take a lotta beer
To change the way things are.
It's gonna take a lotta beer
Or we won't get too far
So if your plumbing needs inspection
And we don't see eye to eye,
My liver needs attention, don't leave it dry, aye, aye, aye, aye.

It's gonna take a lotta beer
To get us thru the night.
It's gonna take a lotta beer
To make your tub drain right.
So if beer is out there waitin'
I hope it shows up soon,
'Cause my craw needs a bathing, not solitude, dude, dude, dude, dude.

Gotta lotta beer?
Gotta lotta beer?
La La La La La La La La La
Ooh, Ooh

It's gonna take a lotta beer
To change the way things are.
It's gonna take a lotta beer
Or we won't get too far.
It's gonna take a lotta beer
To change the way things are.
It's gonna take a lotta beer
Or we won't get too far
Or we won't get too far

[Horatius]

And THAT'S why They didn't use a shaped nuclear device at the loading dock because there was already Uranium Dioxide on the tiles and like forces repel (duh, physics). The tile would have bravely remained intact.




Disinfo! All Twoo Twoofers know that, since the tiles were in fact molded, they are shaped nuclear devices!!!!11!!1!11


I can't believe this website allows such obvious disinfo trolls to go unchecked!

[WildCat]

Maybe I'm just paranoid now, but the sales girl told me this had never happened before. Tile doesn't fall off pallets! And I had ordered the kind with 3" rebar on 4" centers, it couldn't have broken unless explosives were involved!

[ConspiRaider]

Disinfo! All Twoo Twoofers know that, since the tiles were in fact molded, they are shaped nuclear devices!!!!11!!1!11


I can't believe this website allows such obvious disinfo trolls to go unchecked!
I guess (sniff sniff) I deserved that but I didn't really mean to be (sob sob) trollish-like.

Oh no. Cat pictures. I knew it...

[ConspiRaider]

I'll sing ye home, laddie:

La La La La La La La La La
Ooh, Ooh

It's gonna take a lotta beer
To change the way things are.
It's gonna take a lotta beer
Or we won't get too far
So if your plumbing needs inspection
And we don't see eye to eye,
My liver needs attention, don't leave it dry, aye, aye, aye, aye...
And after a sonnet like that, Brooklyn gets a whole lot closer for Wildcat.

Is that a sonnet? Or more of a ballad? At first I thought it was a show tune but since there were no coconuts or swallows in the lyrics (European, African or otherwise) I quickly dispelled that notion...

[Unfit4Command]

BTW, a few days ago I was doing some plumbing repairs which required me to lead in a new pipe where the old one had corroded away. Much to my surprise, the molten lead was cool to the touch within a few minutes of removal from the heat... I fully expected it to stay molten for weeks using Troofer Logic.

So how much is the government paying you, WildCat? :)

[Mince]

Is this absolute truth as absolute as LyteTrip's absolute truth regarding the Pentagon; or Killtown's absolute proof regarding the planted CVR and FDR in Shanksville? If it is, you may be eating your OP.

[WildCat]

So how much is the government paying you, WildCat? :)
All of it!

[WildCat]

Is this absolute truth as absolute as LyteTrip's absolute truth regarding the Pentagon; or Killtown's absolute proof regarding the planted CVR and FDR in Shanksville? If it is, you may be eating your OP.
d00d, it's gonna be phat... :cool:

[pagan]

I'm glad you're willing to read these replies. Why must you confess that you don't expect much? The works stand or fall on their merits. If you allow your expectations to interfere with your judgment, that's a problem. If not, great. See you tomorrow.

You are mudding the waters Gravy. As I previously said, I did not expect much from your links. I was right. It was just links leading to your internal discussion here at the forum. I asked for a reply from Dr Greening. Apparently, he has not yet produced one. This must be very embarrasing for you? It should be!



Here is the first article written by Gordon Ross: Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of the Upper Storeys of WTC 1
http://journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf


The response written by Frank R. Greening: To whom it may Concern.
http://journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_2_Greening.pdf


And last a reply written by Gordon Ross: Reply to Dr Greening.
http://journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_3_RossReply.pdf

By adopting Dr. Greening's own arguments, corrections, contentions, figures and
reasoning, the analysis once again shows that the collapse would be arrested at an early stage.
Dr. Greening has not disproved the logic and conclusions of my article, but has in fact
reinforced the most important conclusion: that collapse would have been arrested at an early
stage.This is some serious ass whipping IMHO and no reply yet? This was published in August 2006.

[gumboot]

This is some serious ass whipping IMHO and no reply yet? This was published in August 2006.



Anyone who claims expertise in any sort of engineering, who thinks any skyscraper is capable of stopping 54,500 tonnes of live weight, travelling at 70 km/h, accelerating at 9.8m/s is on acid.

-Gumboot

[cloudshipsrule]

pagan,

Can you point me to ONE website discussing gordon's paper that isn't a conspiracy website? I couldn't find one on the web. EVERY site discussing his paper as though it were gospel is a conspiracy site. Why is this?

Let me ask you this. What is it that you're saying? Are you saying you believe individuals planted explosives designed to withstand the impact of a 767 and subsequent fires. Explosives that were designed to demolish the building, but not until after an HOUR had elapsed from the time of the plane impacts. Is this really what you believe? WHY WOULD YOU BELIEVE THIS?
What makes this more plausible in your mind than the simple fact that an airplane impact, damage from the weight of the fuel and fire caused global collapse.

What are you missing in your life that you have to grab on to these dumb-ash conspiracy theories? Do you just hate the current administration that much?

I will simply never understand how people can be so gullible and idiotic. Sorry for the rant, it's just that reading through other websites discussing these friggin' theories is starting to piss me off! The gall of these people is amazing.

Oh, don't forget to post that link pagan. Thanks.

[cloudshipsrule]

By adopting Dr. Greening's own arguments, corrections, contentions, figures and
reasoning, the analysis once again shows that the collapse would be arrested at an early stage.
Dr. Greening has not disproved the logic and conclusions of my article, but has in fact
reinforced the most important conclusion: that collapse would have been arrested at an early
stage.


One more thing. NO other RESPECTED engineer believes this crap. The only idiots holding on to this sinking raft are fringe, pseudo-engineers. Who peer-reviewed gordon's paper? Yeah, that's what I thought.

[kimota]

Here is the first article written by Gordon Ross: Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of the Upper Storeys of WTC 1
http://journalof911studies.com/artic...ansferRoss.pdf (http://journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf)

Gordon Ross:
If we assume that the upper section comprising 16 storeys falls under a full gravitational acceleration through a height of one (removed) storey, a distance of 3.7 metres we can calculate that its velocity upon impact will be 8.52 metres per second and have a kinetic energy due to its mass and velocity of 2.105 GJ. (Using the figure of 58000 tonnes as detailed in the report by Bazant & Zhou.[1]) In reality there would be some losses of energy due to residual strength within the failing columns of the removed section, but these are ignored for the purposes of this analysis. So this mathematical model is based on taking the lowest point of the initial affected area, the 93rd floor of WTC1, calculating the mass of the floors above it and saying that the failure and kinetic energy payload was due to a single story that was unable to support the mass above it.

pagan, do you think this is an accurate mathematical model?

The plane impact and subsequent fires affected floors 93 through 99 for WTC1. Even if you argue that the failure initialized at a single floor, you can't simply discount that that was the only floor unable to support the weight above it. Even after the first floor collapses and delivers the energy that Ross says the rest of the building would have absorbed, the top section is still collapsing, still accelerating and still delivering energy to the whole structure below it.


I asked for a reply from Dr Greening.
But then again, you're not interested at all with what we have to say here.

This is some serious ass whipping IMHO...
(IMHO = In My Humble Opinion)
Yes, it is your opinion. And your opinion is wrong.

[Rawkarma]

The request for "absolut(e) scientific evidence" that pagan claims to possess, but the lack of the aforementioned and the ever present tap dance in avoiding simple questions, like: Where IS your absolute scientific evidence? got me thinking of a Monty Python sketch:

Good evening. Tonight on 'It's the Mind', we examine the phenomenon of déjà vu. That strange feeling we sometimes get that we've lived through something before, that what is happening now has already happened. Tonight on 'It's the Mind' we examine the phenomenon of déjà vu, that strange feeling we sometimes get that we've ... (looks puzzled fir a moment) Anyway, tonight on 'It's the Mind' we examine the phenomenon of déjà vu, that strange...

[jhunter1163]

And after a sonnet like that, Brooklyn gets a whole lot closer for Wildcat.

Is that a sonnet? Or more of a ballad? At first I thought it was a show tune but since there were no coconuts or swallows in the lyrics (European, African or otherwise) I quickly dispelled that notion...

It's Nicolette Larson's "Gonna Take A Lot Of Love". Well done, too. I may bump the "9/11: The Musical" thread for that one.

[The Doc]

Pagan,

Have any of these articles from J911S been published in a respected peer-reviewed journal? I'm not saying they haven't... but if you could point out the ones that have?

[kimota]

...the whole stack of tile (which was packed on one side of the pallet) tipped over and fell off the pallet 10 feet down and smashed into a million pieces.
a million pieces??!!?? No mere fall could do that! Explosives!!

$1,000 worth of tileNo doubt the store had it insured for $1200!!!

;)

[kimota]

I still stand with my basic claim, that we have absolut scientific evidence that the official version of 911 is false.
Maybe we're reading too much into this statement.
Maybe pagan implies that one has to down a bottle of Absolut to regard those examples as scientific evidence.

[Pardalis]

This is some serious ass whipping IMHO and no reply yet? This was published in August 2006.


There wouldn't be any point to it, since you twoofers are True Believers and will accept bad science and completely insane assertions over science and logic.

If he did a counter-debunking there would be another debunking made by twoofers, with even more nonsense in it. It's a hopeless battle trying to make you see reason, because reason isn't part of your discourse.

[The Doc]

Assuming pagan missed it,


Me, Page 2 of this thread
Pagan,

Have any of these articles from J911S been published in a respected peer-reviewed journal? I'm not saying they haven't... but if you could point out the ones that have?

[T.A.M.]

You are mudding the waters Gravy. As I previously said, I did not expect much from your links. I was right. It was just links leading to your internal discussion here at the forum. I asked for a reply from Dr Greening. Apparently, he has not yet produced one. This must be very embarrasing for you? It should be!



Here is the first article written by Gordon Ross: Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of the Upper Storeys of WTC 1
http://journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf


The response written by Frank R. Greening: To whom it may Concern.
http://journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_2_Greening.pdf


And last a reply written by Gordon Ross: Reply to Dr Greening.
http://journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_3_RossReply.pdf

This is some serious ass whipping IMHO and no reply yet? This was published in August 2006.


I know you truthers rarely get an occasion to gloat, but your comments, even for you, are quite...childish.

#1. What good is it to come to us, or Gravy in particular, and jump up and down about a lack of response from Greening. He is not even a member here...yet. Last I checked he wasnt a part of the NWO either, so we have...ooops did I say that.

#2. Your response is about as was expected, and I would wager good money you skimmed most of what you were suppose to read, if you even read it at all.

#3. You assume people here are trying to change your mind....wrong answer. Few if any here give a sweet F&*K about you, or what you think. The goal here is to provide sane, rational explanations to those who come here that are not members, but sit on the fence looking for answers. Your attitude, lack of evidence, and poor debating skills, only help us...so keep it up.

TAM:)

[beachnut]

You are mudding the waters Gravy. As I previously said, I did not expect much from your links. I was right. It was just links leading to your internal discussion here at the forum. I asked for a reply from Dr Greening. Apparently, he has not yet produced one. This must be very embarrasing for you? It should be!



Here is the first article written by Gordon Ross: Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of the Upper Storeys of WTC 1
http://journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf


The response written by Frank R. Greening: To whom it may Concern.
http://journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_2_Greening.pdf


And last a reply written by Gordon Ross: Reply to Dr Greening.
http://journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_3_RossReply.pdf

This is some serious ass whipping IMHO and no reply yet? This was published in August 2006.
NO, you know how you know Ross is wrong? WTC towers fell. Ross said there was 10 or 20 percent energy missing to cause global collapse. He never said it would not happen, he said there was not enough energy! You made the mistake of not checking his work. Like you do not even know the impact of flight 175 was enough energy to cut all the steel columns in the WTC tower. If you do not know this your deficient in physics and math. I even used my own number and found Ross was under the energy of the first failure, and there was 20 percent more energy available which is why the failure of the building continued. You never understood Ross's work, he was only off a little, but he would be dead if he thought the tower were going to stand. He was wrong.

Greening shows you the numbers in his model and explains how Ross was off. I checked it and I agree with Greening. I doubt you even read the stuff cause you are not talking about what happened in the papers.

Why are you always wrong. BTW it is funny the only paper at the web of stupid journal stuff is Greenings. Funny they include the truth in their bed of lies and false stuff. You are correct the Journal has the truth, but only in one article. Proof of Greenings work was seen on 9/11. There were no explosive in the WTC tower they would of cooked of in the largest office fire in history.

What we have here is Ross saying he is short of energy - he is backed by .0067 percent of all engineers in the US.

We have Greening plus those who did similar work - he is backed by 99.9933 percent of all engineers in the US.

You loose by a simple vote. Why are you qualified to tell us Greening is wrong and Ross is right. I am an engineer with a Masters degree , I checked the work of Ross and Greening and found there was enought energy to start Global collapse and destroy the towers. Did you even check the work. It takes more than a few hours to look up the information so you can model it. You have listed to the woos way too long and have lost touch with reality. If you are good at Excel you could model the collapse and see if you agree.

THE big key here is Ross says there was not enough energy to start. He does not say it could not happen, he says there was not enough energy to start. He was wrong as you can see as the towers collapse. There were no explosives in the core of the building because that is where we have people who lived through the collapse. Sorry you are wrong but you have a small minority of idiot expert who are feeding you BS and you are too challenged with math and physics to even check their work.

Ask a physics teacher to help you. Bet they can tell you what you are doing wrong, or you coud add a woo to the movement of nuts and dolts know as the highly ironic name of "truth movement".

[Totovader]

I'm not a scientist. I'm just a very intelligent sceptic person. So I don't produce any science. But, fortunately, we have real scientists in our movement.

If you want to read their discoveries? Read the articles in this journal.

http://journalof911studies.com/

What a let down...

If you claim that you have drawn your conclusion based on science- and then when asked to produce that evidence you say "well, it should be under this rock, here" you're really exposing your bias...

You have a predetermined conclusion- and you avoid any evidence which contradicts that conclusion, and invent evidence to try and make your conclusion seem plausible.

That's not science. :toiletpap

[A W Smith]

BTW, a few days ago I was doing some plumbing repairs which required me to lead in a new pipe where the old one had corroded away. Much to my surprise, the molten lead was cool to the touch within a few minutes of removal from the heat... I fully expected it to stay molten for weeks using Troofer Logic.


lead? where you getting lead? lead was outlawed years ago unless your tyeing in an old lead waste trap or waste branch. or doing cast iron hub DWV. While sweating copper Ive dripped tin solder on the back of my wrist a few times and by the time i shook it off it was cool. I just cant stand wearing gloves. Copper however stays very hot for quite a few mins.

[Gravy]

You are mudding the waters Gravy. As I previously said, I did not expect much from your links. I was right. It was just links leading to your internal discussion here at the forum. I asked for a reply from Dr Greening. Apparently, he has not yet produced one. This must be very embarrasing for you? It should be!Why would I be embarrassed about Frank Greening? This isn't about who gets the last word, pagan. It's about who is correct. Greening replied to Gordon Ross. As far as I can tell, he is correct. Nor is Ross's claim supported by the structural engineering community.

Agreed?

Now, how do you disagree with R. Mackey's analysis?

And is Ross's paper the "absolute scientific evidence" you were speaking of, or do you have something else?

[WildCat]

lead? where you getting lead? lead was outlawed years ago unless your tyeing in an old lead waste trap or waste branch. or doing cast iron hub DWV. While sweating copper Ive dripped tin solder on the back of my wrist a few times and by the time i shook it off it was cool. I just cant stand wearing gloves. Copper however stays very hot for quite a few mins.
Yeah, it was a 2" waste pipe. Actually the vent part, it was thin as tissue paper for some reason. I guess that happens after 90 years.

Anyway, had to chisel out the old lead, put a new galvanized nipple in, pack the oakum around it, and pour the molten lead in the hub. Lead, btw, is $7.95 for a 5 lb ingot at Home Depot.

The pipe coming into my place from the street is the original lead pipe though!

Melting the lead, you can see the hub where it will be poured, as well as how corroded the old pipes were!
http://home.mindspring.com/~turniton/COTC/bathroom/lead.jpg

[R.Mackey]

You are mudding the waters Gravy. As I previously said, I did not expect much from your links. I was right. It was just links leading to your internal discussion here at the forum. I asked for a reply from Dr Greening. Apparently, he has not yet produced one. This must be very embarrasing for you? It should be!

That won't wash, pagan.

If you're claiming that Ross wins his argument with Dr. Greening because Dr. Greening hasn't published an update -- in a pseudoscientific rag over which Ross has some editorial influence, but let's ignore that for now -- then explain this:

How come Ross hasn't published an update in response to me? By your standards, this means I'm the winner.

Gravy led you to my refutation of Ross. It's different but overlaps Dr. Greening's. Ross is aware of my complaints, because he sulks about it on his site here (http://gordonssite.com/id4.html). You'll note that he doesn't even acknowledge my complaints, but instead makes up a clumsy lie about what I said to blunt attention. I give a thorough treatment here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2155359#post2155359).

So, pagan, which is it? Do I win the argument because my criticisms are correct (the right way), or do I win because Ross chickened out (the wrong way)? Either way, this debate is over.

[CHF]

Proceed? All the evidence are in this journal.

http://journalof911studies.com/


I'm looking for analysis by structural engineers on that site but I don't see any.

[Gravy]

I'm looking for analysis by structural engineers on that site but I don't see any.
I'm a bit surprised that pagan responded to this thread at all. It's rare to see a truther accept a challenge to present their "absolute" evidence.

On the one hand there's a certain satisfaction in seeing how invariably pathetic the truthers are. But on the other hand dealing with someone like pagan makes me very sad, because there's no chance for improvement. At first I thought he was just a troll who likes calling people Bush-kissers. But he seems to genuinely believe that in a set of internet papers written and reviewed by total incompetents, he's got the goods to break this 9/11 case wide open. It's frustrating to know that nothing I've learned about these subjects in the past 11 months can make any impression on such a person.

I guess I'll just leave pagan with a shrug and a wish to get well soon.

[CHF]

I'm a bit surprised that pagan responded to this thread at all. It's rare to see a truther accept a challenge to present their "absolute" evidence.

And after all that hype he just links to the "scholars." :rolleyes:

Frankly, all these twoofer posters sound like PD to me. They all have the same illness.

[The Doc]

Still haven't seen any peer-reviewed papers from pagan's website.

Pagan, please point out the peer reviewed papers that have been published in a respected journal that are contained in your "journal for 911 studies"

[Without Rights]

One of my favorite sections from past issues was "Foreign Bodies in the ER". needless to say, the things that have been pulled out of human orifices is astounding.

TAM:D
Did you read on the boy who stuck fishing line up his urethral opening so far it wrapped around his urethra and they had surgically remove it. Now that is what I call a woo.

[pagan]

This must be very embarrasing for you? It should be! (Dr Greenings whipped ass, that is)



Pagan,

Have any of these articles from J911S been published in a respected peer-reviewed journal? I'm not saying they haven't... but if you could point out the ones that have?

THE DOC
Assuming pagan missed it,Still haven't seen any peer-reviewed papers from pagan's website.

Pagan, please point out the peer reviewed papers that have been published in a respected journal that are contained in your "journal for 911 studies"Well, I think we can say that The Doc, with his 3 posts acknowledge the embarrassment of the situtation.

Basicly he is appealing to authority. As you very well are aware of. You don't become very popular if you as a professional question the Bush adm narrative. You are risking your carrear by doing it. As proven by the fact that Kevin Ryan and Steven Jones has got the foot. So bad argument.

The articles in the journal are all written by experienced scientists using strict scientific method. "Your scientists" are wellcomed to critique them and by that "peer reviewing" them.

[Gravy]

Pagan, R. Mackey explains why Greening is right and Ross is wrong. Your critique of R. Mackey's analysis, please? You've been asked several times now. Please present it.

And please answer my question, which I ask for the second time: is Ross's paper your "absolute scientific evidence" that the official story is wrong, or do you have something else?

[Gravy]

You don't become very popular if you as a professional question the Bush adm narrative. You are risking your carrear by doing it.That's odd. These people, including a few dozen Nobel Prize winners, seem to have thriving careers in science, despite often vehemently clashing with "official" U.S. policy. (http://www.ucsusa.org/)

That's because they practice science, not woo.

[T.A.M.]

Did you read on the boy who stuck fishing line up his urethral opening so far it wrapped around his urethra and they had surgically remove it. Now that is what I call a woo.

Anatomically near impossible. The urethra is a tube surrounded by muscle like, blood fillable tissue (Corpus Cavernosum, Corpus Spongiosum) on the outside. There is no way I can see for anything that is inserted through the urethral meatus to "wrap around" the urethra. The only way it could concievably be possible would be if it (A) Punctured the urethra, and then (B) was able to wrap itself around the outside of the urethra within the peritoneal cavity, before it reaches the prostate. This would be so incredibily unlikely, as to render the chance almost nil. It might ball itself up and get stuck at the neck of the bladder, where the other end of the urethra exits, but that is about it.

TAM:)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

(Dr Greenings whipped ass, that is)





Well, I think we can say that The Doc, with his 3 posts acknowledge the embarrassment of the situtation.

Basicly he is appealing to authority. As you very well are aware of. You don't become very popular if you as a professional question the Bush adm narrative. You are risking your carrear by doing it. As proven by the fact that Kevin Ryan and Steven Jones has got the foot. So bad argument.

The articles in the journal are all written by experienced scientists using strict scientific method. "Your scientists" are wellcomed to critique them and by that "peer reviewing" them.
First off, don't name off logical fallacies unless you know wtf they are:

Argumentum ad vericundiam
This is a move in argument that may or may not be fallacious, depending on the circumstances. It means an appeal to authority, an example of which could be thus:
You say philosophy is important, but Professor X says it's a waste of time.Here the speaker refers to the authority of the professor to counter the claim that philosophy is important. The problem is that the presumed authority may or may not be relevant: if the professor is (or was) a lifelong student of philosophy and decided after years working in the field that it really is a waste of time, then perhaps we should look into his reasons for saying so? On the other hand, if he is a professor of mineralogy, say, then—on the face of it—his opinion bears no more or less weight than anyone else's. It may be that additional factors are important: perhaps this professor has also studied philosophy or is known to us to be a particularly trustworthy and astute individual whose opinion we have come to value?
In short, appealing to authority where the authority does know (or is expected to know) what he or she is talking about is a legitimate move in argument, but when the authority's expertise is not relevant then it is fallacious—indeed, a fallacy of relevance, as before.
Matters are not always so clear-cut, though. Even if the authority in question really is an authority in the field, it may be that the question under consideration is one of much controversy among his or her fellow academics. In our example, other philosophy professors may be found who say that philosophy is important, so that appealing to authorities on one or other side or an argument does no more than appraise us of what they think. Take another instance:
Professor Y, a highly respected biologist at a prestigious university, says that the likelihood of live evolving on Mars is so small that, for practical purposes, we can assume it didn't; therefore spending money on searching for life on the red planet is a waste of valuable resources.Here the implicit idea behind the criticism is that with only a finite amount of money to go around and other deserving causes in need of support, why should we support a quest that academics like Professor Y agree is very likely to fail? Is this argument fallacious? It depends: we would need to know more information, such as whether the professor is an expert in the appropriate area of biology and if there is any controversy among similar experts. If the professor's opinion is indicative of the relevant biological community, then perhaps this is information we should keep in mind when forming an opinion on the issue? On the other hand, if the professor is something of a maverick and the weight of biological opinion goes against him or her, then appealing to him or her as an authority could be seen as fallacious, distracting us from the point at issue. In general, we need to be careful in assessing the value of expert testimony, as well as its relevance. http://www.galilean-library.org/int16.html#ad_vericundiam


Also Known as: Fallacious Appeal to Authority, Misuse of Authority, Irrelevant Authority, Questionable Authority, Inappropriate Authority, Ad Verecundiam Description of Appeal to Authority


An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:
Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.
This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.
This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true.
When a person falls prey to this fallacy, they are accepting a claim as true without there being adequate evidence to do so. More specifically, the person is accepting the claim because they erroneously believe that the person making the claim is a legitimate expert and hence that the claim is reasonable to accept. Since people have a tendency to believe authorities (and there are, in fact, good reasons to accept some claims made by authorities) this fallacy is a fairly common one. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
[/LIST]

Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority). This fallacy occurs when someone tries to demonstrate the truth of a proposition by citing some person who agrees, even though that person may have no expertise in the given area. For instance, some people like to quote Einstein's opinions about politics (he tended to have fairly left-wing views), as though Einstein were a political philosopher rather than a physicist. Of course, it is not a fallacy at all to rely on authorities whose expertise relates to the question at hand, especially with regard to questions of fact that could not easily be answered by a layman -- for instance, it makes perfect sense to quote Stephen Hawking on the subject of black holes. At least in some forms of debate, quoting various sources to support one's position is not just acceptable but mandatory. In general, there is nothing wrong with doing so. Even if the person quoted has no particular expertise in the area, he may have had a particularly eloquent way of saying something that makes for a more persuasive speech. In general, debaters should be called down for committing argumentum ad verecundiam only when (a) they rely on an unqualified source for information about facts without other (qualified) sources of verification, or (b) they imply that some policy must be right simply because so-and-so thought so. http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum%20ad%20verecundiam

Appeal to Authority: A type of fallacious argument in which undue reliance is placed upon evidence from presumed, and possibly even divine, experts. An attempt to sway an argument by force of personality, reputation, or just plain fear, rather than by objective fact. Human religious belief systems are invariably based upon arguments from authority, delivered as fact by self-proclaimed "chosen ones" known as "priests", and accepted by the rest of us as a matter of faith. Example: " 'And I promise that I will bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt; to the land of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, a land flowing with milk and honey' " (Exodus, 3:17; note the double quotation marks, since Moses is at this point reporting the promise at second hand). [Map (http://www.bible-history.com/map-israel-joshua/index.html)showing the locations mentioned; Story (http://www.bible-history.com/map-israel-joshua/map-israel-joshua_conclusion.html) of how those on the receiving end of this heavenly eviction notice had it coming to them anyway.] [Compare hearsay evidence.] http://www.smithsrisca.demon.co.uk/rational-argument-glossary.html

<B>
An appeal to authority or argument by authority is a type of argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument) in logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic), consisting on basing the truth value of an otherwise unsupported assertion on the authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authority), knowledge or position of the person asserting it. It is also known as argument from authority, argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin): argument to respect) or ipse dixit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipsedixitism) (Latin: he himself said it). It is one method of obtaining propositional knowledge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propositional_knowledge), but a fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy) in regard to logic, because the validity of a claim does not follow from the credibility of the source. The corresponding reverse case would be an ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) attack: to imply that the claim is false because the asserter is objectionable.
On the other hand, there is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is plausible: it is likely true, we just don't know for sure, because authority alone is not a proof.
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Appeal_to_authority&action=edit&section=1)] Forms

There are two basic forms of appeal to authority, based on the authority being trusted. The more relevant the expertise of an authority, the more compelling the argument. Nonetheless, authority is never absolute, so all appeals to authority which assert that the authorities' claims are definitely true are fallacious.
The first form of the appeal to authority is when a person presenting a position on a subject mentions some authority who also holds that position, but who is not actually an authority in that area. For instance, the statement "Arthur C. Clarke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke) recently released a report showing it is necessary to floss three times daily" should not convince many people of anything about flossing, as Arthur C. Clarke is not a known expert on dental hygiene (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_hygiene). Much advertising (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising) relies on this logical fallacy in the form of endorsements (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorsement) and sponsorships (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponsorship).
The second form, citing a person who actually is an authority in the relevant field, carries more weight in that the authority is more likely to be correct. However the possibility of a mistake remains.
In mathematics, the second form, especially when the appellant is himself the authority, is wryly referred to as "proof by tenure".

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Appeal_to_authority&action=edit&section=2)] Appeal to authority as logical fallacy

A (fallacious) appeal to authority argument has the basic form:

A makes claim B;
there is something positive about A,
therefore claim B is true.The first statement is called a 'factual claim' and is the pivot point of much debate. The last statement is referred to as an 'inferential claim' and represents the reasoning process. There are two types of inferential claim, explicit and implicit. Arguments that (fallaciously) rely on the objectionable aspects of the person for the truth of the conclusion are discussed under ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem).
An appeal to authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authority) is a logical fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy): authorities can be wrong, both in their own field and in other fields; therefore referencing authority does not automatically imply truth. However, referencing authority may carry a high enough probability of truth that it be feasible to base decisions on it.

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Appeal_to_authority&action=edit&section=3)] Examples of appeals to authority


Referring to the philosophical beliefs of Aristotle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle). "If Aristotle said it was so, it is so."
Referring to the philosophical beliefs of Einstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein). "If Einstein said it was so, it is so."
Referring to the philosophical beliefs of Jesus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus), Muhammad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad), or any other religious figure. "If (religious figure) said it was so, it is so." Such an appeal may be based upon the belief (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief) that the speaker in question is holy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holiness) and, by extension, inerrant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy).
Referring to a sacred text. "If (the text) said it was so, it is so." Such an appeal may be based upon the belief (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief) that the sacred text in question is inerrant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy).
Referring to scientific research published in a peer-reviewed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review) journal. "Science (in the form of an article in a prestigious journal) says X, therefore X is so."
Referring to what one is told by one's teacher and/or parent. "My teacher said so, therefore it must be so."
Believing something because it is attributed to an honored profession, as in "This doctor recommends (brand-name) aspirin" or "Bankers recommend that people have six months' wages in a savings account".
Something must be true because a war hero says it.
Something must be true because an elected official says it.
Something must be true because it is in the news.
Something must be true because there is a scientific consensus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus).
Something must be true because it is in a textbook.
Something must be true because it is in an encyclopedia.
Something must be true because it is in wikipedia.
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Appeal_to_authority&action=edit&section=4)] Discussion

Among the most respected of ancient Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greece) philosophers was Pythagoras (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagoras), whose disciples were known for their custom of justifying their assertions by reference to the bald assertions of their master: αὐτὸς έφη (autos ephe), or "he himself hath said it." This well-known practice was carried on by later philosophers and ecclesiastics. Because of the influence of scholasticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholasticism), the expression is commonly known in its Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin) translation, ipse dixit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipsedixitism).
In the Middle Ages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Ages), roughly from the 12th century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12th_century) to the 15th century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15th_century), the philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy) of Aristotle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle) became firmly established dogma, and using the beliefs of Aristotle was an important part of many debates. Aristotle's thought became so central to the philosophy of the late Middle Ages that he became known in Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin) as Ille Philosophus, "the philosopher," and quotations from Aristotle became known as ipse dixits ("He, himself, has spoken."). In this case, Aristotle is an example of someone who is an authority in philosophy, but philosophy is an area where direct evidence is less readily available, and therefore, Aristotle's ideas carry weight, but are not the final word. On the other hand, arguing that all astronomers believe that the planet Neptune exists - and therefore, that serves as evidence of the planet's existence - is a more compelling argument because astronomers are knowledgeable in the relevant field and are in a position to readily prove or disprove the existence of the planet (direct experience). However, it is still better to argue from evidence than from what astronomers believe.
Authoritarian ethics (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Authoritarian_ethics&action=edit) is the meta-ethical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-ethics) theory by which one attains ethical knowledge from an authority, for example from a God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God) or from the law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law) (see Divine command theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_command_theory)). The bandwagon fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_numerum) can be viewed as a special case of an appeal to authority, where the authority is public opinion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion).
The infamous 'Because I said so' argument much stated by parents and loathed by children is not, strictly speaking, a logical fallacy of this type, though it is an invocation of authority. It depends upon the theory of child as a insufficiently competent judge of actions, and it invokes the moral theory that the child owes obedience to its parents (and by extension, those acting as their agents-- see in loco parentis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_loco_parentis)). The child in turn is implying (by questioning) an obligation on the part of the parents to justify their decisions. Within this framework, the child's assumption of authority to call into question parental decisions cannot be justified. The framework is imperfect, as children are not utterly incompetent in reality, and parental decisions are sometimes malign; nonetheless, the issue is over obedience, not validity of moral reasoning.

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Appeal_to_authority&action=edit&section=5)] Taxonomy

The appeal to authority is a genetic fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy).

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Appeal_to_authority&action=edit&section=6)] Sub-categories

Appeal to Celebrity (http://humbugonline.blogspot.com/2005/12/appeal-to-celebrity.html). A celebrity's opinion is more valid than the opinion of anyone else, by virtue of being a celebrity.
Last man standing fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Last_man_standing_fallacy&action=edit)[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources)] — The arguments of the victor in an election or war are axiomatically validated by the victory. It is also known as the Trial by Combat Fallacy,[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources)] Winner Takes All Fallacy.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources)]
Martyr fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martyr_fallacy&action=edit)[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources)] — The loser is axiomatically correct by virtue of failure (antithesis of Last Man Standing Fallacy[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources)]), also known as the Underdog Fallacy.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources)]
Not universal taxonomy [nomenclature derived from "Lectures on Logic" Dioc.North [Paul Priest, 1991]

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Appeal_to_authority&action=edit&section=7)] See also


Credentialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credentialism)
Logical fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy)
Precedent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authoritySecondly, it's clear you don't understand the process of peer review, maybe you should stfu about that as well:

Peer review (known as refereeing in some academic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic) fields) is a process of subjecting an author's scholarly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_method) work or ideas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea) to the scrutiny of others who are experts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert) in the field. It is used primarily by editors to select and to screen submitted manuscripts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuscript#Manuscripts_today), and by funding agencies, to decide the awarding of grants. The peer review process aims to make authors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Author) meet the standards of their discipline, and of science in general. 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, can contain errors.
In the case of manuscripts, the editor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editor) will pass manuscripts that are accepted for publication to a publisher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publisher) who will be responsible for organizing redactory services (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redactory_services), printing and distribution of the publication. In specialist academic (scholarly) journals, the editor (or increasingly group of editors) is normally a well-respected academic in the field, and edits the journal on behalf of a learned society or a commercial publisher. Some journals have professional editors employed by the publisher (e.g. Nature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_%28journal%29)) or the charity (e.g. Science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_%28journal%29)) owning the journal. An editor is ultimately responsible for the quality and selection of manuscripts chosen to be published, usually basing their decision on peer review, although the authors are always responsible for the content of each manuscript. The editor does not revise and correct spelling, grammar and formatting - that process is carried out by a copy editor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copy_editing), although the editor controls the quality of the process[/qutoe] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

[quote]
Peer review is the evaluation of creative work or performance by other people in the same field in order to maintain or enhance the quality of the work or performance in that field1.
It is based on the concept that a larger and more diverse group of people will usually find more weaknesses and errors in a work or performance and will be able to make a more impartial evaluation of it than will just the person or group responsible for creating the work or performance.
Peer review utilizes the independence, and in some cases the anonymity, of the reviewers in order to discourage cronyism (i.e., favoritism shown to relatives and friends) and obtain an unbiased evaluation. Typically, the reviewers are not selected from among the close colleagues, relatives or friends of the creator or performer of the work, and potential reviewers are required to disclose of any conflicts of interest.
Peer review helps maintain and enhance quality both directly by detecting weaknesses and errors in specific works and performance and indirectly by providing a basis for making decisions about rewards and punishment that can provide a powerful incentive to achieve excellence. These rewards and punishments are related to prestige, publication, research grants, employment, compensation, promotion, tenure and disciplinary action.
Peer review is used extensively in a variety of professional fields, including academic and scientific research, medicine, law, accounting and computer software (http://www.bellevuelinux.org/software.html) development. Even trial by jury is a form of peer review. Peer review is legislatively mandated in some situations, particularly in law and medicine. In others it is required by tradition and/or by administrative rules, such as in academia. In some fields, such as software development, it occurs naturally without any formal structure or requirements.
In the case of peer reviewed journals, which are usually academic and scientific periodicals, peer review generally refers to the evaluation of articles prior to publication. But in a broader sense, it could also refer to articles following publication, as such articles often continue to be studied and debated for a longer period and by a much wider audience. http://www.bellevuelinux.org/peer_review.html

Verb1.peer review - evaluate professionally a colleague's work http://www.thefreedictionary.com/peer%20review

In WilsonWeb, a journal is identified as peer-reviewed by H.W. Wilson professional librarians and/or product specialists who look for either one of the following:

A description of the journal's peer review process in its instructions to authors or manuscript submission guidelines.
Or

Notice of an independent editorial review board in the journal's front matter. The academic or scholarly affiliation of each member of the board must be identified.
(Those without affiliations are presumed not to be independent.)
What makes Wilson's assignment of a peer review label uniquely reliable is that we provide it only after first-hand examination of the journal. We do not rely on secondary sources such as Ulrich's International Periodical Directory or our own perceptions of a journal's scholarship.
The peer review label in WilsonWeb means literally that an independent scholar has recommended the article for publication. Users should be aware that many journals with serious and even scholarly content do not use the peer review process.
http://www.hwwilson.com/Documentation/peer_reviewed.htm
</B>

Breach of rule 4: "You will not post "copyright-protected" material in its entirety."

[pagan]

I was talking about whipped ass...

And you answer me with all this text, it feels like getting a ton of bricks over my head. That's not very nice.

You could continue boring me with large chunks of text or try to use your intellect and come up with something of your own?

[Arus808]

And you answer me with all this text, it feels like getting a ton of bricks over my head. That's not very nice.

that "text" was for your education, since you didn't understand the words you think you did.

You could continue boring me with large chunks of text or try to use your intellect and come up with something of your own?


its easy to show how dishonest and inept you are by showing everyone else that you do not understand the "terms" you use against us.

[Rawkarma]

You could continue boring me with large chunks of text or try to use your intellect and come up with something of your own?

You'll need a new pair of shoes if you're going to insist on tap dancing through this entire thread.

[R.Mackey]

I was talking about whipped ass...

And you answer me with all this text, it feels like getting a ton of bricks over my head. That's not very nice.

You could continue boring me with large chunks of text or try to use your intellect and come up with something of your own?

You could try to find errors in my argument showing that Ross is totally wrong. Unless that's too "boring" for you.

C'mon, already. I posted those six months ago, and only one person's ever taken a swing at them. And he whiffed.

Are you going to let your "Movement" be defeated so easily?

[pomeroo]

I was talking about whipped ass...

And you answer me with all this text, it feels like getting a ton of bricks over my head. That's not very nice.

You could continue boring me with large chunks of text or try to use your intellect and come up with something of your own?



Pagan, I was wondering how a person who doesn't know the rules of chess can watch a game and offer an opinion on the comparative skills of the players.

Here is an e-mail from Dr. Greening on the subject of Gordon Ross:


Hi Ron,

Ah yes, Gordon Ross! I have seen this hit piece before - it's been out for a while now. This is not the first time Gordon Ross has gone after me personally.... In fact Mr. Ross is quite obsessional about me. You need to know that I post on the Physorg.com forum (As Neu-Fonze, a play on the phrase "911" in French, in case you were wondering). Ross figured out that Greening is Neu-Fonze and then went searching through my hundreds of posts and started quoting them as originating from Dr. Greening. He particularly picked up on my dislike of engineers and uses this to bait me!

By the way my distaste for "engineers" is based on many incidents in my life where engineers proved to be pretty scummy individuals. I worked all my professional career with engineers and a I was never impressed by their claim to having superior knowledge over mere scientists. In fact I have seen nuclear engineers participate in scientific fraud and other scams. I have had two lawsuits against engineering companies (and won both of them I might add!) But, of course, there are ok engineers too. In fact my best friend at my old workplace was a mechanical engineer and a devout Muslim from Egypt no less!

Anyway, Ross has issued a paper (available on his own website and on the "Scholars" website) in which he argues that the impact energy of the upper block of each tower should have been absorbed because the lower section would act like a giant spring. The fact that this didn't happen is used by Ross as "proof" that explosives were used to bring down the Towers. I have analysed his theory and posted my rebuttals on Physorg and even on the "Scholars" website. Needless to say, this has not stopped Gordon Ross who has generated something of a following with the CD crowd. I have even tried a personal dialogue with the guy but he really is a very obnoxious character full of venom and arrogance.

So what more can I say......

Cheers,

Frank

[pomeroo]

I may have posted this e-mail from Dr. Greening last month, but it's worth another look:


Dear Ron,

I and many others at Physorg.com forums have set Ace Baker "straight" so many times it's not funny any more. He is obviously completely ignorant of basic engineering, physics and chemistry and he clearly does not understand Greening's calculations. True enough, the description of Greening's calculation on 911Myths indicates that the first program Greening wrote considers "crush down" with a fixed value of E1, and no mass loss. This is essentially the same set of assumptions used by Bazant et al. in their famous 2001 paper. A paper that remains THE benchmark in the field!

However, if Ace Baker was keeping up with developments over the past year or so he would know that Greening has extended his initial model to include; crush-up occurring simultaneously with crush-down; variable E1 and mass shedding during collapse. Thus Ace Baker is clearly not paying attention but simply spouting the same old misinformation to discredit the real scientists researching 9-11! So, when the three factors noted above are incorporated into Greening's model, a self-sustaining collapse is still predicted, but with a slightly increased collapse time. In fact, if Ace Baker was half the scientist he purports to be he would repeat Greening's calculation for himself, (because it's really not that difficult!), and discover the truth of Greening's assertions! In other words, Mr. Baker should put up or SHUT UP!

But let's look at some of Mr. Baker's very own nonsense:

"The evidence shows that most of the mass of the towers ended up as fine powder blanketing lower Manhattan."
or,
"The north wall of WTC1 went missing."

I think Mr. Baker needs to see an eye doctor or something! He fails to notice an enormous rubble pile that contained about 1,000,000 tonnes of debris, was many stories high, took over a year to remove and contained literally thousands of core and perimeter wall columns. No, he prefers to believe the fantasy that "most of the mass of the towers ended up as fine powder blanketing lower Manhattan." !!!!! Pray tell us how steel is turned to dust Mr. Baker!

And if Mr. Baker is correct that "The north wall of WTC1 went missing.", I suppose it must have been beamed up by Scotty or something!

So really, it's a waste of time dealing with such an "ACE" a this; a man LOST IN SPACE, who apparently prefers to live in his very own Conspiracy La La Land..........

As for Gordon Ross, his model is simply not attuned to reality. The damage to the Twin Towers was asymmetric and the elastic compression wave so beloved by Mr. Ross would not propagate vertically down 17 floors as he suggests, but would be dissipated by the lateral and torsional forces that we know were responsible for the failures of the columns at practically each and every splice. The fact that most of the core columns found in the rubble pile were in neat ~ 10 meter sections, with very little bending, shows that they failed in this way - not by some huge buckling of a (17 x 3.7) meter section!

Cheers,

Frank

[uk_dave]

Anatomically near impossible. The urethra is a tube surrounded by muscle like, blood fillable tissue (Corpus Cavernosum, Corpus Spongiosum) on the outside. There is no way I can see for anything that is inserted through the urethral meatus to "wrap around" the urethra. The only way it could concievably be possible would be if it (A) Punctured the urethra, and then (B) was able to wrap itself around the outside of the urethra within the peritoneal cavity, before it reaches the prostate. This would be so incredibily unlikely, as to render the chance almost nil. It might ball itself up and get stuck at the neck of the bladder, where the other end of the urethra exits, but that is about it.

TAM:)

I shall uncross my legs once my eyes have stopped watering. :boggled:

[Yaters]

I was talking about whipped ass...

And you answer me with all this text, it feels like getting a ton of bricks over my head. That's not very nice.

You could continue boring me with large chunks of text or try to use your intellect and come up with something of your own?

Nice duck, why don't you swallow your pride and at least admit that you didn't cite the argument correctly? It'd be a small step in the right direction.

You know, I was once like you, I refused to admit when I was wrong. Then, I turned thirteen.

By the way, I was a fence sitter, but if you're ANY indication of the type of people in the movement, count me out, completely. I'll take rational thinking, logic and science over bitter politics any day of the week.

Nice work Pagan, keep showing the lurkers here what a mature bunch of high schoolers you and the rest of the movement are.

[gumboot]

Thanks for the email posts Ron,

Once thing I find really telling. Real scientists, when met with the Troofers claims, dismiss them out of hand as ludicrous. Then, in an effort to demonstrate how ludicrous these claims are, they often make a joke about how this occured like the "beamed up by Scotty" remark. The obvious thought behind such thoughts is that theories of that nature (steel turned to dust, vanishing walls, etc) are so ridiculous they're not worth considering.

What is truely sad about the truth movement is, more often than not, these are precisely the theories they are claiming.

-Gumboot

[RAMS]

I'm not a scientist. I'm just a very intelligent sceptic person. So I don't produce any science. But, fortunately, we have real scientists in our movement.

If you want to read their discoveries? Read the articles in this journal.

http://journalof911studies.com/

These are critically flawed hyphosis in nearly every item so listed on this site. None of these items so listed are by trained visual specialists in any form, which is the core source of 99.4% of all 911 conpiratories--the net. Too, this is so since such a tiny percentage of trained observers were there at locale during the event.

Terribly flawed.

As a suggestion, if you post and refer people to this sort of thing, all discourse goes out the window of remote credibility.

RAMS

[pagan]

You'll need a new pair of shoes if you're going to insist on tap dancing through this entire thread.

Tapdancing? You only have to pick n' choose from the excellent journal.
What do you say about this one? IMO the piece de resistance.

Why Indeed the WTC Buildings Completly Collaps?
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/Why_Indeed_Did_the_WTC_Buildings_Completely_Collap se_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf



Written by Professor Steven Jones. According to Professor Griffin peer reviewed by 4 people with a Phd.

[WildCat]

Tapdancing? You only have to pick n' choose from the excellent journal.
What do you say about this one? IMO the piece de resistance.

Why Indeed the WTC Buildings Completly Collaps?
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/Why_Indeed_Did_the_WTC_Buildings_Completely_Collap se_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf



Written by Professor Steven Jones. According to Professor Griffin peer reviewed by 4 people with a Phd.
:dl:

You're joking, right? :jaw-dropp

[pagan]

Pomeroo:

Tnx, for the letters written by Greening. That is some real tap dancing. When all he has to do is to write a reply and have it published in the Journal.

[Belz...]

I'm not a scientist. I'm just a very intelligent sceptic person.

That's the end of the thread for me.

Remember, Pagan. You HAVE no theory.

[Minadin]

Two people who have PhD's in completely unrelated fields aren't peers.

[Belz...]

Basicly he is appealing to authority. As you very well are aware of. You don't become very popular if you as a professional question the Bush adm narrative.

Irrelevant. If the numbers crunch, then someone's gonna find out, fast.

I was talking about whipped ass...

I prefer whipped cream, myself.

You could continue boring me with large chunks of text or try to use your intellect and come up with something of your own?

Oh, look. He can't be bothered to read. How cute.

And, remember, you don't have a theory.

[Belz...]

Once thing I find really telling. Real scientists, when met with the Troofers claims, dismiss them out of hand as ludicrous. Then, in an effort to demonstrate how ludicrous these claims are, they often make a joke about how this occured like the "beamed up by Scotty" remark. The obvious thought behind such thoughts is that theories of that nature (steel turned to dust, vanishing walls, etc) are so ridiculous they're not worth considering.

Gives you the impression that scientists are generally less patient with crap than we are, right ?

[beachnut]

Tapdancing? You only have to pick n' choose from the excellent journal.
What do you say about this one? IMO the piece de resistance.

Why Indeed the WTC Buildings Completly Collaps?
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/Why_Indeed_Did_the_WTC_Buildings_Completely_Collap se_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf



Written by Professor Steven Jones. According to Professor Griffin peer reviewed by 4 people with a Phd.
Jones is a nut case dolt. He shows a picture of multiple floors smashed together and says it is "now-solidified metal with entrained material,". Yes you dolt, it is multiple floors smashed by the energy, get this Dr Jones, of the falling WTC equal in energy to 248 tons of TNT. Just because you hate bush claim to be republican does not make your lies work.

He has no facts just like the rest of the CT world. He offers no explanation on how, why, or by who. Not a very good liar at this stuff.

Does he know where all the oxygen generators were on board the planes. No one ever talks about all the pure oxygen, enough to keep hundreds of people alive when to. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6i_l_ux3R-4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6i_l_ux3R-4) Watch the oxygen burn brighter than Dr Jones.

Dr Jones was fired for making up lies about 9/11 with no scientific or engineering basis he made up lies. He had zero support from 99.99 percent of all engineers in the United States. You have picked a looser. You have picked a liar. You have picked someone who you could actually do a better job if you were not so lazy. Start thinking for yourself. Are all CTers just lemmings?

Here is Dr Jone's first paper. He has been nuts all the time. Compare how his lack of facts and story change.

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
http://tinyurl.com/7drxn

WTC collapses due to controlled demolition
Steven E. Jones
Professor of Physics/BYU

I believe WTC collapses to be due to controlled demolition are:

1. My own analysis of the "pancaking" floors model (the FEMA/NIST model) combined with Conservation of Momentum considerations gives a much longer time for the fall (over 10 seconds) than that which was actually observed for WTC-7 (about 6.3 seconds, just over the free-fall time of 6.0 seconds). I find no evidence in their reports that government researchers (FEMA, NIST, 9-11 Commission) included Conservation of Momentum in their analyses.

2. The fact that WTC-7 fell down symmetrically, onto its own footprint very neatly, even though fires were just observed on one side of the building. A symmetrical collapse, as observed, requires the simultaneous "pulling" of support beams. By my count, there were 24 core columns and 57 perimeter columns in WTC-7. Heat transport considerations for steel beams heated by fire suggest that failure of even a few columns at the same time is very small. Adding in the Second Law of Thermodynamics ("law of increasing entropy") leads to the conclusion that the likelihood of near-symmetrical collapse of the building due to fires (the "government" theory) -- requiring as it does near-simultaneous failure of many support columns -- is infinitesimal. Yet near-symmetrical collapse of WTC-7 was observed. (If you still haven't gone to the links above to see the actual collapse for yourself, please go there now.)

Note that the 9-11 Commission report does not even deal with the collapse of WTC-7. This is a striking omission of highly relevant data.

3.Squibs (horizontal puffs of smoke and debris) are observed emerging from WTC-7, in regular sequence, just as the building starts to collapse. (SEE: http://tinyurl.com/7drxn ) Yet the floors have not moved relative to one another yet, as one can verify from the videos, so air-expulsion due to collapsing floors is excluded. I have personally examined many building demolitions based on on-line videos, and the presence of such squibs firing in rapid sequence as observed is prima facie evidence for the use of pre-positioned explosives inside the building.

4. The pulverization of concrete to powder and the horizontal ejection of steel beams for hundreds of yards, observed clearly in the collapses of the WTC towers, requires much more energy than is available from gravitational potential energy alone. Explosives will give the observed features. Other scientists have provided quantitative analysis of the observed pulverizations, and I can provide references if you wish. Here we are appealing to the violation of Conservation of Energy inherent in the "official" pancaking-floors theory-- a horrendous violation, forbidden by principles of Physics. (What is going on for the FEMA/NIST researchers to make such striking errors/omissions?)

5. I conducted simple experiments on the "pancaking" theory, by dropping cement blocks from approximately 12 feet onto other cement blocks. (The floors in the WTC buildings were about 12 feet apart.) We are supposed to believe, from the pancaking theory, that a concrete floor dropping 12 feet onto another concrete floor will result in PULVERIZED concrete observed during the Towers' collapses! Nonsense! My own experiments, and I welcome you to try this yourself, is that only chips/large chunks of cement flaked off the blocks -- no mass pulverization to approx. 100-micron powder as observed. Explosives, however, can indeed convert concrete to dust --mostly, along with some large chunks-- as observed in the destruction of the Twin Towers on 9-11-01.

6. The observations of molten metal (I did not say molten steel!) in the basements of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 and 7 is consistent with the use of the extremely high-temperature thermite reaction: iron oxide + aluminum powder --> Al2O3 + molten iron. Falling buildings are not observed to generate melting of large quantities of molten metal -- this requires a concentrated heat source such as explosives. Even the government reports admit that the fires were insufficient to melt steel beams (they argue for heating and warping then failure of these beams) -- but these reports do not mention the observed molten metal in the basements of WTC1, 2 and 7. Again we have a glaring omission of critical data in the FEMA, NIST and 9-11 Commission reports.


7. I understand that models of the steel-frame WTC buildings at Underwriters Laboratories subjected to intense fires did NOT collapse. And no steel-frame buildings before or after 9/11/2001 have collapsed due to fire. Thus, the "official" fire-pancaking model fails the scientific test of REPRODUCIBILITY. (Earthquake- caused collapses have occured, but there were no major earthquakes in NYC on that day. And buildings which have collapsed due to earthquakes collapse asymmetrically, as expected -- not like the nearly straight-down collapse of WTC 7 to a small rubble pile!)


8. Explosions -- multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence -- were heard and reported by numerous observers in (and near) the WTC buildings, consistent with explosive demolition. Some of the firemen who reported explosions barely escaped with their lives.

Essentially none of these science-based considerations is mentioned in the Popular Mechanics article on this subject, authored by B. Chertoff (a cousin of M. Chertoff who heads the Homeland Security Dept.) (Squibs are mentioned briefly, but the brief PM analysis does not fit the observed facts.)

I have performed other analyses regarding the WTC collapses on 9-11-01 which may be of interest --let me know if you're interested. The matter is highly interesting to me as a physicist -- and as a citizen of the United States. I conclude that the evidence for pre-positioned explosives in WTC 7 (also in towers 1 and 2) is truly compelling.

Steven E. Jones
Professor of Physics/BYU

This article was posted on 9.16.05
And some woo sites were listed with more lies. Good luck with your life as a lemming non-thinking drone for the 9/11 liars who like the ironic name "truth movement". You CTers must have the top .00067 percent of all engineers, when will the other 99.99 percent join you.

[Dave Rogers]

Tapdancing? You only have to pick n' choose from the excellent journal.
What do you say about this one? IMO the piece de resistance.

Why Indeed the WTC Buildings Completly Collaps?
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/Why_Indeed_Did_the_WTC_Buildings_Completely_Collap se_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf



Written by Professor Steven Jones. According to Professor Griffin peer reviewed by 4 people with a Phd.

Speaking as a person with a PhD in Physics who has peer reviewed papers, I would have advised rejection of this paper for publication in any serious scientific journal, quite possibly without the option of a re-write. I started writing down my reasons, but quite frankly I don't have time. Suffice it to say, this is not a scientific paper, follows nothing remotely similar to scientific methodology, contains numerous obvious errors, unsupported assertions and misceptions about many subjects including the nature of controlled demolitions, contradicts its own findings in places, and appears at times to be deliberately attempting to mislead the reader. It has been extensively criticised elsewhere, and I have little to add except one point I haven't seen emphasised:

Jones claims that the liquid running from one of the corners of one of the WTC towers cannot be aluminium and must therefore be molten steel. From the emission colour he estimates its temperature at 1000 C. Elsewhere in the paper he quotes the melting point of structural steel as 1510 C. His own analysis therefore contradicts his own conclusions. For him to have published such a thing suggests a serious loss of ability for self-criticism that is unacceptable in a serious scientist.

Overall this paper is an appallingly bad piece of scientific analysis.

Dave

[T.A.M.]

Tapdancing? You only have to pick n' choose from the excellent journal.
What do you say about this one? IMO the piece de resistance.

Why Indeed the WTC Buildings Completly Collaps?
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/Why_Indeed_Did_the_WTC_Buildings_Completely_Collap se_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf



Written by Professor Steven Jones. According to Professor Griffin peer reviewed by 4 people with a Phd.

I know it is an opinion, but that kills alot of credibility right there. It is so insulting to legitimate journals to call that one excellent.

As for "4 PhD's" any idea if any of the 4 DOCTORATE RECIEVING individuals obtained their degrees in RELEVANT Fields, or were they history and english PhDs?

TAM:)

[Dave Rogers]

As for "4 PhD's" any idea if any of the 4 DOCTORATE RECIEVING individuals obtained their degrees in RELEVANT Fields, or were they history and english PhDs?


Jones says in the introduction to the paper that two of them were physicists. Mind you, later in the paper, he refers to "scientists and engineers" who have questioned aspects of the WTC7 collapse, but one of his two references is Griffin, so his definition of a scientist/engineer may be broader than mine.

Dave

[pagan]

Speaking as a person with a PhD in Physics who has peer reviewed papers, I would have advised rejection of this paper for publication in any serious scientific journal, quite possibly without the option of a re-write. I started writing down my reasons, but quite frankly I don't have time. Suffice it to say, this is not a scientific paper, follows nothing remotely similar to scientific methodology, contains numerous obvious errors, unsupported assertions and misceptions about many subjects including the nature of controlled demolitions, contradicts its own findings in places, and appears at times to be deliberately attempting to mislead the reader. It has been extensively criticised elsewhere, and I have little to add except one point I haven't seen emphasised:

Jones claims that the liquid running from one of the corners of one of the WTC towers cannot be aluminium and must therefore be molten steel. From the emission colour he estimates its temperature at 1000 C. Elsewhere in the paper he quotes the melting point of structural steel as 1510 C. His own analysis therefore contradicts his own conclusions. For him to have published such a thing suggests a serious loss of ability for self-criticism that is unacceptable in a serious scientist.

Overall this paper is an appallingly bad piece of scientific analysis.

Dave


You are bragging about a Phd in physics in your first line. You may have one, but it gives a really bad impression.

Jones claims that the liquid running from one of the corners of one of the WTC towers cannot be aluminium and must therefore be molten steel. From the emission colour he estimates its temperature at 1000 C. Elsewhere in the paper he quotes the melting point of structural steel as 1510 C. His own analysis therefore contradicts his own conclusions. For him to have published such a thing suggests a serious loss of ability for self-criticism that is unacceptable in a serious scientist.

On second thoughts, I take back that "you may have one".

I suggest that you read the section again. OK? Let's see what your Phd is worth?

[Gravy]

Pagan, when will you be presenting your "absolute scientific evidence?"

Or are you all done?

[pagan]

Pagan, when will you be presenting your "absolute scientific evidence?"

Or are you all done?

Please Gravy, are you kidding me? I've just started.

When it comes to the nitty-gritty of physics I am relying on Professor Steven Jones. Do you have any complaints on his excellent paper?

[Gravy]

Please Gravy, are you kidding me? I've just started.

When it comes to the nitty-gritty of physics I am relying on Professor Steven Jones. Do you have any complaints on his excellent paper?

Yes, I do have problems with that steaming pile of crap. In this paper (http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf) I point out a number of Jones' egregious errors and blatant attempts to deceive. Read it and weep.

Now, please present your absolute scientific evidence, pagan. What are you waiting for?

[beachnut]

Please Gravy, are you kidding me? I've just started.

When it comes to the nitty-gritty of physics I am relying on Professor Steven Jones. Do you have any complaints on his excellent paper?
Which one his first paper? Which paper do you want?

But just one question, can you review how he said the explosives were place in the WTC and their locations?

Jones' work is pathetic. He brings up controlled demolition and that is irresponsible with out facts. Truther are the most hideous of people using lies to make up more lies about 9/11. Pathetic people telling lies, and you have no facts. You never will put together a set of ideas on 9/11 that has merit. Your Jones stuff is old news. He had to resign or be fired for telling lies and making up stuff about 9/11. He is irresponsible as are those who pass on his lies.

[Darth Rotor]

Now, please present your absolute scientific evidence, pagan. What are you waiting for?
He is waiting for a clue to drop from heaven, like manna.

DR

[pagan]

Yes, I do have problems with that steaming pile of crap. In this paper (http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf) I point out a number of Jones' egregious errors and blatant attempts to deceive. Read it and weep.

Now, please present your absolute scientific evidence, pagan. What are you waiting for?

Tnx for the link Gravy, I promise to take a look at it later.

But, hey man 110 pages? Please go into the specifics. Any specific complaints about Steven Jones paper?

Like this Phd Ipswich fellow had?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Tnx for the link Gravy, I promise to take a look at it later.

But, hey man 110 pages? Please go into the specifics. Any specific complaints about Steven Jones paper?

Like this Phd Ipswich fellow had?
Your attempts to shift the burden of proof are both transparent and droll. Please stop.

[pagan]

Your attempts to shift the burden of proof are both transparent and droll. Please stop.

Huh? You guys have the burden of proof. Totally!

You are defending the Dubya CT. We are refuting it.

Get it? It is really that simple.

[Redtail]

Huh? You guys have the burden of proof. Totally!

You are defending the Dubya CT. We are refuting it.

Get it? It is really that simple.

Oh I see here you are confused. See the "Dubya CT" is backed up by the NIST report (and others) You say it is wrong. Therefore YOU have to provide the evidence for it.

[Gravy]

Tnx for the link Gravy, I promise to take a look at it later.

But, hey man 110 pages? Please go into the specifics.Four words: table of contents; index.

:hb:

[pagan]

Oh I see here you are confused. See the "Dubya CT" is backed up by the NIST report (and others) You say it is wrong. Therefore YOU have to provide the evidence for it.

Has anything in the history of mankind in such a short time been so debunked as the NIST report? I don't think so.

I feel for you guys. I don't envy you. To be more or less forced to defend a conspiracy theory provided by the Bush adm. (What haven't they lied about?)

I just feel so sorry for you guys! Or maybe Dubya is your hero?

[T.A.M.]

Has anything in the history of mankind in such a short time been so debunked as the NIST report? I don't think so.

I feel for you guys. I don't envy you. To be more or less forced to defend a conspiracy theory provided by the Bush adm. (What haven't they lied about?)

I just feel so sorry for you guys! Or maybe Dubya is your hero?

From your earlier post, and comment about "bragging", I would say that stating ones qualifications and experience so as to strengthen or validate ones right to speak as an expert is not "bragging". however, for people who lack those credentials, and feel inadequate about it, I can see how it would be percieved as such.

As for the debunking of NIST, that must be sarcasm right? You cannot find me one single paper that "debunks" the NIST report. Oh sure, the scholars site is full of "opinion" pieces, speculation, quote mining, that attempt to bash the paper, but there has been no "debunking" of NIST.

If you are annoyed and tired of it, just log off and go watch some TV man.

TAM:)

[cloudshipsrule]

When it comes to the nitty-gritty of physics I am relying on Professor Steven Jones


This is mistake number one. Jones is an idiot with a political agenda. He has no interest in discovering the truth about the physics behind the collapses.

[Redtail]

Has anything in the history of mankind in such a short time been so debunked as the NIST report? I don't think so.

I feel for you guys. I don't envy you. To be more or less forced to defend a conspiracy theory provided by the Bush adm. (What haven't they lied about?)

I just feel so sorry for you guys! Or maybe Dubya is your hero?

Oh dear you're still confused. Ok, what you posted above isn't evidence. Let me help you.

The NIST has been debunked due to the following evidence.

A.________________________________________________ __________
B.________________________________________________ ____________
C.________________________________________________ ___________


There, just fill in the blanks. (You can use more space if you need it) That should be a start.

[slugmancs]

I'm sorry, is this Kevin Ryan the same one that tests water and was fired for speaking for Underwriters Laboratory? Or is it someone with the same name.

Also http://www.netxnews.net/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/04/09/443801bdadd6e has a structural engineer's (from BYU) letter to Steven Jones' claims of CD.

To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing.

-D. Allan Firmage
Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU

Here is a debate between Professor Jones and Leslie Robertson (Helped design WTC 1 and 2): http://media-nf.911podcasts.com/files/audio/StevenJones_LeslieRobertson_20061026.mp3

[pagan]

Well, TAM let's wait and see what this Phd Ipswich guy have to say about this section he complained about, shall we?

To see what his Phd is worth? I am really excited. I wanna be amazed...

But, I doubt this will happned...

Come on Ipswich!!!

[Gravy]

Pagan, I'm just curious: can you think of any errors of fact, logic, or methodology that Jones makes?

[T.A.M.]

Well, TAM let's wait and see what this Phd Ipswich guy have to say about this section he complained about, shall we?

To see what his Phd is worth? I am really excited. I wanna be amazed...

But, I doubt this will happned...

Come on Ipswich!!!

You don't want to be amazed, you want to be proven correct. Call it like it is man. I doubt anything short of him proclaiming that he has become a firm believe in the "inside job" would amaze you.

TAM:)

[pagan]

Pagan, I'm just curious: can you think of any errors of fact, logic, or methodology that Jones makes?

Gravy you infidel!!! How dare you? To question our nr 1 guru?

Only kidding... Well, he is not perfect, he has written some mormon crap...

And I am an anti xtian. But when it comes to his science, I have sofar never seen anything even questionable.

Yep, I've to admit my admiration for Steven Jones. Great man, indeed.

[kookbreaker]

Only kidding... Well, he is not perfect, he has written some mormon crap...


He's written lots of 911 crap as well. I honestly wonder how the man got a degree in physics with the mistakes he makes. He should hang his head in shame for the rest of his head for the idiocies he's tried to pass of as science in his 911 writings.

[stateofgrace]

Gravy you infidel!!! How dare you? To question our nr 1 guru?

Only kidding... Well, he is not perfect, he has written some mormon crap...

And I am an anti xtian. But when it comes to his science, I have sofar never seen anything even questionable.

Yep, I've to admit my admiration for Steven Jones. Great man, indeed.

This guy reckons he is talking rubbish.

http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm

Have you read it?

[pomeroo]

Gravy you infidel!!! How dare you? To question our nr 1 guru?

Only kidding... Well, he is not perfect, he has written some mormon crap...

And I am an anti xtian. But when it comes to his science, I have sofar never seen anything even questionable.

Yep, I've to admit my admiration for Steven Jones. Great man, indeed.



Your definition of a great man as someone whose muddle-headed errors lend support to your own baseless fantasies must be helpful to your mission.
For the rest of us, here are a few thoughts on Jones from Thomas Eagar, in an e-mail he sent me last May:

" Having said that, I think that the best way to refute the molten steel hypothesis is to inform people that molten metal is not the equal of molten steel. I have little doubt that some aluminum from the aircraft melted (about 1100 F for the alloys used and well within the capacity of the fires). As I noted in my article, some had suggested a thermite reaction and I indicated that the brilliant white light from burning Aluminum (about 4000 F) would have been unmistakable, but was not observed. The photos which I have seen by the conspiracy theorists which shows glowing metal, shows a red glow or a red orange glow. This is NOT molten steel. Anyone who has ever seen molten steel even in a small weld puddle knows that it it yellow white in color. As temperature increases we go from red (800-900 F) like a kitchen electric range heater (will not melt aluminum pots) to red orange (1100-1200 F- molten aluminum) to orange (1500-1800) to yellow (2000-2300) to yellow white (2500-2800- molten steel) to white (3000 F and above with increasing light intensity, like a tungsten incandescent light bulb.) If you put the temperatures into common sense colors that people know, then they can go back to Steven jones' photos and anyone can conclude for themselves that the red or red orange glows that they say are molten steel is really just proof that they have never worked around molten metal. Welders, casters plumbers and many other professionals know the colors of molten metals and Prof Jones simply is an uninformed academic, who enjoys the attention that all of you are giving him. I do not care to bask in such 'glory'."

Thomas Eagar

[steve s]

When it comes to the nitty-gritty of physics I am relying on Professor Steven Jones.

Jones's work is so bad that even the troofers are debunking him.

Steve S.

[Dave Rogers]

I suggest that you read the section again. OK? Let's see what your Phd is worth?

Sorry, I fail to see your point. Jones is claiming that the liquid he sees is molten structural steel at approximately 1000 C, and that the melting point of structural steel is 1510 C. At 1000 C, structural steel is therefore a solid, therefore the liquid at 1000 C cannot possibly be molten steel - it's an absurd conclusion. How do you reconcile the contradiction?

Dave

[Mashuna]

. But when it comes to his science, I have sofar never seen anything even questionable.

Yep, I've to admit my admiration for Steven Jones. Great man, indeed.

As a non-scientist, would you recognise anything questionable if you saw it?

[Mobyseven]

On second thoughts, I take back that "you may have one".

I suggest that you read the section again. OK? Let's see what your Phd is worth?

I don't have a PhD in physics and even I can tell you what the problem with that one is. To the deductive-logic-mobile!


In Jones' paper, he quotes the melting point of structural steel as 1510°C. He also claims that the molten metal pouring out of the building is structural steel, and estimates it's temperature to be 1000°C.

Let m be, "The molten metal coming from the WTC is steel."
Let t be, "The molten metal has a temperature of greater than 1510°C."
Therefore, "If the molten metal coming from the WTC is steel then it has a temperature of greater than 1510°C," can be written as: m ⊃ t

In Jones' paper he estimates the temperature of what he claims to be molten steel as 1000°C. This means that proposition t is false. This can be written as: ~t

Putting together these two propositions from Jones' own paper, we get:

m ⊃ t
~t

From this, there is only one possible valid conclusion: ~m. This can be shown through:

m | ⊃ | t
0 | 1 | 0
0 | 1 | 1
1 | 0 | 0
1 | 1 | 1

Where a 0 represents a false value and a 1 represents a true value. It can be seen that the only time that m ⊃ t is true when t is false is where m is also false. This is represented by:

m ⊃ t
~t
∴
~m

We then substitute the original wording of the propositions back into this argument:

If the molten metal coming from the WTC is steel then it has a temperature of greater than 1510°C.

The molten metal does not have a temperature of greater than 1510°C.

Therefore, the molten metal coming from the WTC is not steel.

However, with the same propositions, Jones comes to the conclusion that m is true. This would give us the argument:

m ⊃ t
~t
∴
m

Which is a contradiction - in other words, it can never be true.

This means that Jones' conclusions re the metal cannot be trusted, as not only is the soundness of his argument questionable, but his argument is not even valid in the first place!

I would think twice before placing my trust in the findings of a paper that is not internally consistent. But hey, who's going to let an invalid argument get in the way of 'The Truth'...

ETA - Corrected my argument as jsfisher suggested, by changing the biconditional to the material conditional. I eagerly await pagan's response...

[pomeroo]

I don't have a PhD in physics and even I can tell you what the problem with that one is. To the deductive-logic-mobile!



In Jones' paper, he quotes the melting point of structural steel as 1510°C. He also claims that the molten metal pouring out of the building is structural steel, and estimates it's temperature to be 1000°C.

Let m be, "The molten metal coming from the WTC is steel."
Let t be, "The molten metal has a temperature of greater than 1510°C."
Therefore, "The molten metal coming from the WTC is steel if and only if it has a temperature of greater than 1510°C," can be written as: m ≡ t

In Jones' paper he estimates the temperature of what he claims to be molten steel as 1000°C. This means that proposition t is false. This can be written as: ~t

Putting together these two propositions from Jones' own paper, we get:

m ≡ t
~t

From this, there is only one possible valid conclusion: ~m. This can be shown through:

m | ≡ | t
0 | 1 | 0
0 | 0 | 1
1 | 0 | 0
1 | 1 | 1

Where a 0 represents a false value and a 1 represents a true value. It can be seen that the only time that m ≡ t is true is where either both values are false or both values are true. As we already know that proposition t is false, we can logically reason that m must also be false. This is represented by:

m ≡ t
~t
∴
~m

We then substitute the original wording of the propositions back into this argument:

The molten metal coming from the WTC is steel if and only if it has a temperature of greater than 1510°C.

The molten metal does not have a temperature of greater than 1510°C.

Therefore, the molten metal coming from the WTC is not steel.

However, with the same propositions, Jones comes to the conclusion that m is true. This would give us the argument:

m ≡ t
~t
∴
m

Which is a contradiction - in other words, it can never be true.

This means that Jones' conclusions re the metal cannot be trusted, as not only is the soundness of his argument questionable, but his argument is not even valid in the first place!


I would think twice before placing my trust in the findings of a paper that is not internally consistent. But hey, who's going to let an invalid argument get in the way of 'The Truth'...


You mean, Da Twoof...

[Mobyseven]

You mean, Da Twoof...

In quotation marks: "The Truth" (both capitalised)
Outside of quotation marks: Da Twoof (still capitalised, followed by exclamation marks and the number one to a degree denoted by the excitement of the posting CTer)

[jsfisher]

Let m be, "The molten metal coming from the WTC is steel."
Let t be, "The molten metal has a temperature of greater than 1510°C."
Therefore, "The molten metal coming from the WTC is steel if and only if it has a temperature of greater than 1510°C," can be written as: m ≡ t
Just a technical nit: It is not an "if and only if" equivalence; it is an "if...then" proposition:

If the molten metal coming from the WTC is steel then it has a temperature of greater than 1510°C.

The end result is the same, however, since ~t necessitates ~m.

[Mobyseven]

Just a technical nit: It is not an "if and only if" equivalence; it is an "if...then" proposition:

If the molten metal coming from the WTC is steel then it has a temperature of greater than 1510°C.

The end result is the same, however, since ~t necessitates ~m.

My bad...I actually had that originally, but it just didn't seem right...but it is.

[Dave Rogers]

I'm not seeing any response, Pagan, although you've posted in other threads - can I assume you withdraw your objection? If not, I suggest you too read the passage in Jones's paper again. In particular, I'd like to draw three points to your attention.

Page 11: "I assert that this glowing liquid metal is consistent with flowing liquid iron from a nearby thermite reaction zone..."

Page 12, discussing the same flow of yellow-hot liquid: "The yellow colour implies a molten-metal temperature of approximately 1000 C..."

Table on page 8 gives the following temperatures: Lemon, 1000 C; light yellow, 1080 C; white, 1205 C; structural steel melts, 1510 C; iron melts, 1538 C. Therefore, if the flowing liquid is yellow rather than white, its temperature is significantly below about 1200 Celcius.

When you've checked these parts of the paper, please explain to me how "flowing liquid iron" can be liquid at significantly less than 1200 Celcius. Note that steel (mostly iron but with some additives) has a slightly lower melting point than pure iron, so if it can't be steel it follows that it can't be iron from a thermite reaction either. OK, slight confusion between iron and steel on my part, but by suggesting that the material was steel I was actually being charitable to Jones because the discrepancy in melting points is slightly less. Either way, Jones is contradicting himself horribly, and doesn't even realise it.

To quote Dilbert, "I await your bizarre, other-worldly response".

Dave

[Mobyseven]

Waiting, pagan...

[Regnad Kcin]

...But when it comes to his science, I have sofar never seen anything even questionable.

Yep, I've to admit my admiration for Steven Jones. Great man, indeed.And your qualifications for determining whether or not something is questionable there are...what?

[Dave Rogers]

And your qualifications for determining whether or not something is questionable there are...what?

If he's got any, don't expect him to tell you. Apparently that makes a really bad impression.

Dave

[DarkMagician]

You are bragging about a Phd in physics in your first line. You may have one, but it gives a really bad impression.

I... really can't say anything about this.

[pagan]

Waiting, pagan...

Dave and Moby:I seem to have neglected this thread and you are eagerly anticipating the pagan to spill the beans?

I don't exactly have a Phd in physics. I have something much better. Common sense. Well, I admit that we "common sensers" need the services of the PHD's to get down to the scientific evidence part.

Unfortunately, I don't have the time right now. Promise to come back tomorrow with a reply.

[WildCat]

I don't exactly have a Phd in physics. I have something much better. Common sense.
Now, there's a Stundie nomination!

[DarkMagician]

Now, there's a Stundie nomination!

Dang it, and I just nominated him for the previous PhD Comment.

[T.A.M.]

I don't exactly have a Phd in physics. I have something much better. Common sense.

That should be the meet/greet line at Wal-Mart...

TAM:)

[Regnad Kcin]

I don't exactly have a Phd in physics.What do you "exactly" have?

I have something much better. Common sense.What do you "exactly" have?

[Dave Rogers]

Unfortunately, I don't have the time right now. Promise to come back tomorrow with a reply.

While we're waiting, here are a few things about Jones's paper that I find scientifically questionable, though perhaps they've eluded your common sense. I'll just deal with the first two of his Thirteen Reasons today; I know he says I have to address all of them, but he doesn't say I have to do it all on the same day. Any comments you have on these would, of course, be most welcome.

Reason 1: Molten metal. Jones evaluates only a single hypothesis to account for molten metal in the rubble pile, and does not present any alternative hypotheses such as the presence of slow-burning fires in a region from which heat escape is extremely slow. No comparison of the relative plausibility of hypotheses can therefore be made; Jones is, in effect, avoiding the issue.

The evidence presented for molten metal in the rubble pile is anecdotal, and the evidence for molten iron in the rubble pile is nonexistent. Jones argues that molten metal dripping off yellow-hot steel extracted from the rubble pile indicates the presence of molten iron, but the basis of his argument is that only a single type of metal is present, which is not justified in the paper. He fails to consider the possibility, for example, that molten aluminium could be dripping from a piece of solid steel as it is extracted.

What Jones presents as a block of "now-solidified metal with entrained material" is a deduction he draws from a single photograph with no supporting evidence. The material in the photograph appears to be composed of concrete and steel reinforcement bars, which have clearly not been melted and re-solidified as they have retained their surface structure.

My comments on the internal contradictions of Jones's analysis of the yellow-hot liquid flows from the corner of the tower have already been posted; I note, however, that his estimate of its temperature differs by 10% in different parts of the paper.

Jones refers to "high-temperature cutter charges such as thermite, HMX or RDX or some combination thereof, routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel." He is combining two very different types of material into a single list, and attributing the different properties of each to all of them. This is both misleading and incorrect; HMX and RDX are not high-temperature reactions, and thermite is not routinely used to demolish steel buildings.

Jones asks the question: "Are there any examples of buildings toppled by fires or any reason other than deliberate demolition that show large pools of molten metal in the rubble?" This appears to be a deliberately misleading statement; Jones implies that "large pools of molten metal in the rubble" are a characteristic peculiar to controlled demolition, which is clearly not true.

Reason 2: Sulfidation of steel. Jones notes that steel from the WTC rubble appeared to have experienced temperatures approaching 1000C, and comments that the building fires should not have been able to reach these temperatures. He appears at this point to have forgotten his own assertion in the previous section that steel reached these temperatures in the rubble pile following the collapse. He also states that "it is highly unlikely that this sulfur could find its way into the structural steel in such a way as to form a eutectic", but makes no attempt to justify or quantify this assertion.

All of these points are, at best, scientifically questionable, and at worst either indefensible statements or deliberate attempts to mislead.

Dave

[Mobyseven]

Well pagan, you said you'd reply, so here's my original post in easy-to-respond-to format. I've even left it out of this quote for you.

I don't have a PhD in physics and even I can tell you what the problem with that one is. To the deductive-logic-mobile!


In Jones' paper, he quotes the melting point of structural steel as 1510°C. He also claims that the molten metal pouring out of the building is structural steel, and estimates it's temperature to be 1000°C.

Let m be, "The molten metal coming from the WTC is steel."
Let t be, "The molten metal has a temperature of greater than 1510°C."
Therefore, "If the molten metal coming from the WTC is steel then it has a temperature of greater than 1510°C," can be written as: m ⊃ t

In Jones' paper he estimates the temperature of what he claims to be molten steel as 1000°C. This means that proposition t is false. This can be written as: ~t

Putting together these two propositions from Jones' own paper, we get:

m ⊃ t
~t

From this, there is only one possible valid conclusion: ~m. This can be shown through:

m | ⊃ | t
0 | 1 | 0
0 | 1 | 1
1 | 0 | 0
1 | 1 | 1

Where a 0 represents a false value and a 1 represents a true value. It can be seen that the only time that m ⊃ t is true when t is false is where m is also false. This is represented by:

m ⊃ t
~t
∴
~m

We then substitute the original wording of the propositions back into this argument:

If the molten metal coming from the WTC is steel then it has a temperature of greater than 1510°C.

The molten metal does not have a temperature of greater than 1510°C.

Therefore, the molten metal coming from the WTC is not steel.

However, with the same propositions, Jones comes to the conclusion that m is true. This would give us the argument:

m ⊃ t
~t
∴
m

Which is a contradiction - in other words, it can never be true.

This means that Jones' conclusions re the metal cannot be trusted, as not only is the soundness of his argument questionable, but his argument is not even valid in the first place!

I would think twice before placing my trust in the findings of a paper that is not internally consistent. But hey, who's going to let an invalid argument get in the way of 'The Truth'...

[pagan]

DAVE
Jones claims that the liquid running from one of the corners of one of the WTC towers cannot be aluminium and must therefore be molten steel. From the emission colour he estimates its temperature at 1000 C. Elsewhere in the paper he quotes the melting point of structural steel as 1510 C. His own analysis therefore contradicts his own conclusions. For him to have published such a thing suggests a serious loss of ability for self-criticism that is unacceptable in a serious scientist.

First of all, he does not claim it is molten steel. He claims that it is iron, the end product from a thermite reaction. Here is the thermite-reaction equation for a typical
mixture of aluminum powder iron oxide powder:
2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe (molten iron).

The melting point for Iron is ca 1538 C (For steel as you state 1510). After the thermite reaction. A process of rapid cooling commence. Depending on the time and distance from the thermite zone. The changes in color emission will follow the color chart as the temperature drops. White, yellow, orange and so on. This can be watched in the videos. The falling glowing metall becomes orange. Accordingly the temp. is about 1000 C.



Sorry, I fail to see your point. Jones is claiming that the liquid he sees is molten structural steel at approximately 1000 C, and that the melting point of structural steel is 1510 C. At 1000 C, structural steel is therefore a solid, therefore the liquid at 1000 C cannot possibly be molten steel - it's an absurd conclusion. How do you reconcile the contradiction?

Dave

Again not molten structural steel, but Iron. The end product from a thermite reaction. If the color emission is orange, the temp is approximately 1000 C. This is common knowledge. And sure the iron goes through a cooling process where it becomes orange and solidifies. It goes from molten to solid.

The problem whith your quote about Jones claiming 1000 C. Is that we don't know where this observation is being made. Is he talking about the pools of molten metal under the 3 buildings?

The main thing is that he is not claiming that orange molten metal are produced in the thermite zone. No it is white. As can be seen on the videos and in the NIST report:“An unusual flame is visible within this fire. In the upper photograph {Fig 9-44}
a very bright flame, as opposed to the typical yellow or orange surrounding
flames, which is generating a plume of white smoke, stands out." Source:
NCSTAR 1-5A Chapter 9 Appendix C NIST Fig. 9-44. p. 344
“NIST reported (NCSTAR 1-5A) that just before 9:52 a.m., a bright spot
appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor of WTC 2, four windows
removed from the east edge on the north face, followed by the flow of a glowing
liquid. This flow lasted approximately four seconds before subsiding. Many
such liquid flows were observed from near this location in the seven minutes
leading up to the collapse of this tower.”




I'm not seeing any response, Pagan, although you've posted in other threads - can I assume you withdraw your objection? If not, I suggest you too read the passage in Jones's paper again. In particular, I'd like to draw three points to your attention.

Page 11: "I assert that this glowing liquid metal is consistent with flowing liquid iron from a nearby thermite reaction zone..."

Page 12, discussing the same flow of yellow-hot liquid: "The yellow colour implies a molten-metal temperature of approximately 1000 C..."

Table on page 8 gives the following temperatures: Lemon, 1000 C; light yellow, 1080 C; white, 1205 C; structural steel melts, 1510 C; iron melts, 1538 C. Therefore, if the flowing liquid is yellow rather than white, its temperature is significantly below about 1200 Celcius.

When you've checked these parts of the paper, please explain to me how "flowing liquid iron" can be liquid at significantly less than 1200 Celcius. Note that steel (mostly iron but with some additives) has a slightly lower melting point than pure iron, so if it can't be steel it follows that it can't be iron from a thermite reaction either. OK, slight confusion between iron and steel on my part, but by suggesting that the material was steel I was actually being charitable to Jones because the discrepancy in melting points is slightly less. Either way, Jones is contradicting himself horribly, and doesn't even realise it.

To quote Dilbert, "I await your bizarre, other-worldly response".

Dave

I hope you aren't trying to make this into a q about terminology? This would be hairsplitting. Sure in a strict sense. If a metal has an orange emission it is not molten anymore. It was molten, became white, yellow, orange, red and eventually became solid.

[pagan]

I don't have a PhD in physics and even I can tell you what the problem with that one is. To the deductive-logic-mobile!


In Jones' paper, he quotes the melting point of structural steel as 1510°C. He also claims that the molten metal pouring out of the building is structural steel, and estimates it's temperature to be 1000°C.

Let m be, "The molten metal coming from the WTC is steel."
Let t be, "The molten metal has a temperature of greater than 1510°C."
Therefore, "If the molten metal coming from the WTC is steel then it has a temperature of greater than 1510°C," can be written as: m ⊃ t

In Jones' paper he estimates the temperature of what he claims to be molten steel as 1000°C. This means that proposition t is false. This can be written as: ~t

Putting together these two propositions from Jones' own paper, we get:

m ⊃ t
~t

From this, there is only one possible valid conclusion: ~m. This can be shown through:

m | ⊃ | t
0 | 1 | 0
0 | 1 | 1
1 | 0 | 0
1 | 1 | 1

Where a 0 represents a false value and a 1 represents a true value. It can be seen that the only time that m ⊃ t is true when t is false is where m is also false. This is represented by:

m ⊃ t
~t
∴
~m

We then substitute the original wording of the propositions back into this argument:

If the molten metal coming from the WTC is steel then it has a temperature of greater than 1510°C.

The molten metal does not have a temperature of greater than 1510°C.

Therefore, the molten metal coming from the WTC is not steel.

However, with the same propositions, Jones comes to the conclusion that m is true. This would give us the argument:

m ⊃ t
~t
∴
m

Which is a contradiction - in other words, it can never be true.

This means that Jones' conclusions re the metal cannot be trusted, as not only is the soundness of his argument questionable, but his argument is not even valid in the first place!

I would think twice before placing my trust in the findings of a paper that is not internally consistent. But hey, who's going to let an invalid argument get in the way of 'The Truth'...


A completly useless excersise. Since your premises are false.

Steven Jones does not claim it the molten metal poring out is structural steel. He does not estimate the temp to be 1000 C.

Only if his observation is done a time after the thermite reaction. For instance when the glowing metal falling down the tower turns from white, yellow orange. When it gets to orange the temp. will be 1000 C.

[pagan]

Your definition of a great man as someone whose muddle-headed errors lend support to your own baseless fantasies must be helpful to your mission.
For the rest of us, here are a few thoughts on Jones from Thomas Eagar, in an e-mail he sent me last May:

" Having said that, I think that the best way to refute the molten steel hypothesis is to inform people that molten metal is not the equal of molten steel. I have little doubt that some aluminum from the aircraft melted (about 1100 F for the alloys used and well within the capacity of the fires). As I noted in my article, some had suggested a thermite reaction and I indicated that the brilliant white light from burning Aluminum (about 4000 F) would have been unmistakable, but was not observed. The photos which I have seen by the conspiracy theorists which shows glowing metal, shows a red glow or a red orange glow. This is NOT molten steel. Anyone who has ever seen molten steel even in a small weld puddle knows that it it yellow white in color. As temperature increases we go from red (800-900 F) like a kitchen electric range heater (will not melt aluminum pots) to red orange (1100-1200 F- molten aluminum) to orange (1500-1800) to yellow (2000-2300) to yellow white (2500-2800- molten steel) to white (3000 F and above with increasing light intensity, like a tungsten incandescent light bulb.) If you put the temperatures into common sense colors that people know, then they can go back to Steven jones' photos and anyone can conclude for themselves that the red or red orange glows that they say are molten steel is really just proof that they have never worked around molten metal. Welders, casters plumbers and many other professionals know the colors of molten metals and Prof Jones simply is an uninformed academic, who enjoys the attention that all of you are giving him. I do not care to bask in such 'glory'."

Thomas Eagar



think that the best way to refute the molten steel hypothesis is to inform people that molten metal is not the equal of molten steel.

You are so right about that dumbass. It could also be molten Iron.

Is this some kind of coordinated disinfo campaign? I see now that Eagar is using the same ridiculous argument as Dave.:D

There are several published observations of molten metal in the basements of all three
buildings, WTC 1, 2 (“Twin Towers”) and 7. For example, Dr. Keith Eaton toured Ground Zero
and stated in The Structural Engineer,
‘They showed us many fascinating slides’ [Eaton] continued, ‘ranging from molten
metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared
and bent in the disaster’. (Structural Engineer, September 3, 2002, p. 6; emphasis added.)

Do not use personal insults.

[Gravy]

Pagan, I've asked you this many times now: is Jones' paper your "absolute scientific evidence" that the official version is wrong, or do you have something else? Please respond.

[Mobyseven]

I don't have a PhD in physics and even I can tell you what the problem with that one is. To the deductive-logic-mobile!


In Jones' paper, he quotes the melting point of structural steel as 1510°C. He also claims that the molten metal pouring out of the building is structural steel, and estimates it's temperature to be 1000°C.

Let m be, "The molten metal coming from the WTC is steel."
Let t be, "The molten metal has a temperature of greater than 1510°C."
Therefore, "If the molten metal coming from the WTC is steel then it has a temperature of greater than 1510°C," can be written as: m ⊃ t

In Jones' paper he estimates the temperature of what he claims to be molten steel as 1000°C. This means that proposition t is false. This can be written as: ~t

Putting together these two propositions from Jones' own paper, we get:

m ⊃ t
~t

From this, there is only one possible valid conclusion: ~m. This can be shown through:

m | ⊃ | t
0 | 1 | 0
0 | 1 | 1
1 | 0 | 0
1 | 1 | 1

Where a 0 represents a false value and a 1 represents a true value. It can be seen that the only time that m ⊃ t is true when t is false is where m is also false. This is represented by:

m ⊃ t
~t
∴
~m

We then substitute the original wording of the propositions back into this argument:

If the molten metal coming from the WTC is steel then it has a temperature of greater than 1510°C.

The molten metal does not have a temperature of greater than 1510°C.

Therefore, the molten metal coming from the WTC is not steel.

However, with the same propositions, Jones comes to the conclusion that m is true. This would give us the argument:

m ⊃ t
~t
∴
m

Which is a contradiction - in other words, it can never be true.

This means that Jones' conclusions re the metal cannot be trusted, as not only is the soundness of his argument questionable, but his argument is not even valid in the first place!

I would think twice before placing my trust in the findings of a paper that is not internally consistent. But hey, who's going to let an invalid argument get in the way of 'The Truth'...

A completly useless excersise. Since your premises are false.

Yes, if my premises are false then my argument will not necessarily be sound. Let's see how you go about denying the premises...

Steven Jones does not claim it the molten metal poring out is structural steel.


I assert that this glowing liquid metal is consistent with flowing liquid iron from a nearby thermite reaction zone...

Steel is primarily iron with additives, usually carbon. The melting point of steel in lower than that of iron.

However, I did incorrectly state the melting point of iron as being that of steel. So, let's rewrite those premises:

Let m be, "The molten metal coming from the WTC is iron."
Let t be, "The molten metal has a temperature of greater than 1538°C."
Therefore, "If the molten metal coming from the WTC is iron then it has a temperature of greater than 1538°C," can be written as: m ⊃ t

He does not estimate the temp to be 1000 C.

The yellow colour implies a molten-metal temperature of approximately 1000 C...

So in this case it is you who is incorrect: Jones certainly does estimate the temperature to be 1000°C.

This means that proposition t is still false. This can be written as: ~t

From this, the rest of my argument stands. t is false, therefore m is also false. The molten metal cannot be steel (from my original argument with information drawn from Jones' paper) and it also cannot be iron (from my revised argument, with the melting point temperature for iron replacing the melting point temperature for steel - all drawn from Jones' paper).

Only if his observation is done a time after the thermite reaction. For instance when the glowing metal falling down the tower turns from white, yellow orange. When it gets to orange the temp. will be 1000 C.

For this to be the case, the metal would not be molten as claimed. Also, Jones claims that the temperature would be 1000°C when the substance glowed yellow, not orange.

So, there you have it - a revised explanation as to why the Jones paper is not internally consistent.

I look forward to your appraisal of the revised argument, based upon the corrections that you cited.

[NoZed Avenger]

[to pomeroo]You are so right about that dumbass.




You know, without the comma, this actually makes perfect sense.

[pagan]

You know, without the comma, this actually makes perfect sense.

No, it was not meant for Pomeroo. It was meant for Thomas Eagar.

I would never call Pomeroo a dumbass, perhaps a smartass...:D

[Gravy]

Oh, yes, yes, Eagar is a colossal moron. He couldn't be less qualified to speak on this subject. Unlike our pagan, who had all the evidence he needed to prove that 9/11 is an inside job, but can't remember if his dog ate it or of he lost it in a drunken binge. (http://eagar.mit.edu/EagarPapers/TWE_CV.htm)

[Dave Rogers]

First of all, he does not claim it is molten steel. He claims that it is iron, the end product from a thermite reaction. Here is the thermite-reaction equation for a typical
mixture of aluminum powder iron oxide powder:
2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe (molten iron).

The melting point for Iron is ca 1538 C (For steel as you state 1510). After the thermite reaction. A process of rapid cooling commence. Depending on the time and distance from the thermite zone. The changes in color emission will follow the color chart as the temperature drops. White, yellow, orange and so on. This can be watched in the videos. The falling glowing metall becomes orange. Accordingly the temp. is about 1000 C.

However, Jones states that the yellow-hot liquid splashes against the side of the building as it falls, revealing the white-hot core. This requires that the yellow-hot part of the substance falling is still liquid (in order to be able to splash) while yellow-hot, i.e. at 1000 C. It cannot therefore be molten iron.

Again not molten structural steel, but Iron. The end product from a thermite reaction. If the color emission is orange, the temp is approximately 1000 C. This is common knowledge. And sure the iron goes through a cooling process where it becomes orange and solidifies. It goes from molten to solid.

But it must solidify before it cools to yellow heat, and Jones states that it is still liquid at yellow heat.

The problem whith your quote about Jones claiming 1000 C. Is that we don't know where this observation is being made. Is he talking about the pools of molten metal under the 3 buildings?

No, from the context in the paper he is clearly referring to the liquid flow from the corner of the building, and he is clearly stating that it is a liquid at 1000 C. On page 14 he then states, "Recall also that the yellow color of the molten metal (video clip above) implies a temperature of approximately 1100 C...", and "...molten iron (with its characteristic high emissivity) will appear yellow-white (at ~1100 C) as observed in the molten metal dripping from the South Tower just before its collapse...". The second quote is in itself internally inconsistent; molten iron can never appear yellow-white.

The main thing is that he is not claiming that orange molten metal are produced in the thermite zone. No it is white. As can be seen on the videos and in the NIST report:

No, he is not even claiming that molten iron as cool as yellow-hot is being created in a thermite reaction. However, he clearly states that the metal is liquid at yellow heat. At the bottom of page 12 he states, "Here are two independent videos of the yellow-white liquid metal pouring out of the South Tower" (bolding mine).

I hope you aren't trying to make this into a q about terminology? This would be hairsplitting. Sure in a strict sense. If a metal has an orange emission it is not molten anymore. It was molten, became white, yellow, orange, red and eventually became solid.

No, it's not about terminology, it's about temperature. Your sequence is not correct for iron; it would have to be molten, become white, become solid, then become yellow, orange and red.

Thanks for your reply; I'm glad to see you're prepared to debate this seriously, and I have a lot more respect for you as a result. I apologise for the less respectful tone of my earlier posts. It's still my opinion that Jones's paper is an extremely poor piece of work, and I'll probably be posting some more comments on it in this thread - if you're interested in responding I'd be very interested in what you have to say.

Dave

[NoZed Avenger]

No, it was not meant for Pomeroo. It was meant for Thomas Eagar.


Works just as well there -- without the comma.

I think they're both right about the dumb@ss.

[pomeroo]

First of all, he does not claim it is molten steel. He claims that it is iron, the end product from a thermite reaction. Here is the thermite-reaction equation for a typical
mixture of aluminum powder iron oxide powder:
2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe (molten iron).

The melting point for Iron is ca 1538 C (For steel as you state 1510). After the thermite reaction. A process of rapid cooling commence. Depending on the time and distance from the thermite zone. The changes in color emission will follow the color chart as the temperature drops. White, yellow, orange and so on. This can be watched in the videos. The falling glowing metall becomes orange. Accordingly the temp. is about 1000 C.





Again not molten structural steel, but Iron. The end product from a thermite reaction. If the color emission is orange, the temp is approximately 1000 C. This is common knowledge. And sure the iron goes through a cooling process where it becomes orange and solidifies. It goes from molten to solid.

The problem whith your quote about Jones claiming 1000 C. Is that we don't know where this observation is being made. Is he talking about the pools of molten metal under the 3 buildings?

The main thing is that he is not claiming that orange molten metal are produced in the thermite zone. No it is white. As can be seen on the videos and in the NIST report:






I hope you aren't trying to make this into a q about terminology? This would be hairsplitting. Sure in a strict sense. If a metal has an orange emission it is not molten anymore. It was molten, became white, yellow, orange, red and eventually became solid.



Naturally, you essentially ignored Thomas Eagar's observations on the colors produced by heated metals. Explain why his being a professor of metallurgy at MIT means that his opinions on the subject are uninformed and easily dismissed. Perhaps I'm overlooking something.

I suppose asking you to comment on Greening's paper on thermite (911myths.com, the section "Investigations, more") would be a waste of time.

[Dave Rogers]

I'm continuing to reply to Pagan's judgement that there is nothing scientifically questionable in Jones's paper, "Why indeed did the WTC buildings completely collapse?" by listing statements and analysis in Jones's Thirteen Reasons that are at best scientifically questionable, and justifying that judgement. I dealt with reasons 1 and 2 yesterday. Since then I've made it to Reason 10 without giving up the will to live, so here are my comments on 3 to 9.

Reason 3: Jones states that "no major persistent fires were visible (considerable dark smoke was seen)" in WTC7. This appears misleading in that it implies that there was no serious fire in WTC7, when the eyewitness testimony of firefighters at the scene does not agree. It is unclear why Jones characterises the smoke as "dark" when photographs taken at the scene show fairly light-coloured smoke.

Jones states that "evidently, none of the core columns was severed by falling debris" without justification or reference. He then goes on to discuss in some detail the likelihood of different types of building collapse without justification or relevance. As a nuclear physicist his opinion in such matters is no more authoritative than that of a layman and should not be included in a scientific publication.

A photograph is included, without comment or caption, of a concrete-framed building which fell sideways; from earlier versions of Jones's work I believe this to have been an earthquake-induced collapse. Earthquakes are characterised by large lateral ground displacements which can therefore provide strong sideways forces, causing a building to fall sideways rather than vertically. Jones does not discuss this at all.

A second photograph in this section shows the rubble from the collapse of L'Ambiance Plaza, in which large slabs of concrete are visible. Jones states that "concrete floors in the Twin Towers and WTC7 were pulverized to dust - as is common in controlled demolitions using explosives". He does not discuss the relevance of the heights of the two structures compared, or indeed give any constructional details of L'Ambiance Plaza whatsoever to justify the comparison. His assertion that concrete floors are pulverized to dust in controlled demolitions is again of no more weight than a layman's opinion.

Jones concludes that further investigation of the WTC7 collapse is required, but does not mention that a further investigation of the collapse was already under way at the time of publication.

Reason 4: Jones states that no steel-framed skyscrapers had ever collapsed due to fire before the WTC collapses. This is deliberate obfuscation, bordering on outright dishonesty, which in the context of a scientific paper is reprehensible. Jones cannot possibly be unaware that the WTC Twin Towers were severely damaged by aircraft impacts, and discusses the debris damage to WTC7 in the same paper. He also fails to address the fact that no buildings of this size have ever been brought down by controlled explosives.

Jones refers to "steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated". It is not established that actual evaporation has taken place, nor is the contradiction resolved between the description of "steel members", i.e. recognisable solid steel components, and the fact that the steel would have to be heated well above its melting point in order for significant evaporation to occur. The original observation has been investigated further by Biederman et al, whose results are available online at http://www.me.wpi.edu/MTE/People/imsm.html and indicate that erosion of steel members is due to hot corrosion of the steel rather than evaporation.

Reason 5: The entire premise of this section is a highly speculative assumption that small dark regions seen in a low-resultion video of the collapse of WTC7 are identifiable as explosions of demolition charges, which is not warranted by the quality of the images available. Jones comments that the timing between the appearance of these features is less than 0.2 seconds, which is longer than the time for a single floor to collapse, and so suggests that collapsing floors cannot be a reason for these events. However, this is not relevant to the collapse of WTC7, which (in the region where these events occur) is a bottom up collapse. If the events are window breakage caused by overpressurisation of air inside the building, resulting from the compression of air as the lower floors collapse, these events would be expected to progress upwards due to air flow away from the collapse zone into the higher floors of the building. The rate of this progress would depend on the overpressure and the resistance to airflow of the internal walls and floors of the building, which is not assessed in this paper or in any other study of the WTC collapses. Jones's reference to the CIA's occupation of part of the building is a completely irrelevant aside which has no bearing on the evidence as to whether the collapse was due to fire/damage or to controlled demolition, and should not have been included in a scientific paper.

Reason 6: Jones asks the question, presumably rhetorically: "What caused the 47 enormous steel core columns of this building which supported the antenna to evidently give way nearly simultaneously, if not cutter charges?" He does not advance any evidence for the hypothesis that there was simultaneous failure of all 47 core columns as opposed to progressive weakening of the structure to the point where a catastrophic failure of all remaining columns took place, a very reasonable scenario given that significant numbers of the core columns were severed or damaged by the aircraft impact. He is in effect presenting a false dilemma.

He dismisses NIST's explanation (that the apparent early drop of the antenna as seen from the north was in fact a visual misinterpretation of the initial tilt of the antenna as seen in videos from the east and west) as unsufficiently quantitative; however, as analysis of this explanation is a matter of simple three-dimensional geometry, if it were in error this would be trivial to demonstrate and Jones makes no attempt to do so.

Reason 7: Jones provides three quotes suggesting that the collapse of the Twin Towers was preceded by explosive blasts. These quotes are heavily edited and taken out of context, two of the three quotes describe explosions well below the region of collapse initiation, and one (from an Assistant Fire Commissioner) suggests the possibility that these were items of electrical equipment exploding. Jones dismisses this possible explanation by saying that such explosions could not cause the collapse, despite there being no reason whatsoever to assume such a causal relationship; from the quote, it appears that the explosions followed collapse initiation, and may therefore be caused by it. Jones states that there was no jet fuel remaining to cause these explosions, which is irrelevant, and describes explosives as a "plausible and simple explanation for the observed detonations followed by complete building collapses" without establishing that this was in fact the sequence of events.

Reason 8: Jones asserts that horizontal ejection of structural steel and pulverisation of concrete provide evidence of explosives, and references a talk (not peer reviewed) by Hoffman as the source of these assertions. These assertions have the following major flaws: The amount, composition and particle size distribution of the dust is not considered beyond the unsupported assertion by Hoffman that it was "mostly sub-100 micron powder"; the extent to which pulverisation of concrete would be expected in a gravity-driven collapse is not discussed; plumes of smoke from lower regions of the towers are not analysed beyond the assertion of a superficial resemblance to demolition charges; and alternative explanations for these events, such as pressure-driven ejection of debris as air is compressed within the towers, are not discussed. Finally, Jones asserts without justification that the top-down collapse of the twin towers is "unusual" for controlled demolition, whereas sources within the demolition industry indicate that it is in fact unheard of.

Reason 9: Jones asserts that the collapse times of WTC1, 2 and 7 were shorter than would be expected due to the requirements of conservation of energy and momentum, but advances utterly inadequate data to support this point; in particular he includes no estimate of the collapse time of any of the buildings, relying only on references to non-peer reviewed publications. The only figure given in this section is the free-fall time from the roof of WTC7, which is trivial to calculate. Jones makes no attempt to calculate the effect of conservation of momentum on the collapse times of the twin towers despite the fact that no more information is needed to estimate this than the height and weight of a single tower, both easily available from published sources. He references Ross's paper in the Journal of 911 Studies as evidence that the collapse would be arrested, but does not reference Greening's papers which reach the opposite conclusion. He asserts once again that concrete is converted to "flour-like powder", citing this as evidence of demolition, but does not mention that thermite is not an explosive and so would not explain this phenomenon, nor does he make any attempt even to estimate the amount of explosive required to produce this result.

In a puzzling aside, Jones then goes on to ask of the top 30 floors of the South Tower, "What happens to the block and its angular momentum?" His discussion in this section is almost incomprehensible, as it is unclear what is the relevance of angular momentum to the assertion that the falling mass "turned mostly to powder in mid-air". In any case, the assertion is clearly untrue, as other well-known photographs of the South Tower collapse show large amounts of still-solid debris falling on to WTC3; the collapse of the latter building indicates that it was struck by a significant part of the upper 30 storeys. Jones suggests that nothing but explosives could have broken up the upper block, completely ignoring the fact that repeated impacts against parts of the still-standing structure must have sent highly destructive elastic shock waves through the block.

Overall, this section of the paper shows a lamentable lack of any attempt at quantitative analysis or examination of its own hypotheses. In particular, the assertion that two unevaluated quantities do not agree with each other is slipshod, unscientific and intellectually lazy.

More when I can be bothered - comments welcome.

Dave

[NoZed Avenger]

Solid work.

It's too bad that this TKO will be ignored, as sledge-hammer blows to the head have no effect on opponents not using them.

[Mobyseven]

Dave Rogers:

Once you are done with your thirteen criticisms, please please please compile them into a single article. Analyses such as yours are greatly appreciated.

[cloudshipsrule]

Dave,

Your rebuttal contains far too many 3 and 4 syllable words. I'm afraid it won't be taken seriously by multi-syllabically challenged readers of this forum.

[Dave Rogers]

Dave,

Your rebuttal contains far too many 3 and 4 syllable words. I'm afraid it won't be taken seriously by multi-syllabically challenged readers of this forum.

Yes, I do tend to lapse into a rather pompous writing style when I'm thinking like a reviewer. In the course of going through the paper, though, I picked up on a few howlers that I may put in a highlight post, and I'll try and use words of less than three sylla... er... bits.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

I've now compiled the rest of my comments on aspects of Jones's paper that are at best questionable. Just for clarification, I'm looking at this paper as a physicist peer-reviewing a scientific paper, and raising the kind of objections that I think a responsible and neutral peer-reviewer should have raised. In general, depending on the journal (some rapid publication journals require a simple accept/reject decision), reviewers for a scientific journal may choose from up to four final verdicts on a paper:
1. Accept for publication without revision.
2. Accept for publication with minor revisions - if the revisions stated are agreed to, no further review is required.
3. Request re-submission with revisions to address referee comments - further review is required.
4. Reject for publication.
Reasons for rejection may include: because the submission is not appropriate for the journal, because the work is not sufficiently novel, because the methodology is seriously flawed. Referee comments may be sent on anonymously to justify a rejection at the journal's discretion. My overall verdict would be that the paper should be rejected due to flawed methodology, and also because some of the remarks included might be construed as defamatory of specific, named individuals.

OK, here goes with the rest of the paper. Note that in some cases my comments are a little repetitive, but this generally reflects the repetition in the original paper.

Reason 10: Jones contends in this section that the nature of the collapse of WTC1, 2 and 7 is not consistent with any other collapse mechanism than controlled demolition, based on the assumption that achieving a building collapse without damage to surrounding buildings requires considerable skill. This is an incorrect deduction for WTC1 and 2; WTC3 was destroyed by debris from WTC2, and WTC4, 5, 6 and 7 suffered serious structural damage from debris from WTC1. Indeed, the collapse of WTC1 and 2 can not reasonably be described as symmetrical or straight-down. In the case of WTC7 this is an argument from incredulity, and the possibility of impact and fire damage causing a near-straight-down collapse is never seriously considered. Proceeding from this flawed premise, Jones goes on to misrepresent the FEMA report as suggesting that the implosion of WTC7 was "beautifully done", ascribing an implication of deliberate demolition to a report that contains no such implication. This appears deliberately misleading. He then speculates as to why and how terrorists would demolish a building in this way, and suggests that this warrants further investigation. However, this assumes a conclusion (that WTC7 was demolished by explosives) that, as Jones himself implies in the previous section, is itself unproven; he is therefore calling for an investigation based on the assumed results of an investigation he himself is calling for and admits has not been carried out.

Jones next quotes another demolition expert as saying that explosions in the basement would be the best way to bring down the towers, and asserts that this is consistent with what was observed in the collapses. His logic is deeply flawed here. Firstly, he is suggesting that pre-collapse explosions low down in the towers (not actually in the basements) were the cause of the collapses of the twin towers, despite the well-known observation that in both collapses the initiation took place well above these regions, in fact in the floors of the towers weakened by aircraft impact and fire. Secondly, he suggests that severing the core columns with explosives would be an explanation for the pre-collapse movement of the north tower antenna, again despite the fact that the explosions he suggests as the cause of this took place well below the point of collapse initiation. His comments about Mark Loiseaux in this paragraph appear to be a thinly veiled accusation of complicity in wrongdoing, an unwarranted personal attack which has no place in any scientific discussion; Jones should be censured for resorting to such innuendo. It should also be pointed out that thermite is not an explosive, therefore the observation of explosions in no way supports Jones's thermite hypothesis. Jones earlier refers to nano-thermite as an explosive, but there is no evidence presented that nano-thermite has either the explosive force or the concentrated heating ability to cut large steel columns.

Jones's calculation of the amount of explosives required to demolish WTC1, 2 and 7 seems reasonable based on a conventional implosion where the lower supports are severed initially, but for WTC1 and 2 this was clearly not the case, so his calculations are not valid for the observed collapse of these buildings. If Ross is correct that an upper-storey collapse would not proceed to the ground, then further explosives would be needed to propagate the collapse zone downwards, increasing the amount of explosives required by many times. (Note, however, that if Ross is incorrect, then a major part of Jones's reasoning is therefore invalid.) His statement that "for very tall towers such as these, top-down demolition seems to be the best approach, to avoid toppling over of the tower..." is of no scientific value, as it is not and cannot be supported by expert opinion, no controlled demolition of this nature having ever been attempted. Jones goes on to state that, in the case of a deliberate demolition, charges would need to be placed at many levels in the towers to align with the aircraft impact; since every set of these charges would need to be sufficiently large to initiate, rather than simply propagate, collapse, this may require a further upward estimate of the amount of explosives required.

Jones presents two photographs, one of demolition workers positioning a cutter charge on a column at an angle, and another from the remains of the WTC buildings showing a column severed at a similar angle. He asserts that the second column was cut, not by an oxy-acetylene torch, but by a highly exothermic chemical reaction. This is not only an absurd distinction to draw, as an oxy-acetylene torch itself cuts steel by means of a highly exothermic chemical reaction; it is also the wrong way round, as cutter charges sever steel using not heat but blast overpressure. The liquefied and re-solidified metal on the column in the second photograph therefore indicates that it was not severed by a cutter charge. Jones asserts that cutter charges are compact, which is true of explosive charges; however, this is not relevant to his hypothesis that thermite was used to sever the columns. He makes no estimate of the size of a thermite device required for demolition, nor does he demonstrate satisfactorily that any such device exists (Jones refers elsewhere to patents for thermite cutting devices, but it should be noted that these post-date the WTC collapses by some years, have a stated cutting ability which is inadequate for cutting columns of the size of those in the WTC towers, and are bulky devices which could not have been installed undetected prior to the events of 9/11). This section is one of many in which Jones appears to confuse thermite and explosives, picking the best mix of properties of both to support his theories in a highly misleading way. In effect he is postulating an unknown substance that is as compact as a cutter charge, produces an audible explosion, but cuts steel through highly localised melting rather than blast overpressure and leaves chemical residues in the remaining steel members, but he advances no credible evidence that such a substance exists.

Jones concludes this section by urging the reader to observe the similarities between the collapse of WTC7 and a controlled demolition, neglecting the obvious differences between the collapses of WTC1 and 2 and controlled demolitions. This is not only cherry-picking of evidence, but also logically invalid; the similarity of appearance is not proof of identical cause. It might be argued that the coincidence of appearance would warrant an investigation into the collapse of WTC7, but as mentioned before such an investigation is already in progress.

Reason 11: Jones reviews the work of Bazant and Zhou in the light of the NIST report on the collapse of WTC1 and 2, and questions the possibility that sufficiently high temperatures could have been attained to initiate global collapse according to Bazant and Zhou's model. His aim here is to suggest that, if Bazant and Zhou's explanation is flawed, then alternative explanations of the collapse must be considered, including explosives. This suggestion neglects the fact that the NIST report contains a far more comprehensive analysis of the collapse initiation based on extensive modelling, analysis of samples from the remains of the towers, constructional details, and visual analysis of video and photographic records of the collapse mechanism, and must therefore be considered to supersede Bazant and Zhou's initial analysis.

Reason 12: Early in this section, Jones comments on the timing of the NIST report on WTC7, which demonstrates that despite his earlier calls for an investigation into this collapse he is aware that such an investigation is already in progress. He then goes on to challenge NIST's collapse theory, first by quoting Lane and Lamont, who he says assert that "core columns cannot pull the exterior columns in via the floor". This clearly ignores the photographic and visual evidence seen elsewhere of severe inward bowing of the perimeter columns, an effect which Jones makes no attempt to explain in the context of an explosive demolition hypothesis. Jones then attacks the methodology used by NIST to model the collapses by accusing them of falsifying the input parameters to obtain the desired result. However, the quotes from the NIST report used by Jones to support this accusation do not in fact do so; rather, it is clear from the report that NIST chose among their initial cases on the basis of consistency with observed effects, and adjusted parameters within physically reasonable limits to reproduce observation. If such adjustments are disallowed, any form of modelling would necessarily be futile. His assertion that "actual models fail to collapse" is incorrect, as it is clear from the NIST report that modelling of a scenario consistent with observed structural responses and using physically reasonable input parameters did indeed result in collapse. Jones then refers to fire endurance tests conducted by Underwriter Laboratories in which models of floor trusses did not fail within 2 hours, when the report clearly states that there are scaling issues and that "the fires in the towers in September 11, and the resulting exposure of the floor systems, were substantially different from the conditions in the test furnaces." Jones complains that NIST did not model collapse after initiation, and suggests that the collapse conditions must be investigated, concluding with a highly unscientific piece of rhetoric in which he makes veiled accusations towards NIST of falsification of their results. He then invokes Occam's Razor, suggesting that the assumption of controlled demolition is the simplest explanation of the observed facts, neglecting to address the failure of this assumption to describe major features of the collapse, let alone its inconsistency with the failure of any physical evidence of charge residues or eyewitness accounts of the presence or installation of explosives to emerge.

Reason 13: Jones refers to NIST's refusal of requests from structural engineers to show visualisations of the collapse of the twin towers. He characterises these as "serious concerns about the NIST WTC collpase report raised by structural and fire engineers", whereas in fact this is no more than an attempt by others to verify aspects of NIST's work independently. This section involves no novel analysis either of the collapse of the towers or of the modelling by NIST, and can only therefore be seen as an attack on NIST's integrity which has no scientific validity.



After expounding his Thirteen Reasons, Jones discusses some further issues. Firstly, he quotes two editorials from Fire Engineering in 2002 and 2004 which express concerns over rapid recycling of the steel from the WTC towers and dissatisfaction with the 9/11 Commission Report respectively, and suggests that these editorials express doubt over the conclusion that impact and fire damage caused the collapses. However, this is not borne out by the content of the quotes he uses. It is clear, rather, that the editor's concern in the first editorial quoted is about "building practices and performance under fire conditions", suggesting a suspicion that sub-standard building quality may have played a part in the collapses. The second editorial focuses entirely on the recommendations within chapter 9 of the 9/11 Commission Report, relating to emergency response, which is clearly irrelevant to Jones's discussion of the collapse mechanism of WTC1, 2 and 7.

Jones then describes what he claims to be a statistical analysis of the probabilities of collapse initiation by Kevin Ryan. This is a complete travesty of statistical analysis, in which Ryan postulates totally unjustified probabilities of three events, then multiplies the three to give a large number. For such an absurd piece of speculation to be included in a scientific paper is inappropriate and irresponsible.

A brief anecdote is presented in which Jones describes a presentation of his September 2005 Seminar at BYU in which he claims there was widespread support for his call for a new investigation. This is of no real value unless it is established whether any of the participants in the seminar were aware of any other evidence relating to the collapses, as a set of uninformed opinions based on a one-sided discussion of an issue can hardly be expected to reach an informed conclusion. It should also be noted that BYU has since publicly distanced itself from Jones's views, and that Jones has taken early retirement from his post at BYU, suggesting that the level of support claimed was at most transitory.

As a final section of the paper, Jones describes inconsistencies in what he refers to as "Official" models. However, what he describes as inconsistencies are no more than the refinement of the understanding of the collapse in the light of increased understanding and analysis, suggesting an unreasonable expectation by Jones that full understanding of the collapse mechanism should be immediately obvious. In his criticism of the FEMA report, Jones asks rhetorically why the core columns did not remain standing after the collapse, then follows this with a quote from the FEMA report that states that this is exactly what did happen. The quote also explains the collapse of the core columns, which Jones then states that it fails to do. The glaring contradictions between the FEMA quote and Jones's assertions, in the same paragraph, as to what the quote says, give an air of irrationality to his arguments. He then repeats his attacks on NIST's methodology from the earlier sections almost verbatim, in what appears more of a political speech that a scientific analysis.

Having spent 42 pages attacking the generally accepted explanation of collapse due to impact and fire damage, Jones then devotes a single paragraph to his own theory of how the towers collapsed, claiming that his hypothesis accounts for all the observed data "rather easily". He claims that the core columns on lower levels are cut using explosives or incendiaries, contradicting the observation that the core columns on lower levels survived the initial phase of collapse, and further claims that cutting charges detonated higher up initiate the collapse, contradicting the observed inward bowing of the perimeter columns. He describes this as "very standard stuff for demolition experts", contradicting the historical observation that no controlled demolition has ever proceeded in the manner of the collapse of WTC1 and 2. He then describes this hypothesis as straightforward and much more probable, ignoring the entire question of how his hypothetical charges were planted and detonated, or indeed how the impact of the airliners was arranged to co-ordinate with the demolition.

I won't address Jones's conclusions and afterword, which consist mainly of calls for an independent, cross-disciplinary, international panel to investigate the WTC collapses, as these are more a political than a scientific discussion. Suffice it to say that, whether or not Jones's theories have any merit, there is a great deal in this paper that is scientifically questionable, inappropriate for publication in a scientific journal, or in the worst cases patently self-contradictory.

Dave

[The Almond]

Top quality deconstruction of Jones, Dave. I'll definitely be referring to this in the future.