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!
posted by Pat @ 12:44 PM
32 comments
32 Comments:
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.
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.
I agree...it is the most entertaining thing to come out of that entire movement.
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
Even FEMA and NIST can't get their conspiracy theories straight :D
Why would they need to?
A Deniers' civil war?
Someone send them weapons.
Uh oh.. Learning them joooo tactics I see :)
Why would they need to?
FEMA says pancakes, NIST says central core... I'd say, they should get it striaght no?
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.
Beware of the "unbanning"...remember your failure in the caves!!!!
Do not go back...you will restore order to there chaos...lol
Uh everyone says there was pancake collapse -
NIST debunked pancakes. They say central core failure lead to global collapse, not the trusses and pancakes.
failure in the core initiated the pancake collapse, wheres the contradiction?
The wording in the NIST report says "global collapse" not pancaking floors.
In the world of the nutbar, everyone else is the nut.
Good observation! And who employs that word the most? Hehehehe..
pancakes?
Did they debunk the maple syrup to?
I agree the pancake theory is stupid. Controlled demolition explains what pancakes cannot.
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.
The wording in the NIST report says "global collapse" not pancaking floors.
You of course have tons of documentation explaining the difference, yes?
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.
You of course have tons of documentation explaining the difference, yes?
Pancake = progressive
Global = all at once
Right?
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.
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."
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
the problem here is no witnesses reported demolition-style explosions
There are some in the Times transcripts. "Flashes" and "Crackling." Look it up.
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.
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.
I just ventured over to Spooked's site.
Appears as though he's ceased allowing comments to his ever-informative posts.
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?
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.
Andrew, like all these morons, doesn't know what a coincidence is.
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.
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.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
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.
Why does it not surprise me that he has absolutely no clue what "Global Colapse" means...
Post a Comment
<< Home