Steven Jones Story Ignored by Mainstream Media?
Here's a pretty good article on Steven Jones getting recognition from Project Censored.
But his theory has drawn sharp criticism from other scholars, including members of BYU's own engineering professors, as being poorly researched.
And Sonoma State professors are questioning whether Project Censored has hurt its own credibility by presenting it as possibly true.
"It's in the same category of people who think NASA didn't really send astronauts to the moon," said Lynn Cominsky, the chairwoman of the Department of Physics and Astronomy at SSU.
Okay, so the chairwoman of the Physics Department isn't impressed. Who is?
Peter Phillips, a Sonoma State sociology professor and head of Project Censored, described the hypothesis as "serious scientific work" in his remarks introducing Jones.
posted by Pat @ 8:02 AM
67 comments
67 Comments:
I don't even have a phd in any relevant field and I still know his work is BS. It's not up to you to interpret results as you see fit. "Hmm, I think I'll say that this sulfur came from thermate and not gypsum because it matches what I want to believe" is not good science.
They are mostly ignored by the media. I think this is a mistake. If a band of people claiming to be "scholars" were out saying slavery was really a good thing, I don't think they'd get these "even-handed" articles. Why give a pass to America-hating kooks?
Sociology Prof. JHC I should have known. Sorry to all those sensible sociology people who are content with a normal world, but I find that these people are simply paranoid, and bored, and to keep themselves awake, they invent this world where conspiracy is the norm.
Annoying as hell.
TAM
Poor, poor Steven Jones.
The media should not ignore him. They should publicize his crap to show how disgusting and delusional he and his fellow Nutbags are.
Screwloosechange Poll:
Have you guys even read any of his work?
Just curious because it sounds like you haven't.
Swingdangler poll: Have you read any of the REAL science that demolishes Jones and Hoffman and Wood? I refer specifically to Dr. Frank Greening's papers available on 911myths.com.
Just curious, because it sounds like you haven't.
Have you guys even read any of his work?
It cracks me up how 9/11 deniers always act like we are somehow unaware of the evidence. Just about all we do on this blog is report on your "evidence". We have made hundreds of posts on every stupid little website, movie, radio interview, blog post and paper you guys have come out with, and the more we read the stupider it becomes. Believe me, the last problem we have is being unaware of your theories.
I didn't ask for an explanation of what you do. I know as well as you do that you can go and cut and paste comments of critics.
I asked if you have read his work?
A yes or no would suffice.
Again, have you read his 48 page work?
You've already been answered, gluebag, and the answer was "yes".
Have you guys even read any of his work?
When someone comes up with a nutbag theory of "thermate" or "thermite" to prove that a demolition allegedly occured, and can find no other evidence or find one person involved in building demolition to support them, then I do not have to read their crap.
After all, one does not need to read "Mein Kampf" to know that Hitler was a fucking psychopath. The same goes with Jones.
Well Alex, you torture trained, ufo believing, tank cannon destroying with thermite, tart, I have seen 2 responses posted. UFOs! LOL and you call yourself mainstream.
Mac-wtf is TAM?
Mac-wtf is TAM?:
Clearly, I can trust inferences drawn by such a master of deduction as yourself.
Ok, Manny, what is TAM?
then I do not have to read their crap...The same goes with Jones.
Then when you attack the character of the person it simply highlights your lack of knowledge of the person and the work. "Ohhh he doesn't support my side so he is a nutball!" Got to love that logic. I'm starting to see a pattern here about critics of the OS! Yell, scream, and cry foul without reading any of the works. Got to love critical thinking like that! Same type of folks I suspect didn't read the IAEA reports about Iraq but jumped on the invade Iraq bandwagon because of what everyone else said. Both great examples of group think!
I can guarantee you that debunkers have read dozens of times more conspiracy theory material than the other way around. Otherwise we would have nothing to debunk.
911myths.com, a Web site run by a software developer in England, is one of the few venues that offers a running scrutiny of the various claims and arguments coming out of the 9/11 Truth movement. Mr. Fetzer has heard of 911myths .com, but he has never visited the site.
"I have been dealing with disinformation and phony stories about the death of JFK for all these years. There's a huge amount of phoniness out there," he says. "You have to be very selective in how you approach these things."
"I can assure you the things I'm telling you about 9/11 have objective scientific status," he says. 911myths.com, he says, "is going to be built on either fabricated evidence, or disregard of the real evidence, or violations of the principles of scientific reasoning."
"They cannot be right," he says
I can guarantee you that debunkers have read dozens of times more conspiracy theory material than the other way around.
Again, James, have you read Dr. Jones material? You have yet to provide a straight answer of yes or no.
chf To answer that I would need to know how many Structural Engineers have read Dr. Jones's paper. I would have to know how many disagreed with his report in public and in private. I'm still trying to find an academic paper that refutes his findings. Does anyone have an updated link that scientifically refutues Dr. Jones's paper?
As far as applying a possible cutter charge, in one case thermite, I can't state because I'm not an expert. I can pretend to be but that would be pointless. I can imagine all sorts of ways the substance could be used.
Attach it to steel beams, and use an ignition system to 'fire it up'.
But considering thermite is used in incendiary bombs, I don't find it too dificult to place a thermite explosive into a building.
.
default As I said I'm not an expert of course. Second, I used my post with information from dictionary.com
Thermite-a mixture of finely-divided metallic aluminum and ferric oxide that when ignited produces extremely high temperatures as the result of the union of the aluminum with the oxygen of the oxide: used in welding, incendiary bombs, etc.
Perhaps you may want to contact the authors of dictionary.com and have them correct "incendiary bombs" with your information.
getting thermite to burn sideways across a vertical column is physically impossible
Can you explain why it is physically impossible?
Can thermite be used to cut angles?
Again, James, have you read Dr. Jones material?
Yes, I have read his stuff numerous times. You have to keep on following what he is saying, because he adds and deletes claims without ever acknowledging that things have changed. I even submitted a paper I had written to his "journal", but he got all upset because I had already posted it in our Journal of 9/11 Debunking.
Once I noticed that he was making false claims regarding PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" document in his powerpoint, so I e-mailed him telling him so. He never bothered to even reply to my e-mail, he just deleted the claims, like it never happened.
Ok, Manny, what is TAM?
OK, ya got me. I don't know either. Your question is best directed to the person you originally asked, The Artistic Macrophage.
Yes I have read his work, Swing.
TAM
(The Artistic Macrophage)
Thanks JB, that is all I was asking for.
On the other hand, shame on Dr. Jones for ignoring you!
Again, does anyone have a scientific paper that discredits Dr. Jones's claim?
I've read the papers that have discredited the pancake collapse theory. I'm now looking for scholarly articles that discredit Dr. Jones.
Although I find it entertaining, 9/11myths is not the most sound debunking site. They do bring up some excellent points, but I've found numerous arguement errors found within their writing. No I'm not going to debate that site at this point, I'm too busy reading the AISC Steel Construction Manual, 8th Edition on the finer points of heat effecting steel.
Any thoughts on Jones's discovery of thermate in the ruins of the WTC complex?
Thanks Mac! I've always wondered. TAM ...Hidden IN PLANE SITE! MUWHWHWHW ;)
Traces of oxygen have also been found in WTC debris, that is also a byproduct of "thermate"! More "hard evidence".
OMG that paper of Jones is getting thinner and thinner everytime. At one point it was over a 100 pages i think. and now only 48.
And he keeps using that picture from the "solidified iron" which is a total farce.
Where does he keep his paper now that he has been fired from BYU?
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf
your welcome
TAM
CHF I hate to bust your bubble but the Federal Government has bested you when it comes to the use of thermite:
Technical notes on use of thermite for cutting steel based on government-laboratory mixture (under conditions of an exothermic reaction)…
• These characteristics show that the composition of the [thermite] mixtures using polytetrafluoroethylene as a base has a heat input 2.5–5.0 times higher than that of the mixture based on thermite. These mixtures were tested on bench generators. The target consisted of plates made from Kh18NT brand stainless steel with dimensions of 100x 100mm and with a thickness of 2 to 6 mm, which were set up 50mm from the generator nozzle.
• As a result of the experimental work performed, the following conclusions were
reached:
• Almost any metal or nonmetallic material can be subjected to thermite cutting.
• The thermite cutting process can be performed in different attitudes… [vertical cuts as well as horizontal cuts, etc.]
• The thermite cutting technique ensures autonomous work performance… away from electric power…
• The thermite cutting technique is characterized by maneuverability and the small dimensions of its devices, which allows use of the technique in hard-to reach locations.
• The pyrotechnic cutting torch can be used with automatic and remote-control systems.
Again we can call Dr. Jones all sorts of names, etc., but has anyone published and academic rebuttal to Dr. Jones's work?
Jay You say the slag of iron picture is a total farce. Why? What do mean by that?
he ignores the fact that the gypsum wallboard used in the WTC contain high amounts of sulphur, and sulphur is also a by-product of certain combustion reactions...
So then you are also stating the Federal Government ignored this fact as well? I could be wrong but I would think the governement would offer that as an excuse for the sulphur find, but that is not the case. And besides it's not like scraping sulfur off of the samples it was found within the melted sample. Tough to explain that one.
“Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion
attack on the steel, including oxidation and
sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting,
was readily visible…The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very
unusual event.No clear explanation for the source
of the sulfur has been identified.”
http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm FEMA, Appendix C http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf
With that fact in hand, I don't think it is beyond Dr. Jones's integrity to mention sulphur as part of a possible thermite hypothesis.
Sorry-left out this link regarding Govt. use of thermite:
Technical notes on use of thermite for cutting steel (etc.) based on government-laboratory report (1998): http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/1344-QDsu9M/webviewable/1344.pdf
Swing, i already posted some pics of the so called solidified iron in a post a while ago, but here they are again.
http://www.amny.com/entertainment/news/am-wtcrelics-pg2006,0,6613706.photogallery?index=31
http://www.amny.com/entertainment/news/am-wtcrelics-pg2006,0,6613706.photogallery?index=32
http://www.amny.com/entertainment/news/am-wtcrelics-pg2006,0,6613706.photogallery?index=33
http://www.amny.com/entertainment/news/am-wtcrelics-pg2006,0,6613706.photogallery?index=34
http://www.amny.com/entertainment/news/am-wtcrelics-pg2006,0,6613706.photogallery?index=35
http://www.amny.com/entertainment/news/am-wtcrelics-pg2006,0,6613706.photogallery?index=36
http://www.amny.com/entertainment/news/am-wtcrelics-pg2006,0,6613706.photogallery?index=37
So not all is what it seems.
And since Jones is using that picture, he must know where it came from and what it really is.
The target consisted of plates made from Kh18NT brand stainless steel with dimensions of 100x 100mm and with a thickness of 2 to 6 mm, which were set up 50mm from the generator nozzle.
Wow, and the vertical beams in the world trade center were a whole 6mm thick?
Wow, and the vertical beams in the world trade center were a whole 6mm thick?
James that was posted to oppose CHF's statement regarding the use of thermite in various ways. The point being it can and has been done.
But what you are implying is that it can't be done because of a differece thickness, correct? If so, you can predict the issue I have with that analysis.
Why bring up the fire and thermite if you have read his paper?
It is important to note that initiating the thermite reaction requires temperatures well above those achieved by burning jet fuel or office materials -- which is an advantage of using thermite charges over conventional monomolecular explosives such as TNT, RDX and PETN. Below is a photograph of an experiment performed by the author and colleagues at BYU in which a sample of thermite was heated to orange-hot temperature (about 1700 oF)."
I can't speak to the statement of wether or not Dr. Jones has submitted his paper for SE review. Can you say find the quote from Dr. Jones that states he didn't submit to a SE journal or why he doesn't? I don't know if he has or not. Would it be better suited for the paper to be submitted to a professional physicist journal for peer review first and then to the SE journal?
Again that is why I ask for a link to an academic rebuttal to his work.
I thought for sure you guys could hook me up with this request.
The point is the work is already out there, why doesn't someone publish a rebuttal to the claims and experiments in the paper?
Or could it be his work is what lead to the NIST investigating a blast/cd theory of WTC 7?
To be honest it would be nice for the NIST to state why they have changed directions to examine a CD theory. And if WTC 7, why not 1 and 2?
But what you are implying is that it can't be done because of a differece thickness, correct? If so, you can predict the issue I have with that analysis.
Yeah, because God knows there isn't any physical difference between a steel plate 6mm thick and a 12 inch thick steel beam.
By your logic the World Trade Centers could have been brought down by diamond tipped hacksaws.
In this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by impact damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned cutter-charges.
Lets not forget it is only a a tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
The key there is tested by further investigation. Why is it such an issue to test further considering the impact of 9/11? I don't understand why the outrage at further testing, the person himself, or his work,etc. especially in light of the number of deaths as a result of the collapses. Once the 'how' is proven, then begin answer the 'who' question. That is in itself one problem with conspiracies of this event...very quick to jump to the 'who' without proof of 'how'.
The key there is tested by further investigation. Why is it such an issue to test further considering the impact of 9/11?
I agree. That is why I have called for Steven Jones to take a steel beam of the type in the WTC, stick it in the ground, and then demonstrate how it could be cut horizontallly with thermite/thermate.
Then explain how this setup could be done in an occupied office building thousands of times.
I demand answers!
By your logic the World Trade Centers could have been brought down by diamond tipped hacksaws.
The logic to counter CHF is that it 'can' (thermite and cuts) be done the way the government suggested which proved CHF wrong. How it was done using similiar techniques is up to the scientific community to determine.
Of course the sarcasm doesn't apply to this case nor do hacksaws, it only detracts from what you are trying to say. Which at this point I'm not sure what your trying to say, James.
The point is there is scientific evidence that points to a POSSIBLE CD scenario based upon the research of Dr. Jones. If the possiblity exists, then it should be tested further and in greater detail by members of the scientific community.
Now in order to get around that statement, your going to have to provide evidence that all of Dr. Jones's testing is flawed. That is why I keep asking for an educational/scientific rebuttal to Dr. Jones's paper. Why is that so hard to understand?
I agree. That is why I have called for Steven Jones to take a steel beam of the type in the WTC, stick it in the ground, and then demonstrate how it could be cut horizontally with thermite/thermate.
And then he can explain away the small problem of prepping the massive WTC towers for this treatment without anybody noticing. And making sure the process will work despite the presence of unpredictable fire and jet fuel. And making sure it will work in a way that coincides perfectly with the plane crash, including having the collapse begin at that point. And concealing the evidence. And probably several more logistic problems I can't think of at the moment.
That is why I have called for Steven Jones to take a steel beam of the type in the WTC, stick it in the ground, and then demonstrate how it could be cut horizontallly with thermite/thermate.
See now we are talking science!
Then explain how this setup could be done in an occupied office building thousands of times.
Dang it James, now we are back to theory again!
Dang it James, now we are back to theory again!
Uhh, genius, science is theory. If Jones were able to show how to cut steel beams with thermite, but it required a giant 500 lb ceramic box to be attached to every beam on every floor, and required ripping out walls and supports and hours of work for each device, then that would hardly be helpful to his "theory".
I keep asking for an educational/scientific rebuttal to Dr. Jones's paper.
Until Dr. Jones submits a scientific paper, he does not deserve a scientific response.
You still havent responded to the pictures i showed u Swing.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jay I tried to get to the site, but the link is cut off on the post. Can you repost and break the link up so I can't put it togther? Thanks!
Trite I'm not sure I understand. Avoiding the paper doesn't serve to debunk the science itself. Again is there a academic/scientifc rebuttal to Dr. Jones paper? If so, please post.
If not, then you must accept the hypothesis for CD until the hypothesis is scientifically proven void and invalid. It doesn't get much simpler than that gentlemen.
James Sorry, I meant conspiracy theory. And you have a great point, but lets get the first scientific experiment underway before jumping to conspiracy theory.
James, science is a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws. Notice it isn't theory. However, science begins with certain theories and hypothesis that can be tested in order to arrive at scientific fact or truth.
If you notice, James, Dr. Jones does not get into the operational details of the event or the persons involved, which leans towards conspiracy theory. He presents evidence supporting the hypothesis of controlled demolition and calls for further testing. Again why the outrage?
CHF I posted how, if it were thermite, it survived the fires based upon the expermient in the paper. The ignition temperature was not hot enough based upon fuel and said materials to set off the thermite.
the military's thermite doesn't cut thick beams, so no - it couldn't have been used to cut WTC beams
CHF, you are addressing the 'who' in this case in regards to thermite. I don't think it is relevant whose thermite it is at this point only that it could possibly be thermite. What is relevant is that the government has alrady shown thermite can be used to cut various
angles. If you are a military person then I can understand your statement based upon your own experience, but of course it can't be applied to all experiences, as the government has already proven.
You can just trippleclick on a link to select the entire link Swing.
Anyway here is the first link, just change the numbers 31 to 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37 to see all the pictures.
http://www.amny.com/entertainment/news/
am-wtcrelics-pg2006,0,6613706.photogallery?index=31
Damn even that is to long.
http://www.amny.com/entertainment/news/
am-wtcrelics-pg2006,0,6613706.
photogallery?index=31
SD, it's very simple. Steven Jones needs to submit his findings to a reputable scientific journal, and subject his work to peer review. Until he does this, he does not deserve to be taken seriously.
Why won't Steven Hawking refute my quantum mechanics string theory? He is hiding from the truth!
Avoiding the paper doesn't serve to debunk the science itself. Again is there a academic/scientifc rebuttal to Dr. Jones paper? If so, please post.
If not, then you must accept the hypothesis for CD until the hypothesis is scientifically proven void and invalid. It doesn't get much simpler than that gentlemen.
What universe are you from?
If I write up a paper tomorrow about how the WTC towers were really brought down by gremlins, will you also insist that "people must accept the hypothesis for gremlin demolition until the hypothesis is scientifically proven void and invalid"?
You still haven't even shown how themrmite could be used to do what you claim it did. What you HAVE shown is a lack of even the most basic capacity for logical thought. For instance, when you talk about the fact that thermite would not be ignited by the fires, you totally ignore the fact that SOMETHING has to be able to set off the thermite. We refer to this "something" as an initiating charge, and the initiating charge would definitely be set off by much lower heat. This should be obvious to anyone with any common sense, yet you've managed to create a complex argument while totally ignoring this little fact. That makes you either intentionally deceitful, or an idiot.
Alex
He is a master at how to say nothing is 500 words
To be honest, the beams of the WTC weren´t 12 inches thick, because they were rectangular tubes max 6 inches thick i think according to the NIST report,(the Core) or I beams with 2 plates welded in em to form a square.
SD, i'm still waiting on your thoughts about those pictures ;)
Alex Before you spout garbage again, go read the paper. It explains everything. If I write up a paper tomorrow about how the WTC towers were really brought down by gremlins... Again go read the paper, read the experminets, etc. Or have you, Alex? You still haven't even shown how themrmite could be used to do what you claim it did. Sure I did it is in the government experiment link. Catch up Alex, your late to the conversation. So far it has been a very civil one I might add, until you and your UFO belief system arrived on the scene and started your name calling triade again. Speaking of that, does that put you in the same camp as the 'Lizard' group?
I am not an expert at items that set off thermite charges. Could it be ceramic protected electrical ignition systems? Hell I don't know, that is up to the experts. And to my knowledge none of us are. Is it possible? Yes, if Jones's hypothesis is found to be true. No, if it has found to be false.
If there is scientific evidence supporting a hypotheisis then the hypothesis should be tested which is exactly what Dr. Jones calls for.
CANT CUT THROUGH A VERTICAL COLUMN
Did you not read the governement report where they tested thermite? Come on Default, you have to do a little research before you make statements like that. I posted the report link above.
Again, if Jones was such an idiot, why hasn't an OS'er, acadmeic, or scientist posted a scientific rebuttal to his paper? Is it perhaps because the hypothesis should be tested first before the rebuttal?
Come on fellas, you keep dancing around my essential question and can not help me in my quest for answers if you can't find a simple rebuttal to the work in question.
Jay Going to check out that picture link now. I've got a few more pages to read out of the Manual of Steel Contruction. Thanks for the link though I appreciate it!
Tritesubject his work to peer review....
I agree with you Trite on one half a point-he should submit his work to a journal, but not to be taken seriously of course but to further test the hypothesis.
According to his own words, he has submitted the work for peer review which included a couple of physics fellows.
What I don't understand is that if what he is saying is complete bologna then someone should have trashed the paper, his hypothesis, and his experiments by now. I mean considering what Loose Change did to the OS community, I find Dr. Jones to have alot more creditbility than the producers of Loose Change, which would/should have a greater impact on the os/non-os community. If so, why doesn't academia tear apart the paper? Or can they?
Update: I'm still discussing the issue with my Construction Engineer co-worker which is how I receieved the Manual of Steel Construction.
Jay Thanks again for the link. I examined the photo and its description. I don't see the issue. Jones calls for samples of the metal. No big deal there. I think the comment that it is solidified is debatable, but understandable considering the debris, and other accounts and pics of
molten metal.
You seem to be gung-ho on science... Yes, true, but I'm not a scientist. Perhaps it is up to an OS to prove it can't be done, considering the governement has proven it can.
Why won't Steven Hawking refute my quantum mechanics string theory? James your going to have to move past arguement fallacies kid, uhh complex question I believe. Ahh your sarcasm shining through! Move on to something more important such as background checks on Scholars.
The point is the OS community has to accept as fact Dr. Jones's hypothesis that collapses occured not just by impact damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned cutter-charges and that CD were partly responsible for the collapse of WTC 1,2, and 7.
Until the hypothesis is proven wrong by further testing you have no other direction to turn.
I'm still waiting for the scientific /academic paper to prove his hypothesis wrong.
I'm still waiting for the scientific /academic paper to prove his hypothesis wrong.
And I'm still waiting for you to prove my Gremlin Demolition Theory wrong. Until then, you have no other direction to turn.
Come on man! Stop dancing around my essential question! Help me in my quest for answers! Show me a scientific rebuttal to my Gremlin Demolition Theory!
Gremlin Demolition Theory wrong
Ahh Alex, nice way of disregarding the issue by playing the sarcasm card. You are good at that. Has the mothership landed yet? ;)
1. What evidence can you provide to support your Gremlin theory?
The movie doesn't count!
2. What scietific experiments have you shown to provide evidence of said Gremlins and theory to be tested further?
A great distraction but it doesn't help your arguement.
Now back to your belief in UFOs...
1. Have you had any personal contacts with UFOs, I believe in your circles that would be the "3rd Kind"?
2. Have you had any alien visitations like many have reported?
3. Do you wear a tin foil hat to communicate with UFO's or does it protect you?
4. If you believe in UFO's, as you do, can you prove they had nothing to do with 9/11?
5. Are UFO's responsible for your current world view?
6. Have you ever been on a UFO? If so did they have any type of security checks? Was an intergallactic passport required that can survive a UFO crash?
7. Was the UFO remote controlled, a hologram, or piloted by incompetent aliens?
8. What planet do these UFO's that you believe in come from? Would it be the 10th Planet as written about by Z. Sitchin?
9. Have you studied Area 51 or the hangar at Wright Pat for UFO's?
10. What are you thoughts on the alien experiments on humans?
11. Alex, are the UFO's here to help us or hurt us? Or are they going to advance are knowledge into the next conscience stream?
Damn u really are in denial SD. Thats no solidified iron as u can see in the pictures, because there is even paper in there. Its compacted metal and concrete, u can even see the reebar of the concrete.
Jay It is hard to tell I only looked at the piece referenced in Jones's paper. In that case I didn't see any paper. In the other pics, I did see paper and such but they weren't included in the report.
I see many things, including what you mention but then again it is a picture and I did say the comment was debatable. It would be nice to have the piece opened up to the public so we could examine it ourselves up close and in person. It would also be nice to test the piece to prove Dr. Jones's hypotheis wrong or right.
Well i dont think its in some secret place, since its obvious u can take pictures from it, so why doesn't he just go over there and ask them to have a look at it. I doubt he ever tried to ask them to get a look at it.
Here is a part where they talk about the "meteorite"
http://www.amny.com/news/local/
groundzero/am-wtcrelics-story0908,
0,1684784.story?coll=am-wtc-headlines
Seems people can visit it, so i wonder why Jones hasn't yet.
Jay Great question! Not only inspect it, but try to obtain samples for further testing.
Don't ask me, write an email to Jones and ask why he hasnt gone over there to inspect his meteorite.
1. What evidence can you provide to support your Gremlin theory?
The movie doesn't count!
I found traces of Gremlins in the wreckage! See, Gremlins contain hemoglobin, and there was hemoglobin all over the area. It must have been Gremlins!
2. Have you had any alien visitations like many have reported?
Now you're just doing the strawman argument thing! You CAN'T compare a professional Gremlin Demolitionist to THOSE nuts. You're attacking the messenger!
3. Do you wear a tin foil hat to communicate with UFO's or does it protect you?
See, again! You're just afraid of the truth!
4. If you believe in UFO's, as you do, can you prove they had nothing to do with 9/11?
Hey, until you disprove my model, you can't theorize about UFO's! Science doesn't work that way! It's against the laws of physics!
What I don't understand is that if what (Steven Jones) is saying is complete bologna then someone should have trashed the paper, his hypothesis, and his experiments by now.
Hi, I'm Earth. Have we met?
Trite can you list a link to a scientific or academic rebuttal to Dr. Jones's paper?
Thanks!
Alex should you be joining your UFO buddies at Stonehenge or the Pyramids or something like that?
Yeah, I've got your scientific rebuttal right here, gluebag.
Post a Comment
<< Home