Update on our Debate with Steven E. Jones (Reynolds / Wood)
CB_Brooklyn Tue, 09/05/2006 - 4:04am
Printer friendly copy of this article available here.
Update on our Debate with Steven E. Jones
To our fans and opponents: Our critical review of the 9/11 work of Steven E. Jones appeared the evening of August 23. We understand that he responded on August 25, but we were not notified. We discovered it on the PhysOrg forum on August 27 and we replied to it on August 27. We posted our response and sent Jones the link. After posting our response, we learned that Jones had changed the file he had posted. So, it appears that to respond to whatever he posts is like aiming at a moving target.
Jones’ response has appeared at st911.org but not our original article nor ourreply. Only one side of the debate is represented at the Scholars’ site. Can there be better evidence of what Scholars’ "Truth" is really about?
It looks like Jones intends to issue a string of rebuttals over the next XX weeks. Once we judge that he has dribbled the bulk of his replies out, we will scoop them up and put them under the microscope and refute them.
In the meantime, we urge interested parties to consult our original critique since it contains a great deal of 9/11 analysis, including some original findings, in the context of knocking down Jones’ errors. Our original article and our reply to Jones’ August 27 response are key to uncovering the bogus nature of Jones’ work.
- CB_Brooklyn's blog
- Login to post comments
wow with all that hate you
wow with all that hate you spew for Jones it was impossible to take any scientific things you have to say with any merit. this paper screams "we think hes a retard" which you actually infer in the article..pretty unscientific and frankly, quite unproffesional. Just because of the name calling I personally will never look at a piece of your work again. Which is sad cuz Im sure you make valid points.
don't tell me, tell them.
Send them emails and let them know. I'm merely the poster !!
Friday Night Fights: Jones v. Reynolds/Wood
Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood actually had some interesting things to say. However, I highly respect the work Steven Jones did; he created a working hypothesis based on observations, albeit not the observations Reynolds and Wood would have liked him to use. Reynolds and Wood have lost a large amount of credibility in my opinion, for it is always simpler to attack someone else's conclusions than formulate and defend your own. They appear to have plenty enough evidence to write their own scientific paper on what happened that day, but, for some inexplicable reason, they choose to offer their opinions in offensive pieces. Furthermore, they choose to attack Prof. Steven Jones, a man who has done nothing but lend massive credibility to the 9/11 truth movement. And anyone who says otherwise needs to look at the MSM culture and realize what we are all fighting for. I'm not going to immediately call anyone a disinfo agent or a shill, but please, for the love of god, the devil, or Pete, DO NOT support any of this infighting. It is absolutely CRITICAL that in this stage we present a unified front. Stick to the core issues that cannot be debated, and let the details get hashed out in the end.
"True enlightenment is attained when one can, at will, see through the illusion of reality." - Me, intoxicated
U.S. Government's 9/11 "Pancake" Theory Has No Merit
From:
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/?q=node/1634
The U.S. government's 9/11 pancake theory has no merit whatsoever - and their experts refuse to discuss it
For example, Dr. Judy Wood, professor of Mechanical Engineering has offered research titled, A Refutation of the Official Collapse Theory. In her research, Dr. Judy Wood addresses the simplicity of the science that clearly dismisses the government’s current theory of collapse as a false statement. Why the mainstream media news editors are unwilling or unable to wrap their minds around the fact that if a billiard ball were to be dropped from 1,362 feet (height of the South Tower) in a vacuum, meaning no air resistance to slow the ball’s dissent, according to Professor Woods and easily validated by any mechanical engineer or physics professor, the billiard ball would require 9.22 seconds to hit the ground. How then did the towers collapse in 10 seconds and 11.4 seconds, and why has not one member of the mainstream media insisted on honest answers from the government in this regard?
The fact is that the government’s account of how the twin towers collapsed has already been proven false. The laws of gravity alone dictate that for the twin towers to have collapsed according to the NIST ‘pancake theory’ required at least a 30 second collapse cycle. The North Tower collapsed 11.4 seconds. The South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds. The actual collapse time of each tower disproves the government’s theory. As much as the hysterical neo con mouthpieces want to label those of us not confused by the facts as conspiracy theorists, the scientific evidence remains that the twin towers could not have collapsed as the government claims.
End –
It’s ‘interesting’ that NIST has decided to completely abandon the ‘pancake’ theory in its latest cover-up attempt. When Dr. Wood demolished that ridiculous idea, they hardly had a choice in the matter.
Anom
A Refutation of the Official Collapse Theory
See here:
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html
CB_Brooklyn, you are a NPT disinformation artist and I think
that you and the Reynolds/Wood duo should SPIT YOUR DISINFORMATION CRAP and smearing of the best 9/11 truth researchers, somewhere else.
No legitimate 9/11 truth individuals want you spitting your disinfo bull anymore, so just leave.
______________
Stop giving attention to the "no plane theory" disinfo agents like Nico Haupt, Morgan Reynolds, Shayler, killtown, CB_Brooklyn, webfairy, Holmgren, and others who are sabotaging this movement, either by sheer stupidity or intentionally.
Just because I can't face reality...
" Just because of the name calling I personally will never look at a piece of your work again. Which is sad cuz I'm sure you make valid points."
Let me get this right...
You believe in the scientific issues, yet you don't like the fact that the one you worship is a fraud, so you're going to stand behind that fraud? Now, that REALLY DOES sound crazy!
Gee... if the TRUTH doesn't matter, then what were you in this for? eh?
no one gives a crap about Morgan Reynolds' rap!
or about Judy "because no one else" Wood.
They are clearly trying their best to derail the real truth movement and failing pretty miserably at that.
_
"Among the 'spider-man' skeptics are those who claim that no human can shoot web and stick to walls... They conveniently ignore the fact that he was bitten by a radioactive spider."
Daily Bugle editorial debunking the claims of spider-man deniers
some "Truther" you are.
You need to take a good look at what Jones is doing. Turn off that attitude of yours, and look at the information. Then maybe we can get things done.
It appears to me that Jones
It appears to me that Jones is doing forensic research and testing the structural steel while Morgan and Woods are spewing nonsense about no-planes and trying to muddy the water.
agreed
I see nothing wrong with Jones hypothesis at all, he has taken available data and presented a viable hypothesis.
Reynolds/Wood have done nothing but make fools of themselves.
Yup
I've read both the initial Reynolds/Wood article and the rebuttal to Jones' response, and I cannot for the life of me figure out what they're trying to do other than to very conspicuously smear Jones. They seem incapable of keeping the dialogue on the level of scientific inquiry.
if you three people actually read Jones' response and
R/W's responses, you would see that Jones is NOT scientific. You don't wish to see that however, so you trick yourself into thinking the opposite. Anyone who reads R/W's replies and can't see this either does not have the intelligence to (which is not very believable because it's not that difficult!), or, is in serious denial, just like boxcutter believers.
It's amazing how many people in the truth movement are so gullible as to believe Jones' pictures of wreckage. Wreckage can be planted, as we all know. But a aluminum plane CANNOT slice through structural steel like it does through the air, and have its nose pop out the other side, and on top of that, not leave an exit hole. Anyone believing that is in dire need of some help.
Read this article for some helpful information
Yes, I actually read it
And no, it isn't that difficult. It also proves that Jones is interested in the scientific method whereas the other two are interested in smearing another scientist.
Here's the thing I understand from Jones' work: he does not believe that no plane hit the towers. He acknowledges that this is a belief, not the result of a completed scientific inquiry. He is interested in DATA (such as the tower oscillation) that would contradict the NP hypothesis, and points some of it out. He suggests (having signed the petition) that a scientific inquiry into faked video evidence and/or the idea that no planes hit the towers would be appropriate. (I think, more precisely, that he is interested in a paper seeking to prove or disprove the notion that a large commercial jet hit the towers. That is completely distinct from proving that some video was faked, although that distinction often seems to be... overlooked.)
U.S. Government's 9/11 "Pancake" Theory Has No Merit
U.S. Government's 9/11 "Pancake" Theory Has No Merit
This is one of the things Dr. Wood has done for the truth movement; she has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that 9/11 was an inside job. So, the fact that you don't appreciate this indicates that you are not interested in pursuing the truth or bringing the perps in!
Hmmm...
NIST has decided to completely abandon the ‘pancake’ theory in its latest cover-up attempt. When Dr. Wood demolished that ridiculous idea, they hardly had a choice in the matter.
_________________
The U.S. government's 9/11 pancake theory has no merit whatsoever - and their experts refuse to discuss it
- snip -
"For example, Dr. Judy Wood, professor of Mechanical Engineering has offered research titled, A Refutation of the Official Collapse Theory. In her research, Dr. Judy Wood addresses the simplicity of the science that clearly dismisses the government’s current theory of collapse as a false statement. Why the mainstream media news editors are unwilling or unable to wrap their minds around the fact that if a billiard ball were to be dropped from 1,362 feet (height of the South Tower) in a vacuum, meaning no air resistance to slow the ball’s dissent, according to Professor Woods and easily validated by any mechanical engineer or physics professor, the billiard ball would require 9.22 seconds to hit the ground. How then did the towers collapse in 10 seconds and 11.4 seconds, and why has not one member of the mainstream media insisted on honest answers from the government in this regard?
The fact is that the government’s account of how the twin towers collapsed has already been proven false. The laws of gravity alone dictate that for the twin towers to have collapsed according to the NIST ‘pancake theory’ required at least a 30 second collapse cycle. The North Tower collapsed 11.4 seconds. The South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds. The actual collapse time of each tower disproves the government’s theory. As much as the hysterical neo con mouthpieces want to label those of us not confused by the facts as conspiracy theorists, the scientific evidence remains that the twin towers could not have collapsed as the government claims."
- snip -
The scientific method
The scientific method is to question statements that are false.
Propaganda pushers (agents) will not tolerate questions.
Some of these Jones groupies are obviously on the same payroll as Jones. Others are merely drinking the Jonestown KoolAid and don't want to know the truth.
No, that's not what the scientific method is.
The scientific method is to collect data and formulate the best hypothesis that seems to explain that data, and then test that hypothesis. The test must be constructed to either verify or negate the hypothesis, it must take into account all the available data, and it must be replicable by others. From these results, the hypothesis is accepted or rejected and reformulated.
There is no Kool Aid drinking involved as far as I can tell.
Don't you get it...
the burden of proof is on the gevernment to somehow justify and prove beyond a reasonable doubt their inadequate explanation of what happened that morning.
The conitnual bickering (and this is what this is) over possible theories (and that is what they are) are irrelevant and a waste of time, doing nothing but moving the focus away from the real villains, those people that refused to investigate this tragedy and covered up the truth.
On a scientific note, your analaysis and critique of Dr. Jones has certainly a number of weak points, just as has Dr. Jones' analysis and subsequent proposed hypothesis. The point is that we have no evidence, no access to the steel members in WTC, for example, or access to the black boxes, or access to the "DNA evidence", etc... and therefore any proposed theory will be largely speculative.
Everyone should be fighting to obtain this evidence and for this evidence to be shown to the public and questioning anyone who opposes this.
This is the real and deep truth about what happened, the criminal covering up of the evidence and the clear intention to stop any real investigation into the attack.
This, more than any scientific hypothesis proposed to explain what happened, is the clearest indication of complicity and criminality.
Wow! You don't get it!
We have the evidence already!
We have had the evidence for well over a year. It's not a theory; it's a fact.
Jones has been covering up the evidence! Why would he do that?
Jones wants you to believe that the towers came down from "arsen!" Why would he do that when we have proof that the towers were brought down by controlled demoliton?
Jones still didn't explain
Jones still didn't explain to us yet his military weapon research background on "Sonoluminescence":
http://www.veronicachapman.com/nyc911/Jones-Kubiak.htm
"...Please follow the fact, that Sonoluminescence is described as 'exotic physics' which can produce temperatures "as high as 108 K" - enough to melt some steel???...
...
http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion/fd-latest/thruFD...
1995.03.02 / jonesse@vanlab / RE: Sonoluminescence and Fusion
Originally-From: jonesse@vanlab.byu.edu Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion.
Subject: RE: Sonoluminescence and Fusion Date: 2 Mar 95 13:32:16 -0700 Organization: Brigham Young University.
Dear colleagues: There have been several postings lately regarding sonoluminescence(SL), and a possible connection to fusion. Our work continues on searching for neutron emissions associated with bubble cavitation in sound fields, using our sensitive neutron detectors, deep underground, in Provo Canyon (Utah). I should report that we have not yet detected any neutron emissions from SL, in deuterium-filled bubbles in aqueous solutions. We have, however, achieved both multi-bubble and single-bubble (clock-like) SL using D2 bubbles.
Terry Bollinger and I suggested a possible connection between SL and fusion back in 1992 on this net, and I spoke briefly on the subject at the ICCF-3 meeting in Nagoya in October 1992...
...This spherically symmetric implosion has the potential for creating some exotic physics... Calculations suggest that temperatures as high as 108 K are to be expected...
...
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore
http://www-pat.llnl.gov/N_Div/sonolum/sonolum_paper.html
Sonoluminescence (SL) is the emission of flashes of light by imploding air bubbles in liquid...
...These results leave open the possibility that the SL source is substantially hotter than the 10,000 K that was implied above...
You don't need steel beams
You don't need steel beams to prove it was controlled demolition, and don't let anyone distract you into that scavenger hunt.
You should be pushing for a real investigation, using the REAL evidence that's already available. Why are you waiting around and not pursuing this?
Note: Dr. Wood's research contributions have caused NIST to now change its story! I'd say that's a pretty powerful research contribution. She debunked the pancake theory well over a year ago. She has presented her 9/11 research to the engineering community and it has passed peer review -- by real engineers. No one else has done this.
So, why is she attacked? Could it be that "someone" is trying to keep her silenced? They killed her student. They destroyed her career. She continues to get death threats. But, she's still speaking the truth. That's pretty courageous if you ask me!
"why is she attacked?"
My understanding is that Wood is the one publishing material attacking other researchers - calling Professor Jones 'retarded', etc.
Could that have something to do with it?
If that's so, I can
If that's so, I can understand why you would be frustrated but to announce you intend to refute something that hasn't been released seems odd.
Jones and all like him are simply picking up the slack of NIST and the omission commission to the best of their ability.
Every side of the discussion is neccessary, there's nothing to take personally. I hope you critique Jones with the same objectivity I intend to view your original critique with.
dolts calling dolts, dolts
Jones, Reynolds, and Woods only prove anyone can get a degree, but only dolts can make up this much cow pie info
too bad they have nothing to offer others to help save lives and prevent 9/11 in the future, as these dolts make up 9/11 CT stuff, the real engineers are building the future buildings which will not fail in a fire!
Jones, Reynolds, and Woods dolts of 9/11 mis information