Im not going to go into Jones errors again with the Aluminum, but for those who may be interested here is Jones reply to the Reynolds Wood's article.
http://www.911podcasts.com/files/documents/JonesReplytoReynolds-Wood.doc
Reply to Reynolds & Wood
by Steven E. Jones 8/25/2006
Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood have posted the essay “The Trouble with Steven E. Jones' 9/11 Research.” Of course, I will reply and add to my reply as I have time. As we approach 9/11/2006 and the next election, there is much better use of my time.
1. Cold fusion
R&W write: “Cold fusion violates standard physics theory because there is no explanation of where the energy might come from to merge nuclei at room temperature.”
Their statement above is false.
I led a team at Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility which experimentally studied the original cold fusion, called muon-catalyzed fusion, and demonstrated that fusion does indeed occur very rapidly at room temperature and below. (Other physicists had demonstrated the reality of the room-temperature fusion effect before us.) Indeed, we achieved our best results at liquid hydrogen temps, around 21 Kelvin. A little quantum mechanics explains how this works – the deuterons (or deuteron + triton for higher yields) TUNNEL THROUGH THE COULOMB BARRIER. High temperatures are NOT required for fusion. This is not controversial in the physics community, although some may forget about muon-catalyzed room-temperature fusion until your remind them.
The same quantum mechanical tunneling occurs for d-d fusion in our metal-catalyzed fusion experiments. Our hypothesis in the late 1980’s was: "Metals catalyze nuclear fusion, and some metals will enhance fusion more than others.” I agree that our results were controversial, as is common at the forefront of science. The unequivocal confirmation of this claim, with 100% reproducibility if you will actually read the papers, came in the late 1990’s and after. The papers are published in peer-reviewed Journals and are referenced in my recent paper and in the table below
http://www.journalof911studies.com/JonesAn...TradeCenter.pdf .
R&W reference this paper in their essay, so clearly they are well aware of it. There is a section on my cold fusion work which they may wish to review, in particular this part:
Above, I summarize the empirical results of five different experiments regarding metal-catalyzed fusion (to distinguish this from Pons & Fleischmann cold fusion, which is NOT to be confused with our work). I recommend all of the papers referenced above.
OTOH, if R&W insist that “there is no explanation of where the energy might come from to merge nuclei at room temperature,” the proper thing to do is to write up a scientific paper explaining why all of us are wrong about fusion at room temperature and submit it to Europhysics Letters or Z. Phys. or one of the other Journals listed above. (Good luck.)
2. “No-planes-hit-the-Towers theory”
R&W come back repeatedly to this theme:
“Jones neglects laws of physics and physical evidence regarding impossible WTC big plane crashes in favor of curt dismissal of the no-planes-theory (NPT). He relies on "soft" evidence like videos, eyewitnesses, planted evidence and unverified black boxes. When others challenge how aluminum wide-body Boeings can fly through steel-concrete walls, floors and core without losing a part, Jones does not turn to physics for refutation but continues to cite eyewitnesses and videos, thereby backing the OGCT.”
It’s true: I do not accept the no-planes-hit-the-Towers theory which is espoused by R&W and Gerard Holmgren, Rosalee Grable, Nico Haupt, and Killtown – who are listed by R&W as having performed “The only investigation worthy of the name,” according to them. (I disagree.)
But I DO turn to physics and to hard physical evidences for refutation of this no-planes notion, right in my paper they cite
http://www.journalof911studies.com/JonesAn...TradeCenter.pdf, starting on page 171 in the current version (there is an index at the front). The reader will find there, on the first page of my discussion:
• As usual, we look for hard evidences to test or rule out the hypothesis, using the Scientific Method.
• Look at the data for yourself: mark the tail as it goes in (can you see the deceleration?):
http://img119.imageshack.us/img119/5402/17...rneathccwt1.gif
Now I have looked at these data myself, some time back. I focused on the motion of the tail section of the aircraft as it entered the Tower. And I found that the tail slowed down dramatically as the plane entered the building – there is REAL DECELERATION! Now I would ask the reader to check me on this – mark the position of the tail in each frame and notice that the marks get closer together as the plane enters the Tower. Now we have some data! And we can discuss these data like scientists, and determine the amount of deceleration, etc.
But wait – Reynolds finds no deceleration of the plane! He writes:
“How could two large wide-bodied aluminum jetliners penetrate massive steel towers and disappear with no deceleration visible, no plane wreckage visible in gashes and none knocked to the ground below the impact zone?”
“Zero deceleration upon impact, although shown in south tower videos, is physically impossible.”
Over and over he refers to no deceleration in his essay here:
http://nomoregames.net/printer_friendly.ph...1=we_have_holes
Now we have a clear discrepancy in interpreting the data – and that is where the polite discussion should focus, rather than on ad hominems.
Reynolds also brings up: “no plane wreckage visible in gashes and none knocked to the ground below the impact zone.” But again, I disagree – for I have shown photos of wreckage found on the ground below the impact zone in my Answers paper, e.g.:
Again, I presented physical evidences for real debris from real planes hitting the Towers.
Now when a jet hits a building, the building is going to move – due to conservation of momentum (basic physics), and then the building will sway back and forth after the collision. But only if a REAL plane hit the Tower. And so we find data for this oscillation:
These are physical data, showing a characteristic nearly exponential decay (damping) of the oscillation. Observed oscillation of the WTC 2 Tower provides compelling empirical evidence that it was hit by a fast-moving jetliner. Any claim to the contrary must confront these published data or the analysis thereof.
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5.pdf p. 26 It will not do in scientific inquiry to ignore data like this – even if one does not trust the source for some reason. In other words, the argument must be to the DATA, not to the source (ad hominem).
I could go on, but the fact is that as editor of the Journalof911Studies.com, I have invited Morgan Reynolds and whoever he wishes to join him, and another author to write papers on BOTH sides of this issue – did REAL planes hit the Twin WTC Towers, or not? Both sides agreed. In this way, readers will have two peer-reviewed scholarly papers side by side, both confronting the evidences presented above and whatever other evidences they wish to bring in – and then the reader can judge for himself or herself. And that is MUCH better than ad hominem arguments – it is the way of modern science.
3. Glowing aluminum
R&W write: “We have no explanation for why Jones would insist, contrary to evidence outside BYU, that flowing aluminum does not glow at high temperatures in daylight conditions.”
Now read what I wrote in my paper, and which R&W quote actually, see if you find what I am really saying:
Jones paper: “A notable exception is falling liquid aluminum, which due to low emissivity and high reflectivity appears silvery-gray in daylight conditions, after falling through air one to two meters, regardless of the temperature at which the poured-out aluminum left the vessel. Aluminum does incandesce [glow] like other metals, but faintly so that the conditions in the previous sentence, falling liquid aluminum will appear silvery-gray according to experiments at BYU [Jones references himself {as is standard in science, to reference a separate paper written with others, to give the reader much more detail.])."
Can you see it there? Look again – that’s what I said. Aluminum DOES GLOW, faintly. And I provide photos and experiments we did ourselves, showing that falling, poured-out aluminum appears silvery in daylight conditions, even though it is indeed glowing faintly. That is because its reflectivity far exceeds its emissivity. Inside a shadowed environment, with molten aluminum stationary, I – we – saw a beautiful pinkish glow from the aluminum. Then we poured it out – and the stream was silvery!
Look, I’m not tricking anyone – please, Judy, pour out the liquid aluminum in the air in daylight, and THEN tell me what it looks like! (Not sitting next to tungsten which also has low emissivity, as in your previous experiments.) The difference lies in matching the WTC conditions – POURED OUT, flowing, falling aluminum far from the container will indeed appear silvery, every time. Try it. You’ll see.
This from a fellow who emailed me – and I forwarded the email to R&W so they would have a ‘second witness’ regarding the behavior of falling liquid aluminum, but they did not reply AFAIK:
On 8/17/06,
Steve.
Since my email to you regarding the question of glowing Aluminum, I have received some better information from a source none other than my own Father!
My father, who is 69 years old now and in poor health, told me today, that HE WORKED for a company called British Aluminium starting in 1973 up until he was made redundant in 1983!
Being a kid at the time, i was aware that he worked in a factory of some sort but wasn't aware of exactly what he did there and,over time, i had never asked! Until today that is.
My Dad told me that British Alcan, which he said the company changed its name to, made everything from drink cans,alluminium foil and yes, aircraft body panels. When i asked him (at last)what his job entailed, he told me he worked in the foundry, where the alluminium was melted prior to being poured into moulds to form the ingots.
What is interesting is this.
When i asked my dad what colour the liquid alluminium was in the furnace (which was oil fired he said),he said that the top of the liquid was silver,which he called the slag, but underneath when the slag was scraped off, the aluminium had a pinkish appearance, a pinkish glow. Not red or orange or yellow but pink.
He also said that the colour of the liquid alluminium remained that way ONLY UNDER the SLAG within the vessel because,when the liquid was exposed to air, it turned the colour you would expect immediately, Silvery, hence the colour of the slag which is of course exposed to the air.
It also goes without saying really, but he said that when poured from the vessel,the liquid aluminium's in-vessel colour of pinkish, does not make it very far,if at all, from the vessel before it turns, you guessed it, to the silvery natural colour of aluminium.
From someone who has had firsthand experience of working with liquid aluminum in furnace conditions,i hope that the information my Father has been able to supply may be of some use.
Regards.
Mike Ferguson. UK
Whoa! Evidence outside BYU!
My reply: “Yes, this is what we observe also, Mike. Poured out aluminum [in air] appears silvery, every time!
It's beautiful also, in the darker environment of the vessel to see the pinkish glow. I've seen it. Then POUR the liquid aluminum out in a stream and VOILA, it looks silvery!
Thank you for following up on this.
Steven Jones
Does the poured-out, falling liquid metal from the WTC Tower (above) look like poured-out liquid aluminum (below) to you? The above photos are now used in my online paper.
(I have discussed three of R&W’s main points. As I have opportunity, I will add more. Please, read my papers looking for I actually said:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html and
http://www.journalof911studies.com/JonesAn...radeCenter.pdf)
TAM
