Official story: why believe it?

[lisabob2]

Unfortunately, he was wrong, wasn't he?



This is not a dichotomy, lisa. Skilling was merely giving an opinion, and his opinion did not apply to September 11. And his analysis was wrong, as the events of September 11 plainly showed.

It's called reality. Try joining it.

simply saying he was wrong is proof of what? your expert opinion?
The planes did hit the towers and they did stand. there were fires from the jet fuel.
What did Skilling get wrong?
Oh thats right the towers fell, even though the temps from the fire were never hot enough, or long enough to weaken the steel columns, especially below impact area.

 

[Good Lt]

simply saying he was wrong is proof of what?

That he was wrong in his analysis. See "The Events of September 11, 2001" for details as to what was wrong with his analysis.

Here's a question - what does quoting this man's opinion from fifteen years ago prove? Nothing. What does it change about what happened on September 11? Nothing.

Have you proved 9-11 was an inside job? ROTFLMFAO.

Thanks!

The planes did hit the towers and they did stand. there were fires from the jet fuel.
What did Skilling get wrong?

They also collapsed shortly afterwards, and your citation of this irrelevant quote was an attempt to suggest that they should not have collapsed.

So why did you quote him? You just demonstrated 9-11 was NOT an inside job. Way to debunk yourself.

Oh thats right the towers fell, even though the temps from the fire were never hot enough, or long enough to weaken the steel columns, especially below impact area.

Actually, they were. What is it - going on seven years of repeating this lie over and over again?

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_707_impact.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/fire_engineering.html

Thanks for playing, but kiddie time is over.

Grow up.

Please cite the specific parts of this "official story" which violates the laws o physics. Don't just make an empty claim, back that claim up. This is about the 5th time you have been asked and have ignored the question based on YOUR claim.

Address this. We're waiting.

 

[lisabob2]

Address this, lisabob.

And provide citations for Jones' peer reviewed work on 9-11 published in reputable scholarly journals.

We're still waiting.

specifically the collapse times are not possible with the official theory.
Prof. Kuttler shows this in his work. Gordon Ross does too. Steven Jones a physicist writes:
rapid fall immediately raises questions. After all, in science, we must consider conservation of
momentum, a fundamental law of physics. I do like to teach physics, and conservation of momentum
is one of my favorite topics.

 

[uk_dave]

specifically the collapse times are not possible with the official theory.
Prof. Kuttler shows this in his work. Gordon Ross does too. Steven Jones a physicist writes:
rapid fall immediately raises questions. After all, in science, we must consider conservation of
momentum, a fundamental law of physics. I do like to teach physics, and conservation of momentum
is one of my favorite topics.

Steven Jones also has a favourite topic being the theory that Jesus had tea with the ancient mayans in central america. He thinks he found evidence too.

You believe him?

 

[lisabob2]

That he was wrong in his analysis. See "The Events of September 11, 2001" for details as to what was wrong with his analysis.

Here's a question - what does quoting this man's opinion from fifteen years ago prove? Nothing. What does it change about what happened on September 11? Nothing.

Have you proved 9-11 was an inside job? ROTFLMFAO.

Thanks!


They also collapsed shortly afterwards, and your citation of this irrelevant quote was an attempt to suggest that they should not have collapsed.

So why did you quote him? You just demonstrated 9-11 was NOT an inside job. Way to debunk yourself.



Actually, they were. What is it - going on seven years of repeating this lie over and over again?

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_707_impact.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/fire_engineering.html

Thanks for playing, but kiddie time is over.

Grow up.



Address this. We're waiting.

Getting info about Jones or others at journalof911studies from 911myths!! thats scientific, why not go directly to journalof911studies.com and get the exact words from the source? afraid you might actually see differences? How can you be sure that 911myths.com has got their info correct? It is easy to check out.
Greening has some papers there. They are not afraid of letting other scientist, or experts have their say at journalof911studies. Can't say that for 911myths or debunking911 can you?

 

[Good Lt]

specifically the collapse times are not possible with the official theory.
Prof. Kuttler shows this in his work. Gordon Ross does too. Steven Jones a physicist writes:
rapid fall immediately raises questions. After all, in science, we must consider conservation of
momentum, a fundamental law of physics. I do like to teach physics, and conservation of momentum
is one of my favorite topics.

That is not a citation in a scholarly journal.

I asked you for citation information.

Journal name, issue number, page numbers, dates.

Still waiting.

Steven Jones also has a favourite topic being the theory that Jesus had tea with the ancient mayans in central america. He thinks he found evidence too.

You believe him?

Well, you see, Steven Jones had a paper unrelated to the subject of 9-11 published at some point. So everything he says is unassailable and objectively true without question.

So, yes, if Jones said he has evidence of Jesus having tea with the ancient Mayans, it is true.

 

[Good Lt]

journalof911studies.com

LOL

Getting quotes from the Urinal of 9-11 Studies? A site put up to avoid having to submit papers to real journals for peer review? That's 'scientific.'

Unfortunately, it's a website created by Steven Jones so that he doesn't have to suffer the embarassment of having his "work" on 9-11 rejected by every major, reputable physics and engineering journal on the planet. And you just lap it up.

Ask your boy Steven why he won't submit his papers to real journals.

That's like me creating a website, posting things on it, and then claiming that everything on it is peer reviewed and on par with any real scholarly journal out there.

Keep self-debunking. You're doing a bang-up job.

 

[Good Lt]

They are not afraid of letting other scientist, or experts have their say at journalof911studies. Can't say that for 911myths or debunking911 can you?

Then why not submit some of their "peer reviewed papers" to real journals?

You know why.

 

[lisabob2]

Steven Jones also has a favourite topic being the theory that Jesus had tea with the ancient mayans in central america. He thinks he found evidence too.

You believe him?

I don't have a opinion on something I have no idea about.
What opinion of of cold fusion do you have? What do you think of Jones finding the problems with Pons and Fleishman theory?
David Grsicom has some theories of 9-11 I don't agree with but that does not take away the fact that he knows the scientific method, and no scientist has every theory they have prove to be true.
What papers do the people at 911myths.com have published? what are their qualifications? Do they have any?

 

[lisabob2]

LOL

Getting quotes from the Urinal of 9-11 Studies? A site put up to avoid having to submit papers to real journals for peer review? That's 'scientific.'

Unfortunately, it's a website created by Steven Jones so that he doesn't have to suffer the embarassment of having his "work" on 9-11 rejected by every major, reputable physics and engineering journal on the planet. And you just lap it up.

Ask your boy Steven why he won't submit his papers to real journals.

That's like me creating a website, posting things on it, and then claiming that everything on it is peer reviewed and on par with any real scholarly journal out there.

Keep self-debunking. You're doing a bang-up job.

keep making accusations and avoiding the issues that Jones & company bring up.
Why not tell us why Bazant thinks:
" that all of the available energy would be utilised exclusively in the destruction of the uppermost storey of the lower section. This is physically impossible under any and all circumstances."
lets get to specific issues instead of wasting time avoiding the issues

 

[uk_dave]

I don't have a opinion on something I have no idea about.
What opinion of of cold fusion do you have? What do you think of Jones finding the problems with Pons and Fleishman theory?
David Grsicom has some theories of 9-11 I don't agree with but that does not take away the fact that he knows the scientific method, and no scientist has every theory they have prove to be true.
What papers do the people at 911myths.com have published? what are their qualifications? Do they have any?

Not necessary. It's the people making the extraordinary claims who have to back those claims up with evidence. Relying on Jones simply because he is a physicist (as were the cold fusion guys, right?) should not be taken in isolation from his other extraordinary beliefs. Perhaps Jones is good at analysing other peoples work when he has no emotional investment, and perhaps he's crap at research (jesus and the mayans as well as 911) when he has too much emotional investment. I can't help wondering how he felt upon choosing/finding the name of his publication "Journal Of Nine Eleven Studies". Narcissistic or the hand of god, perhaps?

 

[lisabob2]

Then why not submit some of their "peer reviewed papers" to real journals?

You know why.

Steven Jones says he has his papers peer reviewed. unless you have proof that he hasn't why should I not believe him. If he says journalof911studies.com is
The Journal of 9/11 Studies is a peer-reviewed, open-access, electronic-only journal covering the whole of research related to 9/11/2001. All content is freely available online.
If it is good enough for David Griscom then it sure is good enough for me, or do you think Grsicom is unable to judge such matters?

 

[Dave Rogers]

specifically the collapse times are not possible with the official theory.
Prof. Kuttler shows this in his work. Gordon Ross does too. Steven Jones a physicist writes:
rapid fall immediately raises questions. After all, in science, we must consider conservation of
momentum, a fundamental law of physics. I do like to teach physics, and conservation of momentum
is one of my favorite topics.

Have you read Kuttler's paper? Specifically, have you noticed that he doesn't actually say what the collapse times were? It's a bit difficult to say that a collapse time is too short when you don't know how long it actually is. His paper is full of invalid assumptions - I posted a full critique of it a while back, but basically it's very, very wrong. Ross, as far as I know, doesn't say anything about collapse times. Jones pontificates about the conservation of momentum, but doesn't actually do any calculations - he's implying, therefore, that if he could be bothered to work out the collapse times then he's sure they'd come out wrong, but he doesn't actually need to work them out to know that [1]. If you actually knew anything about physics, these liars and charlatans wouldn't be able to pull the wool over your eyes so easily.

Dave

[1] The difference between Jones and Frank Legge, of course, is that Jones just implies this, whereas Legge has been stupid enough to openly state it.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Steven Jones says he has his papers peer reviewed. unless you have proof that he hasn't why should I not believe him.

you cant prove a negative, its up to him to show that he HAS in fact had his papers reviewed

 

[Good Lt]

Steven Jones says he has his papers peer reviewed.

Then he should have no compunction about showing the free world WHERE THEY'RE PUBLISHED, shoud he?

Maybe you can tell us where they're published. Journal names, issue numbers,dates, page numbers. You know - citation information for real scientific journals.

We're still waiting.

If he says journalof911studies.com is
The Journal of 9/11 Studies is a peer-reviewed, open-access, electronic-only journal covering the whole of research related to 9/11/2001.

New Troof standard, people: If Steven Jones says it, it must be true. No questions needed. Right?

No wonder your movement is dying.

The fraudulent leading the dumb, ladies and gentlemen.

If it is good enough for David Griscom then it sure is good enough for me, or do you think Grsicom is unable to judge such matters?

JOURNAL NAME, ISSUE NUMBER, PAGE NUMBERS, PUBLICATION DATES

Cite them.

Oh, wait. You can't. There aren't any.

QED.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Steven Jones says he has his papers peer reviewed. unless you have proof that he hasn't why should I not believe him. If he says journalof911studies.com is
The Journal of 9/11 Studies is a peer-reviewed, open-access, electronic-only journal covering the whole of research related to 9/11/2001. All content is freely available online.
If it is good enough for David Griscom then it sure is good enough for me, or do you think Grsicom is unable to judge such matters?

Steven Jones had to set up his own journal to get anyone to publish his papers, because he couldn't get past a peer review process anywhere else. As for Griscom, yes, he is clearly unable to judge such matters. I've looked at the glaring errors in the Journal of 9/11 Studies and posted rather a lot of them here, and the only conclusion I can draw is that the peer reviewing done for that journal is utterly incompetent.

Having said that, why exactly should you believe Steven Jones when he says he has his papers peer reviewed? Are you in the habit of taking the word of strangers as gospel? You might find that thinking for yourself would lead to some rather different conclusions.

Dave

 

[lisabob2]

Not necessary. It's the people making the extraordinary claims who have to back those claims up with evidence. Relying on Jones simply because he is a physicist (as were the cold fusion guys, right?) should not be taken in isolation from his other extraordinary beliefs. Perhaps Jones is good at analysing other peoples work when he has no emotional investment, and perhaps he's crap at research (jesus and the mayans as well as 911) when he has too much emotional investment. I can't help wondering how he felt upon choosing/finding the name of his publication "Journal Of Nine Eleven Studies". Narcissistic or the hand of god, perhaps?

Jones a scientist with a very good history in following the scientific methods points out unscientific methods of 9-11 investigations so far and you say that it's
" making the extraordinary claims " ??
He is right I think about investigations so far. He has never made any claims so far(written, at least that I have seen ) except that more tests need to be done and a scientific investigation hasn't been done yet. He has some unproven hypothesis which have some evidence supporting them, but again he has written that more evidence needs to be examined.
If he has some theory about Jesus & the Mayans what proof do you have that he is wrong? Sounds to me like that can't be proven or disproven

 

[lisabob2]

you cant prove a negative, its up to him to show that he HAS in fact had his papers reviewed

journalof911studies.com
Like I said if it is good enough for David Griscom it is good enough for me.
Maybe you have some qualifications that makes your opinion more valid than Griscom's?
185 peer reviewed papers, being one of the worlds most sourced scientist Grsicom is hard to ignore if your being scientific.

 

[DavidJames]

Jones a scientist with a very good history in following the scientific methods points out unscientific methods of 9-11 investigations so far and you say that it's
" making the extraordinary claims " ??
He is right I think about investigations so far. He has never made any claims so far(written, at least that I have seen ) except that more tests need to be done and a scientific investigation hasn't been done yet. He has some unproven hypothesis which have some evidence supporting them, but again he has written that more evidence needs to be examined.
If he has some theory about Jesus & the Mayans what proof do you have that he is wrong? Sounds to me like that can't be proven or disproven

I think before proclaiming what is and isn't scientific, you should learn basic communication skills. I think you would also benefit from developing some basic reading comprehension skills.

Oh, and if Jones offers you some Kool-Aid, pass.

 

[lisabob2]

Steven Jones had to set up his own journal to get anyone to publish his papers, because he couldn't get past a peer review process anywhere else. As for Griscom, yes, he is clearly unable to judge such matters. I've looked at the glaring errors in the Journal of 9/11 Studies and posted rather a lot of them here, and the only conclusion I can draw is that the peer reviewing done for that journal is utterly incompetent.

Having said that, why exactly should you believe Steven Jones when he says he has his papers peer reviewed? Are you in the habit of taking the word of strangers as gospel? You might find that thinking for yourself would lead to some rather different conclusions.

Dave

glaring errors

lets discuss any you want to.