Stephen Jones - New Paper - Discovery of the Scientific Method

JamesB said:
I e-mailed Jones on this. This was his response:



Coverup!
Click to expand...

Just like that problem Jones has getting the caption changed on that photo of compacted concrete with iron rebar coming out of it, the caption claiming it is "solidified molten metal."

Solidified around all that rebar without the rebar melting.

Takes awhile for the Jones to get things done.
 
Horatius said:
And here I was, just recently thinking, "At least they've stopped misquoting that Fire Engineering Editorial."
Click to expand...
Yes, I noticed that too. And he even changes a word, replacing "theory" with "[result]" presumably because it sounds more impressive. Curious, as he'd fixed that ages ago, but now it's back. Either he's looking to give us more ammunition, or he's cutting and pasting bits from his old papers and has lost track of the many changes he's made.
 
hard to keep track of the lies in a web as big as the one the truth movement has spun...

TAM;)
 
Miragememories said:
In typical fashion, I see a lot of predictable criticism of a man whom the NISTian gang has already made it 100% clear they have nothing good to say about.

You can't really find major fault with his paper so his grammar, his spelling, his style, etc. etc. become the lame targets of spewed venom.

The pendulum is obviously swinging the other way now.

Momentum is with 9/11 Truth Movement and support of that belief can be so easily observed by the non-stop cattiness of the responses in this thread.
Click to expand...

Here we have another sterling example of Troother reasoning.

Are the responses in this thread an affirmation that "momentum is with the Truth Movement?" Is that the only conclusion?

Or could it be because Jones's latest paper is so obviously flawed, as many have already explained, that it's a joke?

Miragememories, why did you choose to reject the latter hypothesis? Smacco's Razor, by any chance?
 
You can't really find major fault with his paper
Click to expand...

You mean that getting the collapse times of all 3 buildings wrong (which I noted in Reply #4) is not a major fault? How so?
 
R.Mackey said:
Or could it be because Jones's latest paper is so obviously flawed, as many have already explained, that it's a joke?
Click to expand...

It really is.

R.Mackey, would you be willing to look over a paper I am writing in response to Jones and see if I make any critical mistakes? I feel a denouncing of him is worth more if it's done by a generic know-nothing (me) but it needs to be reviewed by people of actual intelligence (you).

Thanks :)
 
I could, but here's a better idea --

Since Steven Jones's cardinal sin is (in my opinion) the rejection of scientific standards such as peer review, why not subject yours to a more thorough review? Anonymity is going to be impossible, but we can simply put everybody's eyes on it.

The whole point of review is, of course, to learn from it. Not just to check facts.

The core value of skepticism is the willingness to accept that one may be incorrect.
 
R.Mackey said:
The whole point of review is, of course, to learn from it. Not just to check facts.

The core value of skepticism is the willingness to accept that one may be incorrect.
Click to expand...

I don't think Steven Jones would ever admit being incorrect. I can never imagine him saying "Oh well, there was no thermite, it was a gravitational collapse with no explosives after all".
 
R.Mackey said:
Here we have another sterling example of Troother reasoning.
Click to expand...

Aaaa-men! Can I get a witness?

Can you continue repeating the same tripe you have been shown to be FALSE ad nauseum? Expecting a different response. Is that not, the definition of insane, or atleast stupid, retarded etc..? There is, the ever present, laudanum salesman! Dr.Jones, seems to have it all, figured out!
 
Dave Rogers said:
Just as an aside - is anyone here familiar with "The Caine Mutiny"? If so, read Jones's footnote 14, and think of tinned strawberries.

Dave
Click to expand...
Which Humphrey Bogart proved "with geometric logic" had been stolen from the locked refridgerator.
 
T.A.M. said:
MM

Promise me a year from now you will come back here so I can rub your nose in the above lie.

You are so delusional. The 9/11 truth movement is no further ahead than it was a year ago, and a year from now it will still be nowhere.

The only difference, is a year from now the leaders of the movement will be all different, as we will have debunked the current ones ala James Fetzer, and soon to be debunked DRG.

TAM:)

TAM:)
Click to expand...

Wake up TAM!

Your back in Kansas!

MM
 
Horatius said:
So pointing out, once again, that he's deliberately quote-mining his references ins't "finding a major fault"?

And since he hasn't seemed to introduce any new arguments, or have countered any of our arguments, why should we (once again!) go through a point-by-point rebuttle?

And grammar, style and what not are not "lame targets". They are symtomatic of the lazy, uncritical nature of their "peer review". If he can't even write a proper sentence, or get the proper values for cetain distances, and none of the "peers" seems to notice, how can we trust them to get the more complicated things correct?
Click to expand...

Hmm.. "And grammar, style and what not are not "lame targets".

I guess you really meant "isn't", "rebuttal", "symptomatic" and "certain".

It's really sad to read a criticism of another person's text presentation, only to discover the critic is too lazy to proofread his own spelling error riddled critique.

Too funny.

MM
 
JamesB said:
The paper now say 100 meters, along with 2 other errate commented on at the end.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf

You have got to love the academic standards of a peer-reviewed journal where the authors can just go in and change stuff after it has been published.
Click to expand...

Jones paper also points us to the upcoming error in LC final cut.

"In the video Loose Change (final cut) there is a tape of a fellow who was trapped in Building 7 before it collapsed, so he’s on the radio, he’s telling how they got out of there. He explained that they were trapped at floor 8, there was an explosion below them and he and his colleague were trapped. The explosion cut off their escape routes. “There wasn’t any way that we could find to get out.” Now that implies a major explosion. He said the firefighters were able to get through and get to them and get them out of Building 7 before it collapsed. This is strong evidence for a major explosion below floor 8. As scientists we have to include that evidence and not just limit ourselves to floors 8 to 46 as the NIST solicitation requires."

The fellow who was trapped was Barry Jennings. Its obvious, the explosion was the second tower falling. He's also in the NIST report.
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-8.pdf See 109 110
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=barry_jennings_1
(Hat tip also to Jay)

"When they got to the 6th floor WTC1 collapsed, the lights went out in the staircase, the sprinklers came on briefly, and the staircase filled with smoke and debris. The two men went back to the 8th floor broke out a window and called for help. Firefighters on the ground saw them and went up the stairs"
 
Last edited:
Kent1 said:
Jones paper also points us to the upcoming error in LC final cut.

"In the video Loose Change (final cut) there is a tape of a fellow who was trapped in Building 7 before it collapsed, so he’s on the radio, he’s telling how they got out of there. He explained that they were trapped at floor 8, there was an explosion below them and he and his colleague were trapped. The explosion cut off their escape routes. “There wasn’t any way that we could find to get out.” Now that implies a major explosion. He said the firefighters were able to get through and get to them and get them out of Building 7 before it collapsed. This is strong evidence for a major explosion below floor 8. As scientists we have to include that evidence and not just limit ourselves to floors 8 to 46 as the NIST solicitation requires."

The fellow who was trapped was Barry Jennings. Its obvious, the explosion was the second tower falling. He's also in the NIST report.
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-8.pdf See 109 110
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=barry_jennings_1
(Hat tip also to Jay)

"When they got to the 6th floor WTC1 collapsed, the lights went out in the staircase, the sprinklers came on briefly, and the staircase filled with smoke and debris. The two men went back to the 8th floor broke out a window and called for help. Firefighters on the ground saw them and went up the stairs"
Click to expand...

I asked him in my e-mail how he has managed to see LCFC 6 months before everyone else, he never replied to that.
 
gumboot said:
Yes that sentence was terrible... I was trying to work out if Jones thought the "well trained airline pilots" or the "boxcutters" were responsible for destroying three skyscrapers.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

Has anyone pointed out to him that the pilots are trained in aviation, not hand-to-hand combat?

Maybe he thinks that's part of their Starfleet training....
 
Mancman said:
Wow, now this is poor.

He harps on about conservation of momentum but he never actually calculates anything.

"But with no explosives (the “official theory”) and the law of conservation of momentum, material below the roof – including intact steel columns – must significantly slow the motion of the roof."

Significantly? How significantly? He could have typed a few numbers into excel and done this within minutes:

Code: 
Floor	Falling	Vi	Vf	Vavg	Time	Cuml. Time
7	40	0.00	8.52	4.26	0.87	0.87
6	41	8.31	11.90	10.11	0.37	1.24
5	42	11.62	14.41	13.02	0.28	1.52
4	43	14.08	16.46	15.27	0.24	1.76
3	44	16.09	18.21	17.15	0.22	1.98
2	45	17.81	19.74	18.78	0.20	2.17
1	46	19.32	21.11	20.22	0.18	2.36
*This uses a height of 174m divided into 47 equal floors of 3.7m.

Freefall from the 7th floor(25.9m) of WTC7 would be 2.30 seconds. If we then had the remaining top section(148.1m) pile up at freefall speed, that would take a further 3.75 seconds, for a total of 6.06 seconds. The same analysis done with a 13th floor start gives 6.38 seconds.

Freefall from 174m is 5.96 seconds.

Jones convieniently fails to mention the collapse of the east penthouse, which indicates that the core may well have been coming apart for a full 7 seconds before total collapse. Thus, many of the columns would have been 'moved out of the way' when collapse began. This also invalidates his claim of simultaneous failure.


When will he get some actual evidence?
Click to expand...

CT's often like to quote or even misquote the seismic readings for the collapses of WTC 1&2 in their zeal to show that they collapsed too quickly. however they fall silent when presented with the seismic readings for the collapse of WTC 7 which shows it took 16 seconds.
 
Kent1 said:
Jones paper also points us to the upcoming error in LC final cut.

"In the video Loose Change (final cut) there is a tape of a fellow who was trapped in Building 7 before it collapsed, so he’s on the radio, he’s telling how they got out of there. He explained that they were trapped at floor 8, there was an explosion below them and he and his colleague were trapped. The explosion cut off their escape routes. “There wasn’t any way that we could find to get out.” Now that implies a major explosion. He said the firefighters were able to get through and get to them and get them out of Building 7 before it collapsed. This is strong evidence for a major explosion below floor 8. As scientists we have to include that evidence and not just limit ourselves to floors 8 to 46 as the NIST solicitation requires."

The fellow who was trapped was Barry Jennings. Its obvious, the explosion was the second tower falling. He's also in the NIST report.
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-8.pdf See 109 110
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=barry_jennings_1
(Hat tip also to Jay)

"When they got to the 6th floor WTC1 collapsed, the lights went out in the staircase, the sprinklers came on briefly, and the staircase filled with smoke and debris. The two men went back to the 8th floor broke out a window and called for help. Firefighters on the ground saw them and went up the stairs"
Click to expand...


They were in a windowless staiwell shortly after the collapse of WTC 2, heard a loud noise and had dust and debris come up via the stairwell when they were at floor 6. Then the FF's came up to them via the stairwell.........

"Trapped" on the 8th floor? No, they took refuge from the dust on the 8th floor but hardly were trapped by the result of an explosion given that the FF's came up to them via the stairwell.

The lobby of WTC 7 was wrecked as a result of the collapse of WTC 2 as eyewitnesses that were in that lobby can attest to.
 
Miragememories said:
Hmm.. "And grammar, style and what not are not "lame targets".

I guess you really meant "isn't", "rebuttal", "symptomatic" and "certain".

It's really sad to read a criticism of another person's text presentation, only to discover the critic is too lazy to proofread his own spelling error riddled critique.

Too funny.

MM
Click to expand...


See, I knew that was going to happen.

But once again, it's nice to see the twoofers will go for the low hanging fruit, rather than address the substance of the argument, or acknowledge that our concerns address both the subject matter of the report, and its grammatical issues.

So in fact, you are the one doing what you accuse us of doing. Par for the course, that is.

And it's interesting that you'd equate spelling errors and typos in an internet posting that was dashed off in a few minutes between dinner and going out for the evening, with a supposedly scholarly and peer reviewed article on a very serious subject.

One would hope they would spend more than two minutes on it.

It's also interesting that you'd equate a few typos with this monstrosity:


Why do so many uncritically accept the “9/11 official story” that a few hijackers in each of four planes overpowered well-trained airline pilots using box-cutters who subsequently brought down three World Trade Center skyscrapers and damaged the Pentagon without being intercepted by a single military jet?
Click to expand...


Typos have more to do with manual dexterity than anything else, something I'm perfectly willing to admit I suck at. He had to sit down and think about that sentence, and he still mucked it up.


ETA:
Oh, and the post you're criticizing wasn't "a criticism of another person's text presentation", it was a response to you. My original posts were the ones that criticized his presentation. Nice to see you twoofers still making misrepresentations.
 
Last edited:
Miragememories said:
Hmm.. "And grammar, style and what not are not "lame targets".

I guess you really meant "isn't", "rebuttal", "symptomatic" and "certain".

It's really sad to read a criticism of another person's text presentation, only to discover the critic is too lazy to proofread his own spelling error riddled critique.

Too funny.

MM
Click to expand...

And the post you made right above the one quoted here contains a pretty glaring grammatical error. So it would seem that even you aren't perfect, hard as that might be for you to accept.
 
You think that Miragememories will ever acknowledge that Jones is wrong with his timing of the collapses? Oh, what am I saying, of course he won't, the entire truther group rely on the claims that the towers fell in 8-10 seconds. Acknowledging that it was actually at least 16 and 18 seconds for the Towers and at least 13 seconds for 7 would mean totally throwing away the core of their claims.
 
R.Mackey said:
I could, but here's a better idea --

Since Steven Jones's cardinal sin is (in my opinion) the rejection of scientific standards such as peer review, why not subject yours to a more thorough review? Anonymity is going to be impossible, but we can simply put everybody's eyes on it.

The whole point of review is, of course, to learn from it. Not just to check facts.

The core value of skepticism is the willingness to accept that one may be incorrect.
Click to expand...

Indeed and I had intended to post it for review here before 'publishing' it, but I have never written anything formal of this nature before and have no training in it. Not only that but my grammar and spelling skills are pretty poor, so I hoped you could look over it first to save me some embarrasment :)
 
Miragememories said:
A post that is guilty of what it is attacking leaves itself open to challenge.

MM
Click to expand...



And of course, we can always rely on twoofers to only attack the easiest targets.

Why don't you impress us, and actually address some of the substantive posts you claim don't exist?





Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot, you don't do that. Ever. My mistake. Feel free to add it to your list.


ETA: One of these days, I'm going to start not correcting my typos, just so you can see how well I do proofread, normally. My typing really does suck. But at least I admit my errors, unlike you and Your Heroes.
 
PhantomWolf said:
You think that Miragememories will ever acknowledge that Jones is wrong with his timing of the collapses? Oh, what am I saying, of course he won't, the entire truther group rely on the claims that the towers fell in 8-10 seconds. Acknowledging that it was actually at least 16 and 18 seconds for the Towers and at least 13 seconds for 7 would mean totally throwing away the core of their claims.
Click to expand...

The collapse time of the South Tower was stated to be 10 seconds in the 9/11 Commission Report (p. 322).

The NIST final report avoids all issues that occur after the tower is
“poised for collapse”, including the remarkably short collapse time.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
The collapse time of the South Tower was stated to be 10 seconds in the 9/11 Commission Report (p. 322).

The NIST final report avoids all issues that occur after the tower is
“poised for collapse”, including the remarkably short collapse time.

MM
Click to expand...

Yeah, gravity's a bitch, ain't it?
 
Miragememories said:
The collapse time of the South Tower was stated to be 10 seconds in the 9/11 Commission Report (p. 322).

The NIST final report avoids all issues that occur after the tower is
“poised for collapse”, including the remarkably short collapse time.

MM
Click to expand...

Which is wrong is you simply watch a video to check.
Even truthers like Hoffman have realized that the towers took over 15 seconds.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/ntc_frames.html

The NIST final report does not avoid all issues after collapse as they have a section on page 319 9.3.3 called Events Following Collapse Initiation. They even mention the puffs of air. (BTW that's another error from Jones on page 37 from his Why did the buildings collapse paper)
 
Last edited:
I took a lower bound of 13 seconds for WTC1's collapse and calculated freefall time from the bottom of the top block of 14 stories, 153% freefall time, and a case can be made for longer.

Steven Jones gets a lot wrong with this paper, I have already written 4-5 pages and I have hardly started :(
 
e^n said:
Steven Jones gets a lot wrong with this paper, I have already written 4-5 pages and I have hardly started :(
Click to expand...

I found the same when I critiqued the previous one - there are so many questionable statements, assertions without proof, fallacious appeals to authority and proofs by omission, it's hard to find even the occasional word that doesn't need debunking. In the end the debunk ends up much longer than the document. It's one reason why I haven't bothered with this one (another being that, after the autobiographical self-justification, there doesn't seem to be much in this one that's not in the previous one).

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom