Why do other physicists attack Steven Jones?

[andrewwatson]

This is a question for Andrew , really.

Having admired your sterling work on the monumental 750 -page ( and still running) thread on a physics forum which you yourself started in September, and with the added kudos of a current article on the US forum www.911blogger/com. , I would be interested to know what arguments kept the thread running for so long? Apart from the tendency to indulge in abuse, there must have been serious questions being discussed. For myself, I can't see how anyone could challenge the key facts of near-free-fall speed and the temperatures in the fires, or the molten steel found weeks later at the site.

What I would personally find invaluable Andrew, and in your own time, please, would be a short summary of the most frequently used arguments to challenge Jones' paper, and your refutation of them. That would be very helpful to those like myself, not of a scientific bent, who find ourselves faced with angry questions from irate Bush-believers.

The thread can be found here

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3108&st=0


Thanks

[Andrew Johnson]

Andrew

I started to write an article about the thread, but have been trying to look at lots of things so haven't finished it.

Several other similar threads have been started, so the whole topic has got a lot of people talking about the issue.

Thanks for the 9/11 Blogger link - I hadn't seen that.

Even though I need to try and analyse the 100's of pages of responses (over 11,000 replies and 233,000 hits on the main thread), I can say why Physicists attack Steve Jones - cognitive dissonance.

As we know, the implications of the destruction of the towers with CD is greatly shocking. It is far easier to cast aside 300-year old laws of physics than it is to say "the entire system we live by has been perverted by a criminal elite and we just haven't really noticed or faced it until now."

This denial is apparent in Scientists as well as those in traditional protest movements such as Amnesty, STW etc etc

It's the same denial process, but it is triggered for different reasons in the people denying the truth.

I will post a link to the article if/when I get chance to finish. I have found an easy way to analyse the distribution of posts and I can probably come up with some stats which might be interesting...

[Garrett Cooke]

Video evidence shows that the towers collapsed with an acceleration consistent with the acceleration of free fall, that is they were falling only under the influence of the force of gravity. There were no resistive forces. Conclusion: the towers must have undergone controlled demolition; it is the only way to explain how the resitive forces (normal in buildings!) were removed. To put it another way: it was obviously controlled demolition.

Garrett - a physicist.

[freddie]

--Just a quicky about freefall--

How are people measuring the end of the collapses, because it's very hard to see with all the dust - Just trying to see if the accepted collapse times are right?

[alkmyst]

Hello again Freddie,

Before anybody wastes time and/or energy responding to Freddie's question, I suggest they check out this link and see how he has previously dragged out vacuous debate by refusing to acknowledge or respond to any counter proposition.

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=1313&start=60

Freddie's MO is to drag a thread out for as long as he can before he gets rumbled...or everyone gets bored. Then he backs off for a few weeks, before attempting to start another thread by asking an apparently open question, then totally ignoring objective response. He is usually rather more polite than another serial poster on the 7/7 thread but he sucks energy in much the same vein.

Once he gets rumbled, he and Scar enter into exchanges of rambling verbiage in an attempt to deflect the fact that they have been sussed.

Freddie originally arrived on our site asking how he might get hold of 100 copies of Loose Change II, claiming he ran a small circulation publication and wanted to send out a copy of the DVD with his next issue.... he was put in touch with a couple of sources but neither ever heard from him again.

Of course I may be very wrong about Freddie but my shill detector sets the alarm bells ringing when I see him posting another non-question:

[Andrew Johnson]

To quickly answer Freddie's question, one can easily see, despite the dust, that the collapse times are < 15 seconds.

Any figure less than about 1 minute for the collapse shows that "pancaking" is just not a viable theory (especially as this theory was concocted for Sept 11th alone).

Additionally, questioning this too much really is futile. We have seen all the other supporting evidence for explosives.

And, as ever, there is WTC7. Say no more.

[thought criminal]

[kbo234]

Using frame-by-frame analysis of the footage of the collapses of WTC1,2 and 7 it would be a fairly simple matter to accurately estimate*, certainly to within a second or so, the times to hit the ground....even though this impact can obviously not be seen because of the dust.
Many have almost certainly carried out such an alalysis. It would not be posted anywhere because the calculations would be just too tedious and anyway, using common sense, just looking at the pictures gives a not-dissimilar degree of accuracy.
*(Sixth form Physics or Mechanics syllabi more than adequately cover the maths required)

I doubt if Freddie cares one way or the other but there you are.

[andrewwatson]

Thank you Andrew, an overview of the whole thread would be extremely interesting, but as I said, in your own time.

I have found that defenders of the official version get very emotive very early on and then very abusive. Recurring, if illogical phrases are :

"You're trying to tell me 911 didn't happen''

"You're dishonouring the people who died"

"We all saw those planes hit the towers" ( we didn't - we saw the second one only)

" Who cares who did it, it was a tragedy and 3,000 people died. Tha's all I can think of''

''You'll be telling me next that Elvis lives on the moon''

"You think you can tell us what happened ? I was there/ my best friend was there/ my grandfather was there etc. so I know what happened

"Osama said he did it, didn't he?''

"Where are all the passengers?''

That last one IS a problem.

[freddie]

Alkmyst you old devil, hahaha, didn't realize you got the hat trick with that post! Never mind...

---

Andrew;

[Andrew Johnson]

Freddie,

Say after me:

WTC7
WTC7....

We can't answer all the questions. Evidence has been destroyed.

Don't worry - we still have a cast iron case that AQ didn't do the most damage - and it looks like they weren't involved.

If you have any doubts, you don't have to campaign - no one is forcing you to....

Don't get completely wound up in the minutae - that's why it was set up that way - to confuse everyone.

[orestes]

[catfish]

The pancake theory always ignores the 47 steel columns running through the core of the building and surrounding the hermetically sealed elevators.

[freddie]

Andrew;

[scar]

[John White]

Seems to me that both Freddie and Scar are dispelling some illusions on this thread, and Im all for that

My rule of thumb is that if Im not calm and smiling when I post I know theres a fair chance Im posting *...

With practise, I listen to that most of the time these days....