Thursday, August 24, 2006

The Schisms Continue

Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood Take On Professor Jones

The 9-11 Denial Movement continues to fragment into factions. Reynolds and Jones have had some skirmishes before over the "no-planers" (Reynolds is one, Jones is not), but it's broken out into full scale war now. Reynolds and Wood go after Jones with both barrels. We learn a little more about the "peer review process" at the Journal of 9-11 Studies:

Among other activities, Jones initially was responsible for the scholars' discussion forum and he and Judy Wood instituted a "peer-reviewed" Journal of 9/11 Studies. Jones appointed the advisory editorial board, later Kevin Ryan as co-editor and chose the "peers" to review manuscripts. Peer-review normally boosts the prestige of academic articles because professors within the same discipline review manuscripts but in this case there is little or no such review, even when offered. That fact convinced Wood to resign.


Say it ain't so, Judy!

James will be pleased to hear that the Keebler Elves return:

Figure 3(c): If the tower is viewed as a "towering tree" and the Keebler Elves carved out a residence, no measurable weakening would occur. If their cookie oven set fire to the tree, it would be inconsequential.


Brilliant! They proceed on with a debunking of the Thermite/Thermate claims (which I'm not as confident will be substantive), and accuse Jones of propping up the Official Government Conspiracy Theory:

This statement raises two problems: first, Jones gives credence to the loony OGCT that "19 young Arabs acting at the behest of Islamist extremists headquartered in distant Afghanistan" were involved or caused 9/11. It makes no sense to embrace parts of the government's unproven story without independent proof.


Hat Tip: Abby Scott (at the JREF forums).

Update: Check out the comments on the Looser board; the No-Planers have come out in force over there. Here's my favorite post on this, where "fusion devices" are speculated as having been used to bring down the WTC. Gotta love the idea of Rick Siegel lecturing Professor Steven Jones on fusion.

I also love this part of Reynold's paper:

Collectively we are engaged in a struggle to expose the government's lies about 9/11. The physical sciences and analysis are key to this project. The only investigation worthy of the name has been conducted on the internet by researchers like Thierry Meyssan, Gerard Holmgren, Jeff King, Rosalee Grable, Kee Dewdney, Nico Haupt, Killtown, and "Spooked" who proved no Boeing 757 went into the Pentagon, flight 93 did not crash in the designated hole near Shanksville, PA, and the WTC towers were demolished by explosives.


Oh, yeah, that Spooked has done some terrific research!

55 Comments:

At 24 August, 2006 13:25, Blogger shawn said...

first, Jones gives credence to the loony OGCT

Perhaps we can figure out a way to harness the energy from spinning corpses, as Orwell would be generating enough to light the Las Vegas strip for a thousand years.

 
At 24 August, 2006 14:00, Blogger Abby Scott said...

The funniest part of this whole thing is on the LC forum where they are arguing as to which side is actually the government shill.

 
At 24 August, 2006 14:22, Blogger default.xbe said...

this si fun, its like watching a history of the catholic/protestant church playing out live

 
At 24 August, 2006 14:35, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

I agree...it is the most entertaining thing to come out of that entire movement.

 
At 24 August, 2006 14:52, Blogger apathoid said...

Has anyone else been unbanned from LC? Up until today, both of my nicks were IP banned and I couldnt view the site from either work or home. Now they both work.

Maybe the LCers now know that they need skeptics to keep things in perspective....

 
At 24 August, 2006 15:03, Blogger nesNYC said...

this si fun, its like watching a history of the catholic/protestant church playing out live

Human nature. Even FEMA and NIST can't get their conspiracy theories straight :D

 
At 24 August, 2006 15:23, Blogger shawn said...

Even FEMA and NIST can't get their conspiracy theories straight :D

Why would they need to?

 
At 24 August, 2006 15:27, Blogger MarkyX said...

I'm a ticking time bomb.

 
At 24 August, 2006 15:34, Blogger default.xbe said...

now that i think abut it do recall NISTs WTC7 report referring to the "loony FEMA report"

 
At 24 August, 2006 15:40, Blogger CHF said...

A Deniers' civil war?

Someone send them weapons.

 
At 24 August, 2006 16:01, Blogger nesNYC said...

A Deniers' civil war?

Someone send them weapons.


Uh oh.. Learning them joooo tactics I see :)

 
At 24 August, 2006 16:02, Blogger nesNYC said...

Why would they need to?

FEMA says pancakes, NIST says central core... I'd say, they should get it striaght no?

 
At 24 August, 2006 16:11, Blogger CHF said...

I'm amazed there hasn't been more battles given how none of them can agree on anything.

 
At 24 August, 2006 16:13, Blogger CHF said...

Oh and Nazi Boy?

How about you set aside the Joooos for a momment and pop on over to "The Real Scientific Method" thread and answer my question on thermite.

 
At 24 August, 2006 16:16, Blogger shawn said...

FEMA says pancakes, NIST says central core... I'd say, they should get it striaght no?

Uh everyone says there was pancake collapse - YOU CAN SEE IT IN THE VIDEOS.

 
At 24 August, 2006 16:28, Blogger default.xbe said...

FEMA says pancakes, NIST says central core... I'd say, they should get it striaght no?

failure in the core initiated the pancake collapse, wheres the contradiction?

in the other tower failure in the perimeter columns initiated the collapse

 
At 24 August, 2006 16:36, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Beware of the "unbanning"...remember your failure in the caves!!!!

Do not go back...you will restore order to there chaos...lol

 
At 24 August, 2006 17:27, Blogger debunking911 said...

In the world of the nutbar, everyone else is the nut.

 
At 24 August, 2006 17:39, Blogger nesNYC said...

Uh everyone says there was pancake collapse -

NIST debunked pancakes. They say central core failure lead to global collapse, not the trusses and pancakes.

 
At 24 August, 2006 17:40, Blogger nesNYC said...

failure in the core initiated the pancake collapse, wheres the contradiction?

The wording in the NIST report says "global collapse" not pancaking floors.

 
At 24 August, 2006 17:41, Blogger nesNYC said...

In the world of the nutbar, everyone else is the nut.

Good observation! And who employs that word the most? Hehehehe..

 
At 24 August, 2006 17:42, Blogger CHF said...

pancakes?

Did they debunk the maple syrup to?

 
At 24 August, 2006 17:52, Blogger nesNYC said...

pancakes?

Did they debunk the maple syrup to?


I agree the pancake theory is stupid. Controlled demolition explains what pancakes cannot.

 
At 24 August, 2006 17:57, Blogger shawn said...

Controlled demolition explains what pancakes cannot.

Unfortunately it didn't look anything like a controlled demolition. Nor did it sound like one.

And then you have to explain how they did a year's worth of work in each tower without anyone noticing.

 
At 24 August, 2006 18:03, Blogger default.xbe said...

Controlled demolition explains what pancakes cannot.

and what explains what controlled demolition cannot?

 
At 24 August, 2006 18:34, Blogger telescopemerc said...

The wording in the NIST report says "global collapse" not pancaking floors.

You of course have tons of documentation explaining the difference, yes?

 
At 24 August, 2006 18:41, Blogger nesNYC said...

Nor did it sound like one.

Not what some witnesses say.

And then you have to explain how they did a year's worth of work in each tower without anyone noticing.

In NY, you can be sitting next to a dead person and no one would notice.

 
At 24 August, 2006 18:42, Blogger nesNYC said...

You of course have tons of documentation explaining the difference, yes?

Pancake = progressive
Global = all at once

Right?

 
At 24 August, 2006 18:43, Blogger nesNYC said...

and what explains what controlled demolition cannot?

Nothing since CT explains every aspect of the collapses. The government’s versions has more holes than Swiss cheese.

 
At 24 August, 2006 18:46, Blogger default.xbe said...

Pancake = progressive
Global = all at once

Right?


not exactly, global means everything, as opposed to partial meaning, well, not everything

pancake would be porogressive, as opposed to instantaneous, meaning all at once


so as you can see, a global collapse can be acheived through progressive pancaking

 
At 24 August, 2006 18:49, Blogger default.xbe said...

Nothing since CT explains every aspect of the collapses. The government’s versions has more holes than Swiss cheese.

does CD explain the lack of explosions heard?

the fact that it looked nothing like a CD?

the fact that no demolition explosives could have survived the plane impacts and fires?

no evidence of demolition found afterward? (no wire, unexploded charges, explosive residue, blasting caps, nothing)

 
At 24 August, 2006 18:54, Blogger shawn said...

Not what some witnesses say.

Nesnyc, if they had used a controlled demolition you would hear a massive explosion in videos shot from Jersey. Windows would've been shattered for blocks around. Idiot.

In NY, you can be sitting next to a dead person and no one would notice.

Leave it to this fool to come up with the worst support in the world.

"Hey are those guys smashing through walls and laying wire everywhere? Oh shit, is that tons of explosive?"

"Nah, that's probably just the new water cooler."

 
At 24 August, 2006 19:04, Blogger default.xbe said...

Not what some witnesses say

the problem here is no witnesses reported demolition-style explosions

a CD would be a very rapid series of hundreds (or int he case of the towers, probably thousands) of very short, sharp, "popping" explosions, this is because demo explosives (and most chemical explosives) are very fast burning and produce a large, fast moving pressure wave (this is what cuts steel and concrete)

what witnesses reported were a few (maybe a dozen) low "thudding" explosions, these were likely caused by a much slower burning process, such as atomized kerosene igniting

(in addition to being a megalomaniac im also a pyromaniac :P )

 
At 24 August, 2006 20:31, Blogger nesNYC said...

so as you can see, a global collapse can be acheived through progressive pancaking

Since NIST blamed it on the central core failure, your expanation is moot.

Hoffman points this out here:

NIST's Amazing Column Failure Theory

The truss failure theory was in vogue in 2002, having won the big PBS and Discovery Channel endorsements, and it eclipsed early column failure advocates. But now in 2005 the column failure theory is back, with a new advocate (NIST) sporting a $20 million budget and computer models galore.

Whereas FEMA's truss failure theory blamed the failure of column truss supports (dubbed "angle clips" by Professor Eagar) for the collapses, NIST's column failure theory blames their persistence, stating that they pulled the columns inward -- the first step in the contagious spread of "column instability."

NIST's team labored mightily to make its new theory seem plausible. Their Report:

-Presents simulations of the crashing aircraft so detailed that they include the planes' turbine blades, helping the reader to overlook the lack of detail in its vague description of "column instability" leading to "global collapse."

-Mixes observation-based details with pure speculation, making it easy for the reader to miss the lack of evidence for severe core damage and high core temperatures in its models.

-Uses repetition and dramatic writing to convince the reader that steel will succumb quickly to fires.

-Exaggerates the extent and intensity of the fires, assuming temperatures more than 300 ºC (572 ºF) higher than are supported by any evidence.

-Ignores properties of steel that make it resistant to fire damage, such as its thermal conductivity.

-Asserts that perimeter columns bowed inward on the basis of their distorted appearance in certain photographs, ignoring other plausible explanations.


Building a Better Mirage

 
At 24 August, 2006 20:32, Blogger nesNYC said...

the problem here is no witnesses reported demolition-style explosions

There are some in the Times transcripts. "Flashes" and "Crackling." Look it up.

 
At 24 August, 2006 20:33, Blogger CHF said...

Jesus Christ, Nessie.

You folks seriously need to talk to some controlled demo experts.

I mean urgently!

Your understanding of controlled demos and their charicteristics is utterly comical.

 
At 24 August, 2006 20:50, Blogger nesNYC said...

You folks seriously need to talk to some controlled demo experts.

You're going by conventional controlled demos of buildings with structures different from the trade towers. All they really had to do was knock out the central core and the whole thing comes down. Remember, there weren't beams in the way like most buildings here, just one massive structure in the center of the building. The building could have easily been divided up in 10 sections and the big cloud of debris started at the top would conceal the explosions as they were happening. It's all in the video tapes, look again. Even on the 911eyewitness video about 9 separate and big explosions go off at regular intervals in the timeframe of the collapses.

 
At 24 August, 2006 21:09, Blogger Andrew said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 24 August, 2006 21:27, Blogger Andrew said...

Edward Cachia FDNY

As my officer and I were looking at the south tower, it just gave. It actually gave at a
lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit, because we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down.

Thomas Turilli -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
The door closed, they went up, and it just seemed a couple of seconds and all of a sudden you just heard it, it almost actually that day sounded like bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or eight, and then just a huge wind gust just came and my officer just actually took all of us and just threw us down on the ground and kind of just jumped on top of us, laid on top of us.
...
At that point were were kind of standing on the street and I looked to my left and actually I noticed the tower was down. I didn't even know that it was when we were in there. It just seemed like a huge explosion.

Neil Sweeting -- Paramedic (E.M.S.)
You heard a big boom, it was quiet for about ten seconds. Then you could hear another one. Now I realize it was the floors starting to stack on top of each other as they were falling. It was spaced apart in the beginning, but then it got to just a tremendous roar and a rumble that I will never forget.

I had heard right before the lights went out, I had heard a distant boom boom boom, sounded like three explosions. I don't know what it was. At the time, I would have said they sounded like bombs, but it was boom boom boom and then the lights all go out. I hear someone say oh, s___, that was just for the lights out. I would say about 3, 4 seconds, all of a sudden this tremendous roar. It sounded like being in a tunnel with the train coming at you.

Craig Carlsen -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 8]
I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit.



Karin Deshore -- Captain (E.M.S.)
Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building.


Timothy Burke -- Firefigter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 202]
Then the building popped, lower than the fire, which I learned was I guess, the aviation fuel fell into the pit, and whatever floor it fell on heated up really bad and that's why it popped at that floor. That's the rumor I heard. But it seemed like I was going oh, my god, there is a secondary device because the way the building popped. I thought it was an explosion.

 
At 24 August, 2006 21:56, Blogger apathoid said...

TAM said....
Beware of the "unbanning"...remember your failure in the caves!!!!

Do not go back...you will restore order to there chaos...lol


Never fear, my re-instatement lasted a whopping two posts before I got banned again.

My crimes? The usual.....facts and logic

 
At 24 August, 2006 22:49, Blogger Blind Avocado said...

Pancake = progressive
Global = all at once


And anybody looking at the video of the collapse can see that it was progressive. My god you are one stupid person.

 
At 25 August, 2006 06:29, Blogger CHF said...

Naziboy,

do you think NINE explosions would bring down a WTC tower??? And somehow make it fail at the point on jet impact?

What the fuck is wrong with you?

 
At 25 August, 2006 10:14, Blogger Chad said...

I just ventured over to Spooked's site.

Appears as though he's ceased allowing comments to his ever-informative posts.

 
At 25 August, 2006 11:54, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

The entire argument of CD can be summed up like this...

If they were going to rig the whole building(s) with explosives to bring them down, then wouldn't it be logistically simpler to simply plant some bogus "decoy" explosives in afew vehicles, to be found inthe wreckage after, or to have them go off, and then just have the buildings come down.

I mean if they were gonna bring down the buildings WITH EXPLOSIVES, then why the planes and all the intricacies involved?

 
At 25 August, 2006 16:12, Blogger Andrew said...

Maybe

 
At 25 August, 2006 16:24, Blogger Andrew said...

Maybe because the planes gave the psychological effect of having everyone in the damn world watching the towers burn and then be reduced to nothing but rubble before their eyes? 9/11 was as much as a terrorist plot as it was a psychlogical operation and economic coverup.

Couple that with the fact they got to take down Building 7 in all the confusion. Along with all those pesky SEC and CIA cases and files.

"The SEC has not quantified the number of active cases in which substantial files were destroyed [by the collapse of WTC 7]. Reuters news service and the Los Angeles Times published reports estimating them at 3,000 to 4,000."

"This is a disaster for these cases."


"WASHINGTON — The Central Intelligence Agency's clandestine New York station was destroyed in the Sept. 11 attack on the World Trade Center, seriously disrupting United States intelligence operations while bringing the war on terrorism dangerously close to home for America's spy agency, government officials say."

"In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, morale suffered badly within the C.I.A., some officials said, as the agency began to confront what critics have called an intelligence failure on the scale of Pearl Harbor."

"But United States intelligence officials emphasize that there is no evidence that the hijackers knew that the undercover station was in the World Trade Center complex."

 
At 25 August, 2006 17:26, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

ok, andrew, lets go with your theory...

If that is true, that they did it for Psychological impact...

Why no West coast planes...why the crash in Shanksville? Why not the subway also? Why not the harbour?

If the planes were used to up the fear quotient, then they could have made it a hundred times more effective by having it happen in LA also. And why shanksville. That did not serve any purpose greater than the other three.

 
At 26 August, 2006 10:14, Blogger shawn said...

Andrew, like all these morons, doesn't know what a coincidence is.

 
At 27 August, 2006 10:28, Blogger nesNYC said...

And anybody looking at the video of the collapse can see that it was progressive. My god you are one stupid person.

Well if you read what I'm saying, it is NIST that said "global" and not the trusses like FEMA. I'm only pointing out what THEY said.

I agree, the towers fell progressively and symmetrically and CD is the ONLY thing that can explain that.

 
At 27 August, 2006 10:31, Blogger nesNYC said...

Naziboy,

do you think NINE explosions would bring down a WTC tower??? And somehow make it fail at the point on jet impact?

What the fuck is wrong with you?


Hey, they told us that ONE plane knocked out a few columns and the whole tower fell, how come 9 well placed charges going off in progression and strategically placed in equal locations along the central core columns couldn't produce the same? You just nullified yourself I think.

 
At 27 August, 2006 10:35, Blogger nesNYC said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 27 August, 2006 10:37, Blogger nesNYC said...

I mean if they were gonna bring down the buildings WITH EXPLOSIVES, then why the planes and all the intricacies involved?

Intentionally bringing down the buildings with explosives by terrorist cannot explain how they got access to the building, especially building 7 that was a CIA station along with other high level government offices.

The plane provided perfect cover since after the "explanation" by the "experts" no one questioned the mechanism of collapse and therefore not additional investigations were needed.

 
At 27 August, 2006 10:47, Blogger CHF said...

Nazi boy,

No one claimed that the columns taken out by the plane brought down the towers. Just another strawman on your part.

It was a combination of that and the weakened supports at the floors on fire.

 
At 27 August, 2006 10:48, Blogger CHF said...

Oh and have you thought about how thermite could be applied to start burning on hundreds of beams at the same time and how it was made to burn sideways?

 
At 27 August, 2006 11:14, Blogger Alex said...

Why does it not surprise me that he has absolutely no clue what "Global Colapse" means...

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home