|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 09:54:29 [Permalink]
|
The place where I smell the coverup is in the faulty contruction of the towers and WTC7.
Obviously the contruction-workers cheated in their work by using sub-standard steel and concrete in order to save a few bucks. How many times doesn't this happen all around the country, every day?
Isn't making a few extra bucks on the side a part of the American Dream(tm)?
Edited: spelling |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 05/15/2007 13:59:50 |
 |
|
|
j911ob
Skeptic Friend
223 Posts |
 Posted - 05/15/2007 : 10:25:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Used flawed data and of course you'll have a flawed result. His discussion of WTC 7 is wrong, since he suggests that the collapse happened in >7 seconds, even though other data I've seen suggest a much longer period.
Also, the initial 5+ pages of self horn-tooting was a little masturbatory, no?
|
So thats your debunking? No mention of the spherules or thermite signature? |
"Any pressurized can exposed to heat will explode like a grenade. Even a sealed bag of potato chips, if not melted by direct flame, can 'pop' with quite a report." - Kookbreaker at JREF, responding to reports of explosions in the towers. |
|
|
|
j911ob
Skeptic Friend
223 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 10:29:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
I am weeping with laughter. Five pages of "please believe me because I've gotten something right in a completely different discipline, I'll get the 9/11 stuff right given enough time, honest," followed by six pages on WTC 7 in which not only does he repeat the lie that WTC 7 "collapsed onto its own footprint," but begins with a discussion of momentum calculations which he never performs. Instead, he rambles on about "other possibilities" and expresses (with an exclamation point!) his own incredulity at the possibility it fell on its own.
Was this supposed to be peer-reviewed? I can't find any information on the process for that journal, of which Jones is one of two editors. I think it's pretty obvious what's happened here, and to call it "peer review" would be a joke.
|
Im sure the esteemed physics professor is quaking as he reads your "debunking".
Hey if you have problems with Jones' work, he is very amenable to criticisms and questions.
Why not email him and let him know how you feel. Im sure when he stops laughing he will reply. |
"Any pressurized can exposed to heat will explode like a grenade. Even a sealed bag of potato chips, if not melted by direct flame, can 'pop' with quite a report." - Kookbreaker at JREF, responding to reports of explosions in the towers. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 10:44:47 [Permalink]
|
| Im sure the esteemed physics professor |
You have yet to present any work by any scientist who can actually be considered "esteemed" by his peers.
Jones is a fraud, and after reading that paper's first few pages, a delusional fraud at that.
He was FIRED from his professorship for his ridiculous and paranoid delusion that 9/11 was an inside job AND the fact that he stepped well outside his area of expertise to offer an amature opinion, while using his academic credentials and reference to bolster his claims.
That paper was good for a laugh though.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 11:10:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by j911ob
Im sure the esteemed physics professor is quaking as he reads your "debunking". |
What debunking? That he repeats old lies, doesn't follow through on his own line of thinking and can't help but praise himself isn't evidence that his main conclusion is wrong. He just can't seem to demonstrate that he's correct.Hey if you have problems with Jones' work, he is very amenable to criticisms and questions.
Why not email him and let him know how you feel. Im sure when he stops laughing he will reply. |
I see that you have no answers to my criticisms. Jones isn't the one who brought the paper to this forum and said "read it and weep." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 11:15:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by j911ob
Originally posted by Dave W.
I am weeping with laughter. Five pages of "please believe me because I've gotten something right in a completely different discipline, I'll get the 9/11 stuff right given enough time, honest," followed by six pages on WTC 7 in which not only does he repeat the lie that WTC 7 "collapsed onto its own footprint," but begins with a discussion of momentum calculations which he never performs. Instead, he rambles on about "other possibilities" and expresses (with an exclamation point!) his own incredulity at the possibility it fell on its own.
Was this supposed to be peer-reviewed? I can't find any information on the process for that journal, of which Jones is one of two editors. I think it's pretty obvious what's happened here, and to call it "peer review" would be a joke.
|
Im sure the esteemed physics professor is quaking as he reads your "debunking".
Hey if you have problems with Jones' work, he is very amenable to criticisms and questions.
Why not email him and let him know how you feel. Im sure when he stops laughing he will reply.
|
Submitting a paper to a scientific journal that you co-edit? Well, so much for editorial review. And what scientist in his right mind would bother to review a paper that required no editorial review to be published? With a bias like that, what's the point?
Like creationists, they publish “in house”. And like creationists, their science puts the cart before the horse. They are trying to prove hypotheses that they already accept as a fact by way of making up a journal that purports to be scientific journal but would not pass for scientific journal in any respectable way. No ethical editor would publish in his own journal, even if the science is sound, because there would certainly be accusations of bias.
The Journal of 9/11 Studies even declares on its main page that “the truth will prevail”. This is nothing more than an in house screed and only those who subscribe to their conspiracy theory and know nothing about the scientific method would be impressed.
In short, Steven Jones is making a fool of himself…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 11:15:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by j911ob
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Used flawed data and of course you'll have a flawed result. His discussion of WTC 7 is wrong, since he suggests that the collapse happened in >7 seconds, even though other data I've seen suggest a much longer period.
Also, the initial 5+ pages of self horn-tooting was a little masturbatory, no?
|
So thats your debunking? No mention of the spherules or thermite signature?
|
Obviously my short post here wasn't an attempt to debunk Jones' entire paper. I read the first 7 or 8 pages-- to the part where he talked about WTC 7 collapsing in >7 seconds. I then did some checking on that figure and found it to be wildly off the mark and commented.
I have neither the time, desire, nor, in some cases, the technical understanding to go point-by-point debunking this paper. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 12:49:14 [Permalink]
|
Pages 11 through 15 delve into a discussion of the timing of the twin towers' collapse. High praise for Kuttler and Ross. But the latter used an inappropriate model to determine that collapse couldn't happen (he assumed that each floor's columns could actually transmit the shock of the collapsing floors onto them, as we've discussed on SFN to death), and the former came up with a whole lot of different numbers, using a whole boatload of different assumptions, and not just the 25-second figure that Jones attributes to him. Much of pages 14 and 15 are devoted not to presenting evidence in favor of his claim, but instead to criticizing NIST - an irrelevancy at best.
Pages 16 through 22 are an attempt to prove the use of thermite by debunking three other hypotheses and showing thermite's superficial similarity to what was seen on 9/11. Yawn.
Pages 22 through 27 are a long discussion of iron microspheres, in which Jones presents his favored conclusion, and one other ridiculous hypothesis. No other hypotheses are even mentioned, much less considered. He ends that section by sayingI will simply say in this paper that iron-aluminum rich spheres are seen in both the WTC dust and in spherules produced in thermite-control reactions. Details of the spherules and comparisons are beyond the scope of this paper but are available to me and our team of researchers, and will appear in a forthcoming paper. We consider the information borne by these previously-molten microspheres found in large numbers in the WTC dust, for they tell us much about what took place that remarkable day in history. So he doesn't actually have any evidence demonstrating the use of thermite, and he ends with a promise to get some. This is quite far from him having "the exact signature of" thermite in the dust, isn't it?
His "conclusion" is a joke, and would get him an "F" in any science class, simply because he fails to summarize his findings. If any "peer review" was done to this paper, the results were probably emails from Ryan and a couple other buddies which said nothing more than "looks good to me, Steve." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
j911ob
Skeptic Friend
223 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 12:56:04 [Permalink]
|
| How many hypotheses did NIST consider? Why did they ignore the iron spherules? |
"Any pressurized can exposed to heat will explode like a grenade. Even a sealed bag of potato chips, if not melted by direct flame, can 'pop' with quite a report." - Kookbreaker at JREF, responding to reports of explosions in the towers. |
|
|
|
j911ob
Skeptic Friend
223 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 12:58:44 [Permalink]
|
The dust does contain the exact signature of thermite. He presented the graphs at his recent lecture. That is what e will be submitting to science publications. It is irrefutable proof that thermite was used.
Sorry, you lose. |
"Any pressurized can exposed to heat will explode like a grenade. Even a sealed bag of potato chips, if not melted by direct flame, can 'pop' with quite a report." - Kookbreaker at JREF, responding to reports of explosions in the towers. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 13:14:43 [Permalink]
|
I had hoped that all the "burning jet fuel is insufficient to melt steel" objections would have been put to bed after a crashed gasoline tanker melted a bridge in California. Of course my hopes were misplaced.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
j911ob
Skeptic Friend
223 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 13:51:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
I had hoped that all the "burning jet fuel is insufficient to melt steel" objections would have been put to bed after a crashed gasoline tanker melted a bridge in California. Of course my hopes were misplaced.
|
How is that even slightly comparable to the world trade centre? |
"Any pressurized can exposed to heat will explode like a grenade. Even a sealed bag of potato chips, if not melted by direct flame, can 'pop' with quite a report." - Kookbreaker at JREF, responding to reports of explosions in the towers. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 14:12:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by j911ob
Originally posted by H. Humbert
I had hoped that all the "burning jet fuel is insufficient to melt steel" objections would have been put to bed after a crashed gasoline tanker melted a bridge in California. Of course my hopes were misplaced.
|
How is that even slightly comparable to the world trade centre?
|
Could it be that in both cases the supporting structure was steel, and in both cases it was heated by burning fuel? |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 14:21:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by j911ob
The dust does contain the exact signature of thermite. He presented the graphs at his recent lecture. That is what e will be submitting to science publications. It is irrefutable proof that thermite was used. |
Then why is he publishing his promise to go find this evidence now, if he's already got the evidence?What do I lose? Was there a competition here that I was unaware of? The one you've invented inside your own head doesn't count.
You also wrote:| How many hypotheses did NIST consider? Why did they ignore the iron spherules? |
Jones' theory has to stand independently of NIST's. Your questions are just attempt to distract away from Jones' pathetic sciencey-sounding report. You've already demonstrated that you can't defend his paper, so now you resort to attempts at similar "debunking" (your word) of other sciencey-sounding stuff.
But the fact remains: you presented us with Jones' paper and said, "read it and weep." You must have considered it to be rock-solid, but high-school students could find the problems. So, ignore them instead, wave your hands at something else, and then give us another promise that the "proof" is just around the corner.
 |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
j911ob
Skeptic Friend
223 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 15:18:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by j911ob
Originally posted by H. Humbert
I had hoped that all the "burning jet fuel is insufficient to melt steel" objections would have been put to bed after a crashed gasoline tanker melted a bridge in California. Of course my hopes were misplaced.
|
How is that even slightly comparable to the world trade centre?
|
Could it be that in both cases the supporting structure was steel, and in both cases it was heated by burning fuel?
|
How about the fact that the temperature under the bridge reached 3000 degrees but the wtc didnt reach even half that temperature. The tanker had a constant supply of gasoline whereas the kerosene in the wtc burned off quickly. There is also a huge difference between a bridge and a skyscraper. Can you really not see that you are comparing apples to oranges? |
"Any pressurized can exposed to heat will explode like a grenade. Even a sealed bag of potato chips, if not melted by direct flame, can 'pop' with quite a report." - Kookbreaker at JREF, responding to reports of explosions in the towers. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
911 conspiracies
Topic Locked
