Steven Jones to Appear on the View?
They said that they were going to get a physics professor from Bush's alma mater, Harvard, but right now it appears they are instead looking at former BYU prof, and inverterate liar, Steven Jones, from one of Alex Jones' dozens of websites.
Physicist Professor Steven Jones has confirmed that Rosie O'Donnell's staff have contacted him regarding a potential future appearance on The View to discuss the improbable collapse of the twin towers and WTC 7.
During a debate on The View, O'Donnell promised to feature a physicist as a guest on the show to discuss the physical evidence and the impossibility of jet fuel melting steel.
"A person from Rosie's team contacted me by E mail," Professor Jones told the Alex Jones Show, "so I wrote back to them and said I would be glad to appear and I named two other physicists who I trust who could also appear."
Which reminds me, since Steven Jones was upset that I didn't e-mail him when I found problems in his work, I still have a couple of e-mails to send him. Hey, he asked... Maybe I will cc Rosie?
Labels: Rosie O'Donnell, Steven Jones
posted by James B. @ 12:18 PM
41 comments
41 Comments:
I predicted on the JREF last week that the impossibility of finding a competent physicist to support the liars' nonsense would force them to settle for Jones.
I don't think you will win the million dollars for that one. ;-)
Nope, it was the equivalent of holding a book, letting it go, and betting that it would hit the floor, not the ceiling.
911"Truth" doesn't matter
(Anti Matter ABC Remix)
http://www.livevideo.com/ewing2001
The mentally ill p'dope has, of course, not troubled to read Jones's worthless paper, nor Greening's refutation of it. He hasn't read Eagar's dismissal of Jones's woeful ignorance of the properties of heated metals.
For a low-IQ psychotic like p'dope to call rationalists "uneducated" is comical.
Thomas Eagar wrote:
"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".
I might not have read? Dude, do a search for his name on this blog, we have covered him dozens of times. He is writing letters to me trying to whine his way out of taking responsibility for lying. Check out debunking911 for several excellant examples of how dishonest he is.
More coming here too.
I don't think the presents of microscopic spherules equals a lot of molten steel.
pomeroo said...
Thomas Eagar wrote:
"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).(snip)
And from his paper from JOM 2001:
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
"Some reports suggest that the aluminum from the aircraft ignited, creating very high temperatures. While it is possible to ignite aluminum under special conditions, such conditions are not commonly attained in a hydrocarbon-based diffuse flame. In addition, the flame would be white hot, like a giant sparkler. There was no evidence of such aluminum ignition, which would have been visible even through the dense soot."
and about the steel:
" But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.
So what was observed burning and pouring out of the side of the WTC, Mr. Eagar? Non-silvery Aluminum created you say from mixing with "other stuff"?
He contradicts his statements from the 2001 paper where he detailed the WTC diffuse fires and temperatures which were oxygen starved and fuel rich and were probably no more than 750 deg C.
Then suddenly in 2006 he believes a different scenario took place -- a magical one! --- shhh! children gather and listen! -- the oxygen generators from the plane produced a controlled burn in excess of 1100deg C. And there was a dam and a pool created. Were there unicorns in there too drinking from the pool?
He's dreaming. And his JOM paper is a poor explanation of collapse but we knew that already since since he is not a structural engineer.
This stuff doesn't really help your cause.
And who is a liar?
Steven Jones? nice try. He's analyzed more physical evidence from gz showing metal spheres(100-500micrometers) which are consistent with thermate reacting with steel. Jones takes a scientific approach to the physical evidence of the crime scene whereas your beloved NIST/FEMA didn't even bother to explain the sulfur levels or look for explosives.
You guys better get cracking on a new approach to your 'scientific debunking' because the old approach ain't working.
Meigs and you are on a losing team with right-wing propagandists like McCain, Scarborough and O'Reilly.
Spoonfed, I'm afraid your charlatan-hero has disappointed his mindless followers too many times. He refuses to conduct tests that Dr. Greening has proposed, tests that would reveal the truth about his claims. He refuses to respond to demolition experts who tell him that he remains clueless about thermite and thermate. His work has been denounced by his own department at BYU as below profesional standards.
Jones can con a few simpletons, but the scientists have his number.
Sorry, p'dope, you're still a pathetic imbecile. Learn to read.
I'm confused.
Whoever runs this blog portrays themselves as being smart, above it all (smug), and on top of all the facts...... yet here claim Bush's Alma Mater is Harvard!
Ouch!
Yes, because we all know that smart people never make minor (and irrelevant) mistakes. I'm sure Albert Einstein never once made a typo, or called his girlfriend by the wrong name.
He's done no such thing. Stop lying.
PD
Relax mate. It'll all be over soon. A couple more years, your movement will be dead, and you can go back to what ever you did before this, and then I can too.
Don't sweat it.
TAM:)
Whoever runs this blog portrays themselves as being smart, above it all (smug), and on top of all the facts...... yet here claim Bush's Alma Mater is Harvard!
Bush got his MBA from Harvard, so ouch! right back at you Peggy.
He criticizes the NIST report, he certainly doesn't denounce it. And he never claims to be agnostic about 9/11. All he says on that topic is that making up 9/11 conspiracy theories is easy, and that any idiot could make a better conspiracy theory than the ones which the twoofers have come up with.
And even if you were 100% correct about those two details, your conclusion would still be wrong. Him disagreeing with NIST in no way makes it improper to use him as an authority. If you truly were a physicist as you claimed, you'd understand that the science (and engineering) field is full of disagreement. Science wouldn't work without it.
Alex, Greening wrote:
"Thus, by the start of 2007, I still had plenty of questions about the official version of the collapse of the Twin Towers. And this is essentially where I stand today. Unlike the self-assured posters on PhysOrg and JREF who claim to KNOW what happened to the Twin Towers, I remain a 9/11 agnostic.
And as a scientist I believe there is always room for doubt and for more research. In fact, that’s how I see research – a process of re-searching, of looking again. The NIST Report is a great start, but only that. It leaves some unanswered questions. It may satisfy the Arthurs (on PhysOrg) and the Gravys (on JREF) of this world, but not me. And my work experience in the Canadian nuclear industry has taught me to be skeptical of the “official” view - the consensus view - because it is usually politically motivated!"
The unqualified toofers are still trying to pass off the same dubunked BS as the truth, it is getting almost comical. Any molten metal was AL, the towers were covered with it. When are we going to see a point by point rebuttle backed up with hard proof, so far all we have seen is whine
This american hero and patriot
Only in some Orwellian world would people who engage in vicious slander against their own country certainly qualify as "heroes" and "patriots".
Peggy, you do know that Bush has an MBA from Harvard?
I looked at Peggy's blogs. Not only is she a no-planer, she also has links to a holocaust denial site.
She's another "no planes hit the WTC/no jews hit the gas chamber" types.
They just don't get any dumber.
il.co.ukNotice how alex fled w2hen I totally owned him about what greening said LOL
They just don't get any dumber.
They can ALWAYS get dumber.
The photos which I have seen by the conspiracy theorists which shows glowing metal, shows a red glow or a red orange glow.
Yes! This is absolutely *NOT* a biased retort, hahaha... NOT. Throw that in the trash bin with the other fascist apologist nonsense.
Oh, hey! Nice to be back :D
You guys better get cracking on a new approach to your 'scientific debunking' because the old approach ain't working.
It will NEVER happen. They don't have truth or reality on their side so the MUST resort to insults and personal attacks to get their "point" across. It's the Amerikkkan way you know ;)
il.co.ukNotice how alex fled w2hen I totally owned him about what greening said LOL
What are you, drunk?
Yes! This is absolutely *NOT* a biased retort, hahaha... NOT.
It's absolutely biased, and it never pretends otherwise. If it weren't biased, it would be useless.
Throw that in the trash bin with the other fascist apologist nonsense.
You're the holocaust denier here buds.
You're the holocaust denier here buds.
Why is that a wrong thing? If you knew the truth about the terror campaign to frighten Jew into immigrating to Palestine during WW2, you'd be of the same opinion. Nothing wrong with denying fake history.
Yes! This is absolutely *NOT* a biased retort, hahaha... NOT. Throw that in the trash bin with the other fascist apologist nonsense.
Oh, hey! Nice to be back :D
It will NEVER happen. They don't have truth or reality on their side so the MUST resort to insults and personal attacks to get their "point" across. It's the Amerikkkan way you know ;)
Why is that a wrong thing? If you knew the truth about the terror campaign to frighten Jew into immigrating to Palestine during WW2, you'd be of the same opinion. Nothing wrong with denying fake history.
See what I mean?
Sorry, Nessie, we're not all fair, tolerant, unbiased pieces of fascist, bigoted human waste like you.
The guy who hates Jews and denies the Holocaust calls other people fascists?
I guess he's trying to compliment us or something.
They can ALWAYS get dumber.
How did you manage to get Nesnyc to post right after you said that, Triterope?
This american hero and patriot has written a paper that you might not have read. I suggest you do.
Would that be the paper about Jesus coming to America?
He's dreaming. And his JOM paper is a poor explanation of collapse but we knew that already since since he is not a structural engineer.
And how many structural engineers support your theories?
How did you manage to get Nesnyc to post right after you said that, Triterope?
I have impeccable timing.
Civilized Worm said...
Would that be the paper about Jesus coming to America?
He's a Mormon idiot. Do you discredit all those who don't follow your religious beliefs?
Completely. Totally. Idiotic.
And how many structural engineers support your theories?
Let's see -- how many structural engineers believe that a building that is rigged for controlled demolition will fall in the manner of a building rigged for controlled demolition? i.e. WTC7 near free fall speed, implode, primary central column failure, collapse in it's footprint, squib blasts, complete global collapse.
... hmmm I wonder?
All that's missing are the charges going off.
Bummer.
LOL! Not really. In the case of WTC 7, the entire area was well evacuated when it went down. Heck, there weren't even firefighters to "pull" when that happened. As a result, the fact that the entire area below Canal St. was evacuated, no one was close enough to hear the charges. Your statement above reminds me of a famous saying:
If a tree falls in a forest with no one to hear it, then does it make a sound?
:D
Heh. Another clueless statement from our resident retard. I've watched building get demolished. You can hear the charges going off from several kilometres away at least.
Ah but these were jewish explosives! Undetectable to the untrained ear.
He's a Mormon idiot. Do you discredit all those who don't follow your religious beliefs?
He is a mormon idiot, he also tried to prove his idiot mormon beliefs with a bullshit paper called "Behold My Hands: Evidence for Christ's Visit in Ancient America". Strangely enough that wasn't peer reviewed either.
Let's see -- how many structural engineers believe that a building that is rigged for controlled demolition will fall in the manner of a building rigged for controlled demolition? i.e. WTC7 near free fall speed, implode, primary central column failure, collapse in it's footprint, squib blasts, complete global collapse.
How many structural engineers believe that any of the WTC buildings fit those criteria?
I've watched building get demolished. You can hear the charges going off from several kilometres away at least.
I think there are only 2 videos of building 7 coming down and those were from uptown Manhattan and Jersey. Again, there was no one in the area below Canal St. If you're familiar with the layout, that's about a mile up from the Trade Center and by this time (4 or 5pm) the entire city was locked down and people were long since gone from the area. I do however recall a video that shows the flashes of the charges going off in the upper floors. I cannot find it now however. Will keep looking for it.
How very convenient.
Post a Comment
<< Home