Wednesday, November 08, 2006

Screw Loose Change in the Sunday Times (of London!)

Thanks to the unbylined Webwise writer. It's mostly a discussion of how the web helps spread the conspiracy theories, but he does give us a nice plug:

Even so, debunkers love setting the record straight. For every Loose Change, there is a blog such as www.screwloosechange.blogspot.com, mercilessly skewering the 9/11 conspiracists.

52 Comments:

At 08 November, 2006 19:53, Blogger Unknown said...

Well done guys!

 
At 09 November, 2006 01:29, Blogger Jay said...

Nice :)

And to go oftopic.

The FBI has been granted an extension for the release of the 9/11 Doubletree Videotape. The tape is to be produced to Judicial Watch by December 14, 2006 and will be released to the public.

Judicial Watch has already obtained and released two other videotapes related to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Click here to view the footage .


http://www.judicialwatch.org/6030.shtml

Guess the truthers have to wait another month for the pentagon video to come out :)

 
At 09 November, 2006 03:34, Blogger Buddy Jesus said...

I concur with the doc, I must say I'm impressed that you have the time to put such an overwhelming effort to disprove all the nutty theories that circulate the web. This helps to get the true facts out in the open.

Thank you.

 
At 09 November, 2006 04:57, Blogger Unknown said...

I've brought up a few good points in my blog also. I am covering similar issues to the Screw Loose Change team.

If you are insterested.

http://thedoc911.blogspot.com

Leave some comments if you wish :)

Congrats again guys :)

 
At 09 November, 2006 06:55, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

Yeah really, I mean I'm still waiting for these debunker guys to post a link to a scientific or acadmic rebuttal to Dr. Jones's paper. They can't seem to find one for some reason.

 
At 09 November, 2006 07:10, Blogger Alex said...

Not only that, but they haven't even TRIED to answer my Gremlin Demolition Theory! It's like they're cowards or something.

 
At 09 November, 2006 07:12, Blogger Jay said...

SD, as soon as Jones comes out with a really Peer Reviewed paper, someone will be glad to look it over and do a rebuttal. As long as it isnt peer reviewed, theres no need to do a rebuttal, now is there.

 
At 09 November, 2006 07:44, Blogger Pat said...

The Doc, I've got a post ready to go in an hour or two to introduce you to our readers, and have added you to the "Other Debunkers" section of the blogroll. Thanks for joining us in this fight!

 
At 09 November, 2006 07:51, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

Jay, it has been peer reviewed. Did you read the paper? I thought you guys said you had read the paper??
Again, you make excuses for not accepting the hypothesis. Get a rebuttal and then we can debate the dam thing, until then you have to accept the hypothesis and its further testing. Read the PURPOSE of the paper: 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.

The paper has undergone significant modifications following an additional set of peer reviews organized by Journal of 9/11 Studies Editor Kevin Ryan.
An earlier version is now published in a volume edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott, 9/11 And The American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, Northhampton, MA: Interlink Publishing, 2006. It is published here by kind permission of the editors. One of the editors (Prof. Griffin) has explained that there were four reviewers for my paper, all Ph.D’s, two were physicists.

 
At 09 November, 2006 07:52, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

someone will be glad to look it over and do a rebuttal.

Perhaps it is the NIST that is testing the hypothesis at least in regards to WTC 7.

 
At 09 November, 2006 07:59, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

As long as it isnt peer reviewed, theres no need to do a rebuttal, now is there.

No scientific rebutal should equate to no crtique of the hypothesis or the Dr.,which means this site and its posters shouldn't even bring it up, correct?

Just avoid it and maybe it will go away. Come on how hard would it be for this community to find a academic rebuttal to THE HYPOTHESIS!
OR IS THERE ONE OUT THERE?

Sure we can all state our biased opinions but that doesn't prove or disprove the hypothesis.

THE FACT REMAINS it still exists as a testable hypothesis and should be tested. It was the scene of a mass murder.

 
At 09 November, 2006 08:14, Blogger Alex said...

Dr Jones just published a New SCIENTIFIC paper. It'll be going through peer review through the next few months. And until you guys find a SCIENTIFIC REBUTTAL, you'll just have to accept it, now won't you? As Swingypooh said, get a rebuttal and then we can debate the dam thing, until then you have to accept the hypothesis and its further testing.

 
At 09 November, 2006 08:15, Blogger Jay said...

SD can u tell me who where the Peers that reviewed his paper?

 
At 09 November, 2006 08:18, Blogger Jay said...

Here is what thay have to say about jones ay BYU, where he used to work

The BYU physics department has also issued a statement: "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones' hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones' department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." The College of Engineering and Technology department has also added, "The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."

http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm

 
At 09 November, 2006 08:33, Blogger Elmondohummus said...

Swing, no geologists have produced papers rebutting flat earthers, and no archaeologists or anthropologists have produced studies rebutting Von Daniken. The reason is that flat earthers can submit their studies to accepted, relevant academic journals and get it truly reviewed and published, yet they refuse to. Same with Von Daniken; he can submit his theories and "studies" regarding the evidence he claims to have found proving alien assistance in building ancient structures (the South American pyramids, etc.). He does not.

You keep on looking for the majority view to come out and speak up against Stephen Jones, and that's not the way academia works. Dr. Jones - himself a physicist - damn well knows that for proper acceptance, he should submit his papers to relevant engineering journals, and yet he does not. And it's not like such journals don't exist; I mentioned two dealing specifically with structural failures - yes, whole journals - in an earlier post a few months ago. He's yet to submit anything to them.

It's not for engineers to answer him in the 9/11 Scholars forum. It's for Dr. Jones to take his work to engineering publications and defend them there. That's how academic research works, that's how it's worked for years.

Why doesn't he do so?

And as far as peer review goes: He has not submitted his papers to accepted academic journals. Please don't mistake the mere going-through-motions that the 9/11 Scholars group does. Honest peer review involves credentialed experts who've demonstrated relevant knowledge in existing and accepted fields, such as structural engineering. No accepted, established academic journal has even received his paper for consideration, let alone had a chance to peruse it with their review board.

So why do you keep defending his work as scientific? He keeps avoiding the currently accepted processes for publishing academic papers, which is doubly telling for him, given his long association with BYU. He knows what the proper method is for disseminating research, yet he avoids them. Doesn't that tell you anything?

 
At 09 November, 2006 08:45, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

The College of Engineering and Technology department has also added, "The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."

Does supporting the hypothesis and testing the hypothesis equate to the same thing?


I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.
This critique of the paper misrepresents Jones position. Jones doesn't say planted explosives brought down the building alone, he states in additon to fires and damage that charges were also used. It is not a this OR that, it is a this and that.


Thanks Jay, I'm finally getting somewhere with this.

 
At 09 November, 2006 08:49, Blogger Jay said...

If they don't support it, its because they know its faulty. Remember, they are professors in the same field as Jones. So u don't think its strange that professors who are in the same field, question his papers?
Come on dude, you know why Jones hasn't gotten his papers peer reviewed, because he knows its not correct.

 
At 09 November, 2006 08:50, Blogger Alex said...

That's exactly why Gremlin Demolition makes so much sense! It's not "this OR that", it's this AND that. The gremlins planted the gravitational lasers that brought down the towers! Isn't anyone going to refute the SCIENTIFIC Paper?

 
At 09 November, 2006 08:58, Blogger Alex said...

Actually, if I were to stop acting like Swing Dangler for a second, I'd say that the "this AND that" argument just makes the whole thing even more ridiculous. There would have been no way to predict the exact area or extent of the impact and fire damage, so anyone wanting to plant charges could not have depended on being able to simply finish the job on an already weakened section of the building. For that reason he (or she, it is the 90's after all...) would have had to plant enough charges to bring down the building even if it were totally undamaged. So, no, it's not a "this AND that kind of thing". It was either a demolition or it wasn't.

 
At 09 November, 2006 09:02, Blogger James B. said...

The paper has undergone significant modifications following an additional set of peer reviews organized by Journal of 9/11 Studies Editor Kevin Ryan.


First of all, Kevin Ryan, who doesn't even have a masters, much less a PhD, is not qualified to conduct this. Secondly, the Journal was started by Jones himself, and Ryan was appointed to this position by Jones. Thirdly, Ryan himself is a contributor to the paper.

This is like me giving a post to Pat, having him proofread it and then declaring that it has been "peer reviewed".

 
At 09 November, 2006 09:03, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

A few department chairmen at Jones' university have issued critical statements, though none of these has yet addressed any of the points which Jones made in his paper and at his presentation at BYU. Chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Dr. Miller, is on record stating in an e-mail, "I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims".

I see lots of thoughts and opinions but I have yet to see the hypothesis tested and proven to be false. I would like to see the hypothesis tested and found to be false before coming to a final conclusion on the validity of the hypothesis.

Elmondo, excellent points that I can't answer. I don't know why he doesn't submit it to a professional journal. Perhaps refining it? I don't know. However, I do support the hypothesis based upon the evidence that it should be tested and proven right or wrong. Isn't that what the NIST is going to do with WTC 7?

 
At 09 November, 2006 09:03, Blogger James B. said...

The paper has undergone significant modifications following an additional set of peer reviews organized by Journal of 9/11 Studies Editor Kevin Ryan.


First of all, Kevin Ryan, who doesn't even have a masters, much less a PhD, is not qualified to conduct this. Secondly, the Journal was started by Jones himself, and Ryan was appointed to this position by Jones. Thirdly, Ryan himself is a contributor to the paper.

This is like me giving a post to Pat, having him proofread it and then declaring that it has been "peer reviewed".

 
At 09 November, 2006 09:09, Blogger Jay said...

Kevin Ryan former Site Manager for Environmental Health Laboratories in South Bend, Indiana, a subsidiary of Underwriters Labs(UL) responsible for water testing. He was fired after writing a letter to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the government agency investigating the collapse of the World Trade Center, claiming that, among other things, UL had certified the steel used in the Twin Towers to survive temperatures far hotter than those that were actually reached on 9/11. However, Underwriter Labs never certified the steel used in World Trade Center. Both UL and NIST completely reject Ryan's allegations. [21]

 
At 09 November, 2006 09:14, Blogger Alex said...

Hey, look at that, a proven liar "peer reviewing" a "scientific paper". Man, with credentials like those, he's GOT to be reliable.

In other news, my 12 year old kid sister has just finished Peer Reviewing the Gremlin Demolition Theory SCIENTIFIC Paper. She said she found it, and I quote, "accurate, amusing, and quite thought provoking". It's gaining legitimacy fast! You better hop on board Swinger, you don't wanna get left behind

 
At 09 November, 2006 09:24, Blogger James B. said...

Alex, as a master's candidate at the University of Washington, I hereby annoint your paper "peer reviewed" with my awe inspiring academic credentials. I passed it on to several of my friends with extensive experience in gremlinology, and the response was impressive to say the least. Go forth in the knowledge of your scholastic achievement.

 
At 09 November, 2006 09:33, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

...of peer reviews organized by Journal of 9/11 Studies Editor Kevin Ryan.

Again James you misrepresent the statement. The peer review was organized by Kevin Ryan. He doesn't state it was reviewed by him, although it probably was. Notice the term ORGANIZED! Man you do the same thing CT do to support their side.

 
At 09 November, 2006 09:39, Blogger Alex said...

And James didn't review my paper, he just "organized" the review, by passing it on to "friends with extensive experience in gremlinology". Conveniently enough, his friends chose to remain anonymous.

 
At 09 November, 2006 09:41, Blogger James B. said...

Yes, it was organized by him, so the entire credibility of the paper relies on Kevin Ryan. How much faith should I put in someone who was fired from his job for lying about his employer? Jones appointed him to the position, how critical is he going to be of his own boss? How do we know he actually gave the paper to legitimate experts? How do we know that he gave it to anyone at all? Are we supposed to just rely on the considerable academic reputation of Kevin Ryan?

Just exactly how rigorous is he going to be picking experts to peer review a paper that he himself contributed to? Read the peer review comments for the Morgan Reynolds paper. The "reviewers" are also conspiracy theorists. They are only picking people who already agree with their viewpoint!

 
At 09 November, 2006 09:41, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

Alex, aren't you late for you UFO visit? Seriously!

 
At 09 November, 2006 09:45, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

Yes, it was organized by him, so the entire credibility of the paper relies on Kevin Ryan

Actually the credibility relies upon those who reviewed it.
I do agree we should be informed as who did review the paper.

 
At 09 November, 2006 09:51, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

Again James you lie to your readers.

Kevin Ryan did not contribute to the paper himself. His work was quoted by Dr. Jones which itself is not a contribution.
Stop the lying!

 
At 09 November, 2006 09:52, Blogger Alex said...

Except that it's common practice for reviewers to remain anonymous, as long as the paper has an established reputation. In most cases there's absolutely no problem with reviewers remaining anonymous because you can trust the editors to only publish reviews by reputable experts with relevant expertise. Unfortunately that's not the case with the 9/11 "scholars".

 
At 09 November, 2006 09:53, Blogger James B. said...

Actually the credibility relies upon those who reviewed it.
I do agree we should be informed as who did review the paper.


And since he is the person who selected who would review it, and is the only one who knows who it is, the credibility of the review relies entirely on him.

It is actually the norm for papers to be reviewed anonymously, so the reviewers can be completely honest about it. For this reason then, the credibility of the paper lies entirely on the legitimacy of the journal conducting the review. The worth of the paper lies in the established credibility of being reviewed by neutral experts in appropriate fields.

Submitting a paper to a journal which you yourself founded and run, and which is reviewed only by people who already hold a religious belief in your cause, is worse than simply lacking credibility, it is a joke!

 
At 09 November, 2006 10:04, Blogger Alex said...

If Kevin Ryan can be trusted to run a paper on 9/11 denial, there's no reason why the KKK couldn't run a paper on Holocaust revisionism.

 
At 09 November, 2006 10:07, Blogger James B. said...

He gets an entire section titled after him, based on his argument! How objective can you be organizing a review for a paper which is largely based on your own argument?

Analysis by Whistleblower Ryan

Kevin Ryan, the whistleblower from Underwriters Laboratories, did his own brief statistical analysis in a recent letter regarding the NIST report, arguing that probabilities of collapse-initiation needed to be calculated (Ryan, 2005). NIST nowhere provides such a likelihood analysis for their non-explosive collapse model. Ryan’s estimate is that the probability that fires and damage (the “official theory”) could cause the Towers complete collapse is less than one in a trillion, and the probability is much less still when the complete collapse of WTC7 is included:

 
At 09 November, 2006 10:20, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

Ahh yes a child-like UFO (is that where the gremlins come from?) believer and a proven liar questioning statistics in a paper. Credibility seems to be the one item you two shouldn't be arguing.

I will agree with you James that he should submit the paper to other journals and be peer reviewed by others in the industry. However, the hypothesis itself should still be tested as well. Until the hypothesis is tested and proven wrong or right there is nothing to argue. The evidence itself points to the testing of the hypothesis.
And besides if you do argue that, then you must be arguing against your own side: The NIST.

 
At 09 November, 2006 10:21, Blogger Triterope said...

This is ridiculous.

Swing Dangler, if you're really interested in a rebuttal to Steven Jones, you could spend two seconds doing a Google search and find dozens of them.

I could point you to the summary of the NIST study, in which they explain that there was no evidence for any of this crap.

You could also read the Implosion World article, which says, in part:

Professor Jones acknowledges that his investigation is still in the research phase, and that questions regarding the viability of his theory remain unanswered.

In addition to all the other well-known flaws in Steven Jones' work, we can add "it's not even finished yet" to the list. Never mind that the paper goes on to say that it found no evidence of any of these claims anyway.

If you're going to continue to assert that no one has addressed Steven Jones' work, then you're just being an asshole.

 
At 09 November, 2006 10:34, Blogger Alex said...

I'm sorry, where's the UFO believer bit coming from? So far you're the only one who's admitted in believing in Bigfoot and the like. Maybe you'd like to quote your source on this one? Judging by your past performance, I won't hold my breath.

However, the hypothesis itself should still be tested as well.

And whose job is it to do that you idiot? Do you think Einstein published a paper saying "I THINK this is the way to build a nuclear bomb, but you guys can do the actual testing"? If you're going to write a paper on something, it should go without saying that you've already done the research, and whatever tests you're capable of conducting. You don't just spew bullshit on a page, claim it's "scientific", and then demand that others do the work for you.

 
At 09 November, 2006 11:01, Blogger Elmondohummus said...

"The paper has undergone significant modifications following an additional set of peer reviews organized by Journal of 9/11 Studies Editor Kevin Ryan.
An earlier version is now published in a volume edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott, 9/11 And The American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, Northhampton, MA: Interlink Publishing, 2006. It is published here by kind permission of the editors. One of the editors (Prof. Griffin) has explained that there were four reviewers for my paper, all Ph.D’s, two were physicists."


"SD can u tell me who where the Peers that reviewed his paper?"

"Kevin Ryan former Site Manager for Environmental Health Laboratories in South Bend, Indiana, a subsidiary of Underwriters Labs(UL) responsible for water testing. He was fired after writing a letter to the National Institute of Standards and Technology..."

"Again James you misrepresent the statement. The peer review was organized by Kevin Ryan. He doesn't state it was reviewed by him, although it probably was. Notice the term ORGANIZED! Man you do the same thing CT do to support their side."

People, we're missing the point here! It doesn't matter who Kevin Ryan is, or what he's done regarding Jones's paper, the point is that the Journal of 9/11 Studies isn't an accepted engineering publication. Ones like the Engineering News Record or The Structural Engineer are. Whatever claims Jones makes regarding the aspects of the WTC collapse which are properly addressed by engineers are not validated by peer review in the Journal of 9/11 Studies, anymore than an anthropology study would be validated by review in the American Chemistry Society's "Analytical Chemistry".

It doesn't matter who Kevin Ryan is, nor does it matter who he gets. The journal itself is not an accepted one regarding engineering claims. Whatever Jones says about the factors in the collapse, the reasons behind the structural failures, the findings of phosphate, the hypothesis of thermite/thermate cannot be properly evaluated by this journal, regardless of who the members are. Any other aspects, such as politics, sociology, whatever, may properly fall under the expertise of this publication's review board (yes, everyone, I'm fully aware of the academic standing of this journal and it's members. I'm making allowances here for the sake of argument), but engineering claims do not. Neither do chemical or physical ones. This is not an established, accepted engineering, chemical, or physics journal!

If Jones is willing to submit to ENR or The Structural Engineer, then I'll consider the actual engineering claims reviewed. Ditto for any chemical or physical claims. But until that point, those specific aspects of his paper have not been properly reviewed. Not in the slightest.

 
At 09 November, 2006 11:10, Blogger pomeroo said...

Is Swing Dangler asking us to believe that Jones's nonsense has been "peer-reviewed" because a) he really believes that such a preposterous statement could be true, or because b) he knows better and imagines he can pull the wool over everyone's eyes.

What "peers" gave a stamp of approval to the work of a crackpot who believes that Jesus Christ visited the Americas? Is SD unaware of the existence of a paper by Dr. Frank Greening that asks Jones to perform certain tests that would determine definitively whether or not Jones is on to something? Is anyone here surprised that Jones refuses to perform those tests?

 
At 09 November, 2006 11:18, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

Trite
The NIST is investigating blast scenarios. What I'm looking for is for the hypothesis to be proven wrong or right. The rebuttal I'm looking for is a point by point rebuttal by the scientific community. Dr.Jones is a scholar. I want a point by point rebuttal from another scholar, engineer, physics community, etc. I don't want to read blanket statements. Hell anyone can read it and provide their own opinion.

Trite, I'm not being an asshole. In fact your the only one I've come across that can actually discuss issues in a factual/civil manner without resorting to numerous fallacies to support your position, unlike the other blokes that post on here, including our host.

Alex From you bub, a taste of your own medicine so to speak. Now you take on the role of liar and claim I believe in Bigfoot? Did he come out of the saucer? Idiot? have you ever read your posts?? LOL! Do us a favor and get back to the mothership saucer boy! I mean why are you posting here anyway when you believe in the likes of rense.com and X-files crap? The way the CT crowd works your about 1 step away from wearing a tin foil hat.

James I thought you were one of the decent ones as well albeit with the over the top sarcasm crap, but the more I read your posts the more I realize, you use the same tactics as CTers do! Ommission of facts, misrepresentative statments, outright lies, items taken out of context, ungodly number of fallacies, etc the list goes on. I guess you can beat them at your own game. I've also examined your work at the 9/11 Debunking site and you use numerous fallacies there as well, including the sarcastic 'peer review' you have of your own work. Doesn't your arguement apply to your own work as well? How many academics, professors, engineers,etc have reviewed your work by the way? By the way, who is the author of Debunking 9/11 anyway?

Oh well we can debate all we want until the NIST report comes out. Perhaps Jones will indeed submit his paper, or a professional will come out of the OS closet and offer that point by point rebuttal that should shut everyone up. Only time will tell.

P.S. Hey Alex did you see that bright light on video tape? It must be a UFO!

 
At 09 November, 2006 11:33, Blogger James B. said...

One of the editors (Prof. Griffin) has explained that there were four reviewers for my paper, all Ph.D’s, two were physicists."


I can pretty much guarantee who those physicists were selected from:

Derrick P. Grimmer (FM) Physics, Alternative energy

Bill Hammel (FM) Ph.D. Physics at U. Wisconsin, Milwaukee (ret.)

Greg Jenkins (FM)Ph. D., Physics

You don't seriously think they would select someone who didn't already agree with their theories, do you?

 
At 09 November, 2006 11:34, Blogger James B. said...

Ommission of facts, misrepresentative statments, outright lies, items taken out of context, ungodly number of fallacies, etc the list goes on.

I have challenged CT commentors here several times to specifically point out where we are lying or deceiving people, I once even offered to give them their own post. I have yet to be taken up on the offer.

 
At 09 November, 2006 11:40, Blogger Triterope said...

Dr. Jones is a scholar.

Yes, he is.

And as a scholar, he knows very well what the process is for submitting his research to be reviewed by the scientific community.

To date, he has chosen not to participate in this process.

Until he does, the world does not owe him, or you, an answer.

That is all I have to say on this subject.

 
At 09 November, 2006 11:41, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

From an earlier post:

James, why do you consistently misstate what Jones says to make your case:

He takes pictures of firefighters searching for survivors with flashlights and claims they are looking into the hot glowing core of melted iron.

Read the quote again: Workers evidently peering into the hot “core” under the WTC rubble. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1858491.stm

I am further checking whether these photos show the glow of molten metal, or of a bright light inserted into the hole. In any case, there is recorded eyewitness testimony of the molten metal pools under both Towers and WTC 7; see: http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-was-there-molten-metal-under.html.

He takes pictures of steel beams cut by ironworkers during clean up and claims it was done by thermite.
It is not a claim it is a hypothesis. The date of said pictures is unknown. There is no evidence of said picture that it was taken during clean up or cut as a result of clean up activities. Which means both interpetations could be correct. From the Dr. Jones's paper:
Above: two men install a conventional cutter charge to steel column, preparing for a controlled demolition of the building. Notice the narrow width/size of the explosive cutter charge. From History Channel: “Wrecking ball – Modern marvels” and thanks to Robert Moore and http://piratenews.org/911con.html . For comparison, observe one of the angle-cut columns seen at Ground Zero after 9/11/2001, below. (Notice especially the uneven cut at the back of the column and the clinging previously-molten metal on both the outside AND the inside of the column, suggesting this was NOT cut using an oxy-acetylene torch, but rather that a highly exothermic chemical reaction was involved in cutting through this steel column.)


He takes pictures of concrete and miscellaneous debris compressed during the collapse, and claims it is molten steel.
The actual quote- The following photograph has become available, evidently showing the now-solidified metal with entrained material, stored (as of November 2005) in a warehouse in New York:
After viewing the picture it is hard to tell what exactly the big 'chunk' is.
James you forgot to mention that Jones calls for further testing of the item.


In each case Dr. Jones quantifies his statement by the term evidently, which leaves open the door for further testing or a change in what is actually perceived. He does not state that the item is unconditional ly what is perceieved to be. He doesn't state it as fact. Again, the OSers change the meaning of statements to fit their agenda.

I encourage anyone reading this post or site to read the documents that people keep trashing, don't take their word or anyones word for what they say unless you read the document itself.

James, stop lying to support your position. And if your going to crticique Dr. Jones, do so factually using his words not ones you make up.

 
At 09 November, 2006 11:42, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

Until he does, the world does not owe him, or you, an answer.

Isn't that the point of this Blog? To prove the hypothesis wrong?

 
At 09 November, 2006 12:16, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Stephen Jones paper is a farce, which I have read. It is light on science, and heavy on speculation and conjecture.

Swing, to say his article is peer reviewed is rediculous. A PROPERLY peer reviewed article is reviewed by a panel of PEERS who are without agenda, and are chosen by an editor who also, has no agenda.

If I submitted an article on "The earth is flat" to Science Magazine, do you think they would choose 4-5 other flat earth believers to review the article? Come on man. Why do you think Jones has not published the article in any other science magazine?

really are you that blind, I know it isnt stupidity, so it must be ignorance.

TAM

 
At 09 November, 2006 12:30, Blogger Triterope said...

Isn't that the point of this Blog? To prove the hypothesis wrong?

Gee, I thought you wanted a scientific answer, not "I don't want to read blanket statements. Hell anyone can read it and provide their own opinion."

You're going round in circles like a hyperactive kitten with a Christmas bow stuck to its tail.

 
At 09 November, 2006 13:53, Blogger CHF said...

According to Swing's logic, if I write a paper on engineering and get my buddy to review it, that means I've had my paper "peer reviewed."

What a joke.

 
At 09 November, 2006 14:14, Blogger James B. said...

I am further checking whether these photos show the glow of molten metal, or of a bright light inserted into the hole.

You are being disingenous if you think that this picture shows anything other than workers using a light to search for victims.

I know for a fact that Jones has been made aware of this, why doesn't he issue a correction?

After viewing the picture it is hard to tell what exactly the big 'chunk' is.



You guys are incredible, you argue that there is no way that a passport or other documents could survive a plane crash, yet we are to believe that paper (ignition point 451f) is able to become safely embedded in molton steel (which we are constantly reminded doesn't melt until 2800f)

James you forgot to mention that Jones calls for further testing of the item.

Why do we need testing? The photo is on the Internet, it is obvious it is not molten steel. Does Dr. Jones not have Internet access? Why does all this need to be pointed out by debunkers, why don't his "reviewers" look this stuff up?

It is not a claim it is a hypothesis. The date of said pictures is unknown. There is no evidence of said picture that it was taken during clean up or cut as a result of clean up activities. Which means both interpetations could be correct.

That is idiotic. Simply calling a stupid claim a "hypothesis" does not make it any stupider.

I hypothesize that Alex Jones is Steven Jones illegitimate love child. There, disprove my hypothesis.

Hmm, let's see which "hypothesis" is more likely, it was cut by the ironworkers during the cleanup, of which there are numerous photos and videos showing them making cuts exactly like that. Or, alternatively, it was cut using super secret nano-thermite technology, which nobody has ever used before in this manner, and even you admit Jones has not even attempted to reproduce.

Hmm, which hypothesis is more scientifically valid?

From the Dr. Jones's paper:
Above: two men install a conventional cutter charge to steel column, preparing for a controlled demolition of the building. Notice the narrow width/size of the explosive cutter charge.


But they weren't using "thermite"! They were using conventional explosives, which would most definitely not produce a cut like that of an acetelyne torch that he is trying to compare it to. How exactly does the the use of a type of demolition different than what he is arguing support his "hypothesis".

This is the type of intellectual dishonesty by Jones that I am talking about.

 
At 09 November, 2006 17:00, Blogger Alex said...

I want a point by point rebuttal from another scholar, engineer, physics community, etc.

Fine, get that fool to submit his "paper" to the relevant journals, and then watch him get his ass handed to him on a platter. Until he does that though, you won't see any such rebuttal. That's not the way the world works.

Trite, I'm not being an asshole.

Well, there's only two options:

1) You're being an asshole and arguing things which you KNOW are wrong.
or
2) You're so immensely retarded that you need to have even the most basic aspects of scientific research explained to you, and then re-explained 50 more times.

Take your pick.

Alex From you bub, a taste of your own medicine so to speak. Now you take on the role of liar and claim I believe in Bigfoot?

You said as much, or at least alluded to it. Whereas I never once mentioned UFO's other than to ask you where you got that idea about me.

Idiot?

I'm pretty sure that, coming from you, that's a compliment. You know how most insane people think that they're perfectly sane, and everyone else is nuts? Yeah, kinda like that.

James ... you use the same tactics as CTers do! Ommission of facts, misrepresentative statments, outright lies, items taken out of context, ungodly number of fallacies, etc the list goes on.

Let's see....James had the NERVE to claim that "Dr" Jones had published a photo fraudulently claiming that the firefighters in it were looking at the "molten core", when in fact, "Dr" Jones prefaced that statement with the word "apparently". Gee wiz. What a horrible misrepresentation. Accurately describing someones intent, but their actual statement is a horrible, HORRIBLE crime. EXACTLY the same as, say, claiming that someone suggested that one of the hijackers couldn't have flown the airplane, when in fact that person said the exact opposite. Yep, James is just as bad as Da Twoofas.

It's called perspective, doofus. Get some.

Oh well we can debate all we want until the NIST report comes out.

And you doubtless will after as well. Probably until you die. I guess everyone needs a hobby.

P.S. Hey Alex did you see that bright light on video tape? It must be a UFO!

No, buddy, there's never been any conclusive evidence for UFO's. Or bigfoot. But for someone like you, I guess there doesn't need to be, eh? All I need to do is create a "Paper That Proves the Existence of Bigfoot and UFO's", get James to be the editor, publish a paper, and you'll be all over that. I can just hear you now: "You HAVE to believe it until it's scientifically disproved!"

If anyone ever offers you cash for your frontal lobe, take it. You're not getting any use out of it, might as well let someone else give it a shot.

 
At 13 November, 2006 12:19, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

You guys are incredible, you argue that there is no way that a passport or other documents could survive a plane crash, yet we are to believe that paper (ignition point 451f) is able to become safely embedded in molton steel (which we are constantly reminded doesn't melt until 2800f)

Again you use a different picture to support your claim in opposition to the picture that Jone's use. Dishonest. Use the same picture Jone's used and I have yet to see any paper in the chunk of metal. Lets not forget the other pics, testimony, and video of molten metal as well!

Why do we need testing? The photo is on the Internet, it is obvious it is not molten steel. Why not test? What can it prove? You are wrong and Jones is right or vice versa. Do you think if it were 'obvious' it would be used in this Doctor's paper? Just because you don't agree with his hypothesis, doesn't mean he is stupid.

But they weren't using "thermite"! They were using conventional explosives, which would most definitely not produce a cut like that of an acetelyne torch that he is trying to compare it to.

Again you take the one example and try to apply it to the whole hypothesis in order to discredit said theory, yet another dam fallacy/lie. The hypothesis is CD due to cutter charges where thermite is just one example of said charge based upon the avaliable evidence and scientific testing. If you truly read this paper, James, you would quite making such fallacious claims.

Again, the hypothesis is in addition to fire and plane damage, CD due to cutter charges. Quit twisting the words of Dr. Jones in order to discredit him. It is dishonest and openly supports the claim of misinformation and lies come from this blog.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home