Tuesday, October 02, 2012

Steven Jones, Debunker

Of course, all he debunks is the theory that is even more retarded than his:

Regarding the possibility that mini-nukes were used in the WTC Towers to bring them down, I wrote a paper in 2006 which was peer-reviewed and then published in January 2007. I sincerely wish more people would read the peer-reviewed papers I and colleagues have published, as a way of sorting out that which is based on hard evidence and that which is not.
Hey, Steve, don't quit your day job!  (Ooops!)

54 Comments:

At 02 October, 2012 17:32, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...In my talks, I have emphasized method 1, using the scientific method." -- Steven E. Jones

Now that's hilarious.

Question: Why does Pat Cowardly prefer children who are learning to crawl?

Answer: They're already in the right position.

**********

The Brian Good Insane Homeless Mullet for balding, over-the-hill sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 03 October, 2012 00:12, Blogger The Q. said...

Hey Jones, you know Mitt Romney? (Steven Jones, BYU 1973, Romney, BYU 1971)

 
At 03 October, 2012 04:49, Blogger Ian said...

That reminds me,

Brian Good STILL has not provided any evidence against the proposition that the towers were destroyed by micro-nuked planted by modified attack baboons.

Brian (and Steven Jones) ignore the baffling aspects of the collapses, such as the radiation in the dust cloud, the laser burns on the steel, the burnt baboon fur found in the wreckage, and the green jelly-like substance reported by first responders.

 
At 03 October, 2012 12:53, Blogger snug.bug said...

It thinks it's funny.

 
At 03 October, 2012 14:00, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Jones has done more debunking here than Pat ever has in his life, and Pat's too stupid or too much of a liar to see it.

I think Pat and GuitarBill have done a lot to demonstrate the desperation and impotence of the rampant pretendebunking here and on JREF. The more they write, the less they refute, and the more glaring the questions that they can't answer.

Keep up the good work, useful idiots. Those pedophile jokes get funnier every time (to Pat).

 
At 03 October, 2012 14:13, Blogger GuitarBill said...

More bullshit, Ali?

I've debunked everything you and your fellow deranged homosexual cohort have ever written to this blog.

But, the again, pedophiles and sex predators aren't exactly known for their intellectual honesty.

Question: How does Pat Cowardly practice safe sex?

Answer: He brands the camels that kick.

**********

The Brian Good Insane Homeless Mullet for balding, over-the-hill sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 03 October, 2012 14:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

Q: How is Guitar Bill like Kevin Barrett?

A: Among other common attributes, they both think joke books make them witty.

 
At 03 October, 2012 14:28, Blogger GuitarBill said...

You're about a funny as a fart in a spacesuit, goat fucker.

By the way, your Ph.D envy is showing again.

**********

The Brian Good Insane Homeless Mullet for balding, over-the-hill sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 03 October, 2012 15:13, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

While we're discussing Steven Jones' scientific and technical credibility, I'll just leave this here.

 
At 03 October, 2012 15:59, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, a PhD is nothing to brag about--just a matter of time and money.

I wouldn't say any idiot can get one, but obviously a lot of idiots do.

 
At 03 October, 2012 16:41, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 03 October, 2012 16:45, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Brian "Poster child for Dunning-Kruger effect" Good babbles, "...a PhD is nothing to brag about--just a matter of time and money."

Ignorant aren't you? That assertion carries so much weight when one considers that the source is a college dropout.

Let's see you pass a comprehensive oral exam for a masters or Ph.D degree (and I'm not talking about giving blowjobs to the degenerates in the Castro District).

Once again, you demonstrate the breadth and depth of your boundless ignorance.

Tell us more about Boyle's Law, the Ideal Gas Law and ΔT, charlatan.

**********

The Brian Good Insane Homeless Mullet for balding, over-the-hill sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 03 October, 2012 19:13, Blogger Ian said...

It thinks it's funny.

Squeal squeal squeal!

Brian, how come you never call us "girls" anymore? It is because I've humiliated you by pointing out what a lunatic and mental 7-year-old you are by calling people "girls"?

UtterFail, a PhD is nothing to brag about--just a matter of time and money.

Says the unemployed janitor who couldn't get a bachelor's degree because he failed out of San Jose State.

I wouldn't say any idiot can get one, but obviously a lot of idiots do.

Steven Jones, for instance.

 
At 03 October, 2012 19:14, Blogger Ian said...

Let's also note that Brian did not respond to my post. He just tried to bury it in dumbspam.

So, let's go over it again:

Brian Good STILL has not provided any evidence against the proposition that the towers were destroyed by micro-nuked planted by modified attack baboons.

Brian (and Steven Jones) ignore the baffling aspects of the collapses, such as the radiation in the dust cloud, the laser burns on the steel, the burnt baboon fur found in the wreckage, and the green jelly-like substance reported by first responders.

 
At 03 October, 2012 20:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, a PhD is nothing to brag about--just a matter of time and money.

I wouldn't say any idiot can get one, but obviously a lot of idiots do.

 
At 04 October, 2012 04:38, Blogger Ian said...

UtterFail, a PhD is nothing to brag about--just a matter of time and money.

I wouldn't say any idiot can get one, but obviously a lot of idiots do.


And Brian is doing what he does best: repeat dumbspam whenever he's been humiliated by superior intellects like myself and Guitar Bill.

Hey Brian, have the widows had their questions answered yet?

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!

 
At 04 October, 2012 06:22, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Pat forgot to mention that Jones' work also debunks Pat's beliefs about 9/11, which he can never seem to defend effectively at all.

Maybe if Pat could find sources for his baseless assertions...

 
At 04 October, 2012 07:35, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Odd that Jones has yet to come up with a single thing to counter James Millette. Sounds like he tried and failed, and turned his attention to something easier.

 
At 04 October, 2012 08:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, it is indeed odd. Maybe the Jones team is waiting for Dr. Millette's findings to be replicated and/or published.

 
At 04 October, 2012 09:20, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Funny...we are waiting for the same thing from Jones.

 
At 04 October, 2012 09:22, Blogger GuitarBill said...

You mean the same Steven E. Jones who promotes the idea of perpetual motion?

And where have Jones' experimental results ever been replicated?

The man is not a "scientist," he's a quack.

What next, Judy Wood?

**********

The Brian Good Insane Homeless Mullet for balding, over-the-hill sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 04 October, 2012 09:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

GMS, many of Dr. Jones's findings were replicated by Mark Basile.

 
At 04 October, 2012 09:49, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Bullshit.

**********

The Brian Good Insane Homeless Mullet for balding, over-the-hill sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 04 October, 2012 11:00, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 04 October, 2012 11:07, Blogger snug.bug said...



Wow, you almost sound like you think you know!

 
At 04 October, 2012 11:47, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Jones' results have never been replicated.

Frédéric Henry-Couannier wrote, "...Eventually the presence of nanothermite could not be confirmed. The chips of my sample either already reacted on 9/11 (other searchers have found similar chips) or my sample was deactivated to prevent my independent corroboration of a crucial proof." -- Photomicrograph and SEM Image of the Red/Gray Chips from Jones' Sample.

Mark Basile is a fraud. He burned his sample IN OPEN AIR, which is the same error Jones made in his "experiment." Basile, moreover, did not measure the energy released by the samples. The RJ Lee Report did a study of the dust and no thermitic material was found.

As always, your "evidence" is hokum, bunkum, flapdoodle and balderdash.

Tell us more about Boyle's Law, the Ideal Gas Law and ΔT, charlatan.

FAIL.

**********

The Brian Good Insane Homeless Mullet for balding, over-the-hill sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 04 October, 2012 12:30, Blogger Len said...

Jones wrote:" I sincerely wish more people would read the peer-reviewed papers I and colleagues have published, as a way of sorting out that which is based on hard evidence and that which is not."

Except they have only published one paper in a legit peer-reviewed journal and had to pay for the privilege not to mention that the paper only tangentially supported their claims.

 
At 04 October, 2012 12:50, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Pretendebunkers like Pat and ShamMaster don't show the same concern for the replicability of NIST's wtc7 model, which they must think matches the video evidence exactly, or they'd demand to see those super-sekrit, public-safety-threatening inputs.

Do they ever really "debunk" anything at all? ever?

 
At 04 October, 2012 13:11, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

The supposed disparities between the video evidence and the models are fully accounted for. Learn to read.

 
At 04 October, 2012 16:03, Blogger snug.bug said...

Fully accounted for? Meaning what? Meaning they blathered on until your lips got too tired to continue?

Yeah, here's the crock they hand you:

Gee, guy, the distortions in the structure only happened "after the initiation of global collapse." Before the global collapse started, there were no distortions, so what are you complaining about?

The claim that the breakup and disintegration was "random" is a crock. Look at the video. It's obvious that the breakup and disintegration is in the lower floors--not in the upper. There's nothing random about localized breakup and disintegration.

Invoking the stiffening effect of nonstructural partitions is another crock. According to NIST's model all the partitions and all the floors in the eastern 2/3 of the building had fallen down! So how does the non-existence of non-existing partitions justify the western end of the building folding like a wet paper bag when the real building did not fold like a wet paper bag at all?

Is NIST suggesting that their own collapse model is not correct and that there were partitions remaining to keep the actual building in shape?

Honestly, RGT, is there any crap you will not accept?

 
At 04 October, 2012 19:48, Blogger Ian said...

Brian, nobody cares what you think. You're a failed janitor who believes in modified attack baboons, magic thermite elves, and invisible widows. You live with your parents, and you've been banned from the truth movement for being a liar and a lunatic. Also, you wear women's underwear and have a hideous homeless-mullet haircut.

Thus, anything you say about 9/11 will be ignored. Those of us who pay you any attention do so only to laugh and make fun of you for the above.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!

 
At 04 October, 2012 21:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you're a liar. You don't know anything about me, and what you think you know isn't true.

 
At 05 October, 2012 04:40, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, you're a liar. You don't know anything about me, and what you think you know isn't true.

Squeal squeal squeal!

I'd also like to remind everyone that Brian STILL hasn't gotten a single question from the widows answered. Not one.

 
At 05 October, 2012 05:50, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Fully accounted for? Meaning what?

Meaning "fully accounted for". There are no material differences between the collapse model and the video observations.

 
At 05 October, 2012 06:02, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Of course Cosmo being a coward for 9/11 truth doesn't address what I posted, and instead changes the subject. Shocking.

GMS, many of Dr. Jones's findings were replicated by Mark Basile.

Not wholly what I said, but we've been over this Brian.

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2012/07/i-know-feeling.html

Repeat the lie as it were. Basile's tests did not follow the same protocols. They were wholly different set of experiments. You can't replicate something if you don't do the same things. You may want to see what the word replicate means after you find out what symmetry is.


When will Basile be publishing his studies btw? Oh right, its on youtube. So Basile has neither published his findings, nor has he replicated Jones.

 
At 05 October, 2012 06:48, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, have you looked at the collapse simulations? They show the building folding up like a wet paper bad. The actual video shows the building descending almost intact, like a cracker box.

The simulations' folding up at the east end differs materially--especially when the only excuse they can offer for the difference (the reinforcing effect of nonstructural partitions that, according to their collapse theory, are not even there) is so clearly bogus.

Also note that the sims have been cut off in time. They only show us the first part. Presumably this is because the later part of the sim got so chaotic that the divergence from reality would have been obvious even to deniers like you.

We need new sims run with state of the art computers. Why are you afraid of that? It's going to happen anyway. Twenty years from now simulations of the WTC collapses will be a very popular subject for master's theses and dissertations.

 
At 05 October, 2012 07:18, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, have you looked at the collapse simulations? They show the building folding up like a wet paper bad.

The simulation isn't an art project. It's a physics study. You might as well complain that the colors are all wrong.

We need new sims run with state of the art computers. Why are you afraid of that?

I don't object. The collapses will be studied forever, like Oswald's shooting and the Titanic's sinking. Just don't spend my money on it.

 
At 05 October, 2012 08:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, for you to claim that the gross deformations exhibited in the external morphology of the building's collapse models are just a matter of decoration with no structural implications only shows the desperation of your denial.

Why should you object to spending money on confirming what happened on 9/11? Doesn't the trillions we have spent since then demand a high level of confidence that the assumptions behind our spending are valid?

 
At 05 October, 2012 08:32, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Huh.....with all those signatories, so called experts, & Gage making a healthy living, you would think they could gets something together.

 
At 05 October, 2012 08:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 05 October, 2012 13:21, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Why should you object to spending money on confirming what happened on 9/11?"

Because we know what happened.

"Doesn't the trillions we have spent since then demand a high level of confidence that the assumptions behind our spending are valid?"

Nobody cares. We re-elected Bush to a second term, and we elected Obama who has continued his wars & policies without pause. Guess what? We will re-elect him too.

 
At 05 October, 2012 13:42, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 05 October, 2012 14:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

How do you know you know? The stuff in the 9/11 Commission report was based on CIA transcripts of testimony extracted under torture.

How do you know the torture victims were telling the truth? How do you know the CIA transcripts were honest (or competent)?

If nobody cares then this once-great country is declining to become a nation of Ians and MGFs. But a few of us are still working to try to recover some shred of legitimacy for the country.

 
At 05 October, 2012 15:32, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, for you to claim derp derp derp derp derp...

For you to equate the pixels in the simulation with the structure in the building is... I dunno. Some form of autism I guess.

a high level of confidence

A reasonable level of confidence is sufficient.

 
At 05 October, 2012 15:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, I don't think you've even viewed the simulations. This is not a matter of a few misplaced pixels.
The sims show the building folding up like a wet paper bag.

You might as well try to handwave away the NIST report as "a few ASCII characters on some computer somewhere".

Your unreasonable desperation is showing.

 
At 05 October, 2012 18:38, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 05 October, 2012 19:13, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Brian "Poster child for Dunning-Kruger effect" Good babbles, "...The sims show the building folding up like a wet paper bag."

Irrelevant.

The videos of the collapse show the building's façade or parapet wall. The videos tell us nothing about what happened to the building's structural steel.

The simulations, on the other hand, are a representation of the building's structural steel, not the façade or parapet wall.

Since the building's parapet wall obscures the observers' view of the structural steel, a complex computer simulation was necessary to determine the most likely cause of the building's collapse. Thus, all your babbling about "folding up like a wet paper bag" is meaningless because the parapet wall wouldn't necessarily follow the structural steels' path as the building collapsed.

As usual, your argument is premised on a logical fallacy. You're comparing apples-to-oranges.

See? You're not to be trusted, or taken seriously.

Tell us more about Boyle's Law, the Ideal Gas Law and ΔT, charlatan.

**********

The Brian Good Insane Homeless Mullet for balding, over-the-hill sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 06 October, 2012 00:55, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 06 October, 2012 00:58, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Brian "Poster child for Dunning-Kruger effect" Good lies, "...You might as well try to handwave [SIC] away the NIST report as 'a few ASCII characters on some computer somewhere'."

Now that's precious! After all, it's not as though the 9/11 troof movement would ever "handwave [SIC] away the NIST report as 'a few ASCII characters on some computer somewhere'." Right, hypocrite?

It's a wonder that you don't choke on your hypocrisy--you malevolent douche-bag.

**********

The Brian Good Insane Homeless Mullet for balding, over-the-hill sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 06 October, 2012 10:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, if you would give even cursory thought to the issues you would not post such nonsense.

 
At 06 October, 2012 19:24, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"How do you know you know? The stuff in the 9/11 Commission report was based on CIA transcripts of testimony extracted under torture."

Boohoo.

"How do you know the torture victims were telling the truth? How do you know the CIA transcripts were honest (or competent)?"

Because the information was independently verified. Ironically when the FBI went back over the information they already had they were able to corraberate much of the information even before we tortured anybody. The rest was quickly run down.

Pretty standard stuff.

 
At 07 October, 2012 10:02, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, if you weren't an ideologically-bound idiot you would know that testimony extracted under torture is excluded from legal proceedings not out of bleeding-heart considerations but because it is unreliable.

Your claims that the torture testimony was "corraberated" is baseless and no doubt completely without substance.

 
At 07 October, 2012 13:59, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"MGF, if you weren't an ideologically-bound idiot you would know that testimony extracted under torture is excluded from legal proceedings..."

There have been no legal proceedings. The 9/11 Commission was not a court of law, and carried no legal weight.

"Your claims that the torture testimony was "corraberated" is baseless and no doubt completely without substance."

You're the guy running around spouting about how much the CIA & FBI knew before the attacks.

So you just called yourself a liar. No wonder you failed out of San Jose State...or were you asked to leave prior to academic suspension?

 
At 07 October, 2012 18:21, Blogger snug.bug said...

I didn't say the proceedings were legal. I said testimony extracted under torture is unreliable, and that legal proceedings have recognized this fact for a long time.

Where do you get your information about my alleged career at San Jose State?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home