Dr Steven E. Jones "Christ visited ancient America"

[greyl]

Something worth reading.
Note his 'scientific' attitude:

"I began a search with the following hypothesis-to be tested: Ancient artwork portraying a deity with deliberate markings on his hands will be found somewhere in the Americas. A crazy idea, maybe...

...These discoveries have provided me a deeper appreciation for the reality of the resurrection of Jesus and of His visit to "other sheep" who heard His voice and saw His wounded hands as did Thomas. My hope is that these new insights will encourage you to seriously consider the Book of Mormon, Another Testament of Christ. Why don't you start reading right away? The Apostle Paul said: "Prove all things. Hold fast that which is good." (I Thessalonians 5:21) Why not? I've done this and for me, the Book of Mormon is a remarkable new witness for Christ, standing as a companion to the Bible.
-Doctor Steven E. Jones

http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/jones/rel491/handstext%20and%20figures.htm

not from the link:

""Brigham Young University has a policy of academic freedom that supports the pursuit and dissemination of knowledge and ideas. Through the academic process, ideas should be advanced, challenged, and debated by peer-review in credible venues. We believe in the integrity of the academic review process and that, when it is followed properly, peer-review is valuable for evaluating the validity of ideas and conclusions.

"The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones' hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Centerbuildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones' department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."

[salvorhardin]

1. Thanks for the info

It's nice to know the guy's consistent in his mad-hattery and not just some single-issue conspiroid. ;-)

[petgoat]

3. And what exactly is maddhattery about Jones? Have you

read his paper? http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Have you watched his presentation? http://www.911blogger.com/2006/02/dr-steven-jones-utah-seminar-video.html

[greyl]

8. Read the OP again.

What we have here in the case of Dr. Steven E. Jones is the phenomenon of celebrity mixed with the seductive appeal of authority.

Many cters proudly cite his work because "he's a doctor" as if they were doctors themselves, but those same cters usually exhibit incompetence of their own toward scientific thinking, judged from a high school level of science.

[greyl]

24. I think he is a single issue personified - celebrity. nt

[petgoat]

2. What's wrong with his attitude? An hypothesis popped into his

head, he decided to go out and test it. And it was right.

What's wrong with that? You think scientists can't be religious? Why not?

[greyl]

5. He's misusing the scientifically specific term hypothesis, for starters.

The scientific term "Hypothesis" is not equivalent to "crazy idea" as he implies.
He begins with a conclusion, and cherry picks evidence to support it.

Before continuing, please take two minutes to hypothesize that this paper of his was a clumsy attempt to win the good graces of his academic superiors of his Mormon university. (he's assuming his Mormon authorities will be persuaded by a faith-based argument)

The false-inferential conclusion hidden in his "hypothesis" is that if any humans portrayed in the art of ancient Americans have marks on their hands, then Jesus walked on this continent.

That's either fucking stupid or knowingly dishonest, take your pick.

I think he should plead insanity.

[petgoat]

7. "Hypothesis" is not equivalent to "crazy idea"

Hypothesis is an objective term, as applicable to crazy hypotheses as to brilliant ones.

He decided to test it out, and he found evidence to support it. What's wrong with his cherry-picking?
You think he should have done a survey of hands in Mayan art and found that 98% of hands have no marks
and thus conclude that his hypothesis was full of it?

He found data that supports his faith. I'm sure he's well aware that his own status as a believer
disqualifies him from a truly scientific examination of the issue.

That you use this elaborate Christmas-card to try to make an ad hominem attack on Jones's credibility
shows your lack of objectivity.

Both Dr. Fetzer and Dr. Griffin are experts in the philosophy of science and of reasoning, BTW.

[greyl]

9. It's true, I admit it. I don't think Dr. Steven E. Jones is credible.

I also hope to persuade others that Dr. Steven E. Jones shouldn't be taken at his word just because he's a "Dr." (I know, I'm way out on a limb in claiming you shouldn't trust everything your doctor tells you. /sarc)


Sue me.

[pauldp]

4. He's a Mormon. so what? They all believe the Christ visited America thing.

If he was Catholic scientist and presented a hypothesis about heaven would you view him differently?

[greyl]

6. His faculty peers that condemn him are Mormon, so what? nt

[pauldp]

10. Not being convinced is not a condemnation. n/t

[greyl]

11. They were very nice about it.

Nevertheless, his academic peers totally shunned his paper.

[greyl]

12. Their scriptures have been scientifically proven wrong.

Persistence without just cause is not a virtue.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=263x15444

[canetoad]

13. Don't use thought terminating cliches please.

Jones is neither the first nor last academic to suspend rational scientific thought when it comes to their religion.
*Copernicus
*Galileo
*Descartes
*Einstein etc, etc, etc

[greyl]

14. He suspended rational scientific thought.

I agree.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x54171

[petgoat]

22. That's perfectly permissable in a contained limited sphere

like religious inquiry. Or romantic involvement.

If Dr. Jones chose a mate on less-than rational and rigorously scientific grounds,
would you regard that as lessening his credibility?

[greyl]

23. We agree.

"That's perfectly permissible in a contained limited sphere like religious inquiry."

Science is more difficult.

[petgoat]

25. Science is more difficult.

But his examination of Mayan art was simple. All he did was go looking for the art that he hypothesized
would be there.

[greyl]

29. His conclusion is illogical. nt

[petgoat]

34. Religion is illogical. So what? nt

[greyl]

36. LOL

Don't get me started on faith vs science.
Oh wait - I guess I'm the one that brought it up.

[pauldp]

15. So have ALL fundamentalist religions.

Jimmy Carter calls himself a christian who has accepted Christ.
So why not condemn Jimmy Carter? His belief system has been proven scientifically
wrong.

[greyl]

16. The OP is about Dr. Jones's scientific methods.

Dr. Steven E. Jones's scientific methods suck.
His classmates agree.

[dchill]

17. It doesn't help your "case" when you start out...

by misquoting Jones. "Christ visited ancient America" (your "quote") is not even close to the same meaning or even "gist" as what it actually said: "Evidence for Christ's Visit in Ancient America" - but then you aren't used to dealing with reality, anyway, are you?

Try facts - "A crazy idea, maybe..." In the whole article, there is no statement to the effect "Christ visited ancient America". In my opinion, it was a philosophical exercise. He is a doctor. Are you?

[greyl]

19. You are now on my ignore list. nt

[dchill]

21. But I will continue to flog myself repeatedly...

by continuing to read and respond to your imaginative posts.

[HamdenRice]

26. Pretty soon we'll all be on greyl's ignore list ... and then he can

listen only to himself. But that's pretty much what he does anyway.

[number6]

44. I want to be on your ignore list too !

peace :smoke:

[MrSammo1]

18. How does his "belief"......

Change his understanding of physics?

Brilliant minds are often ignorant of other subjects.

[greyl]

20. Bush said Jesus was his favorite philosopher.

How do you feel about that?

[MrSammo1]

27. Like I said......

How does his lack of knowledge in one area change the laws of physics.....that he understands?

There are plenty of myth minds that see the physical problems with 911.

[greyl]

28. I don't think he understands the laws of physics

or the scientific process, or logic, or intellectual honesty, or history, or anthropology, or politics, or education, or sociology, or how pick out a good piece of fruit.

"There are plenty of myth minds that see the physical problems with 911."

No, they aren't. They are imagining "physical problems" or parroting bullshit they read on some web site. Plenty of people pay money to astrologers, psychics, and homeopaths - so what?

There is a vast majority of respected and authentically peer reviewed scientists who have explained 9/11 (edit: the collapse/edit) while respecting the laws of physics.

[Desertrose]

30. and you know this how?

"I don't think he understands the laws of physics
or the scientific process, or logic, or intellectual honesty, or history, or anthropology, or politics, or education, or sociology, or how pick out a good piece of fruit."

and I should take your word why?


I see you've added a new word to your definition of an accepted and respected source....."authentically peer reviewed scientists".

(Is this what is called moving the goalposts?)

So you throw everything out because you disagree with some of what this Dr Jones has said? Interesting, but perhaps slightly biased.

[greyl]

37. The truth was

written in the sky in chemtrails and my astrologer confirmed my bias.

This is what really happened:
I began a search with the following hypothesis to be tested: Bad science will be found somewhere in Dr Steven E Jones' papers. A crazy idea, maybe...

"and I should take your word why?"

You shouldn't take my word or anyone's word. Think for yourself. (C'mon you should have foreseen that I'd say that.)

"I see you've added a new word to your definition of an accepted and respected source....."authentically peer reviewed scientists"

Fact is, he and others claim that the Dr's work was peer reviewed. There are two misleading components to that statement. Firstly, a genetic appeal to authority a la the "Einstein believed in astrology" lie. Second, the false implication that the body of scientists and colleagues support his work. He didn't submit his paper to the proper venues to ensure technical peer review.

Btw, I thought the picking out a good piece of fruit part made it clear that I was exaggerating a little bit to indicate my disdain for the damage he's done to the process of uncovering the truths and lies of 9/11 and the history of the First Americans.

[Bouvet_Island]

31. Your point is interesting

though weakly implemented. Please show that he have no clue about physics or what constitute proof or a scientific argument by making a selection of what you would view as his 3 strongest arguments relating to his 9/11 (which obviously is what we really are discussing), and debunk them properly in a scientific fashion.

It really is irrelevant to science if a person is a complete nutcase. Tesla as an example was extremely right about switching the US power grid to AC or induction being clever, but extremely wrong about the need to focus US defences on the threat of impending attack by Aliens. You refute a scientific paper by refuting arguments or proving direct fraud or error sources in the data. Religiosity or even wackiness isn't a reliable indicator of bad science.

[MrSammo1]

32. His work on the subject............

speaks for itself.

It's not like his work hasn't gone unchallenged. If anything it's been verified by more and more physicists.

It's not like Newton's laws of motion have changed in the last few years.

you can't get more energy out......than you put in!

[LARED]

33. Good Lord, can the 9/11 truth manipulators please stop

saying the laws of Physics were somehow compromised on 9/11. Even if the tower were blown up with explosives coupled with flying truck bombs the laws of physics still hold.

The argument that without explosives the collapse of the towers cannot be explained is idiotic on some many levels it's not funny.

Free fall is nonsense; easily found videos show the towers collapse time at minimum is 50 to 100 percent longer than free fall.

The idea that the dust cloud can only be generated by explosives is equally idiotic. Even if the towers were rigged for controlled demolition there is no way the cutting charges are going to generate the amount of dust seen. It's like a fart in a windstorm. The dust is from all the friable materials in the towers. Just because it seen, does not mean anything other than the building collapsed.

The debris moving horizontal proved explosives were used is so stupid it makes me think George Bush is posting that nonsense. Here a clue, each floor held something on the order of 500,000 ft3 of air. The bloody air must go somewhere as the floor above it falls on the floor below it. It does not disappear. Maybe it move up and sideways???? Air is not picky, as it moves in the direction of least resistance. The pancaking floors piling up debris also create a force horizontally because the material cannot move down as fast a gravity wants to pull it so it spills over the sides.

One last issue. The so called peer reviewed articles in 9/11 "scholars" are not peer reviewed. It is simply not possible that anyone that is qualified to peer review the work would let it get out of the wastebasket.

[greyl]

35. Are you also one of those who

sees the relationship between this thread and this other thread? ;) :
Logical Fallacies in Scientific Writing

[Bouvet_Island]

43. I didn't ask LARED

to provide a good beating of his paper, I asked Greyl.

Greyl, if you mean you can ignore difficult questions, what are the point of discussing science with you? Please pick apart some of his arguments scientifically, without resorting to misrepresentation, strawmen and the like and posting sources and your whole argument so that we can control you.

As an example, one important photo for dr. Jones thesis is the one showing dust erupting from many many floors below where the tower is collapsing. How is these four (?) windows the path of least resistance for the air being compressed many floors upstairs? Breaking windows needs significant shock waves, or things flying in the air. Shock waves like other waves quickly spreads, and loose power/focus from obstacles like a wave hitting a stone beach. Not saying there can't be any other explanation than explosives, just that saying "compressed air" isn't anything like a debunk.

Calling anyone of the opposite opinion idiots is a telltale sign of a need for compensation. It is too convenient to lump together all different opinion than yours. And it is a ridiculous requirment for the 9/11 researchers to keep up to normal scientific standard. They don't have access to the material. If they are even just partially right, it could be suicide for scientific editors to support them. And are you saying that getting printed in a scientific journal is proof that the science is good? I mean it certainly isn't proof people are rigth? And what about a fella like Pasteur? Was it easy for him to get scientific approval? People getting scientific approval is a rubbish qualifier as well, particularly for fringe science and even more so for politicized science.

I am sincerely interested in hearing skeptical opinion on the work of the 9/11 scholars. I mean their web design literally beg people not to believe a word they say, and even more so with the rainbow fonts at wtc7.net. But to take an example, many different official versions, which one to believe? Which one do you believe in Lared?

[dchill]

57. I do!!!!

Same person started both threads! Self-promotion - it's the Amurikan way! Oops, forgot, I'm on your ignore list...

[petgoat]

38. Your assumption that "explosives = cutting charges" is unjustified

Jim Hoffman's analysis shows that the energy required to make the dust clouds is 10 times the
gravitational potential energy of the towers. How did air pressure pulverize the concrete floors when
they were covered with vinyl tile or carpet? Pulverization would seem to require impact, but by the
time of impact the air has been expelled.

[LARED]

39. Jim Hoffman's analysis

is a JOKE. Get it? He sounds good, but there is no substance. If you want to believe his sophistry, be my guest.

[petgoat]

40. "Get it?"

What's to get? An anonymous internet poster's opinion is worthless. If you have any
criticism of any substance, let's hear it.

[LARED]

42. True you don't "get it"

Your words

Jim Hoffman's analysis shows that the energy required to make the dust clouds is 10 times the
gravitational potential energy of the towers.

Without spending my time debunking Hoffman work of fiction. Would it matter anyway?

Let me say

Really???? 10 times the energy!!!!

As I stated earlier, physics cannot be ignored because it's convenient. So where does it come from? A controlled demolition would not need 10 times the energy as controlled demolition use the potential energy of the structure to cause the collapse, so you would never need more.

A huge amount of explosives would not be 10 times the potential energy. Where is the massive amount of explosives hidden?

So where does 10 times the energy come from? The ether? Secret Tesla energy weapons? Dick Cheney's death ray machine? Jim Hoffman imagination?

I'm not guessing it's the latter, I know it's the latter.

[petgoat]

45. "where does 10 times the energy come from? "

That's the $64k question.

Your reasoning seems to be: There is no politically correct source for the energy, therefore the dust
clouds did not require 10X the potential energy of the towers to create. It seems to me that you
have to consider the facts as they are, instead of trying to say they don't exist because they don't
match your conclusions. If you do not find Hoffman credible, I'm sure he would be interested in
your analysis of his errors. His paper is in its fourth draft. Why should it not progress to a fifth?

If you'll look at Hoffman's web site, you'll see that he considered many possible sources for the
energy, including thermobarics, radiant projectiles, and directed energy.

where does 10 times the energy come from?

I'm sure the US Military has a few hi tech weapons that even you don't know about.

I'm not guessing... I know

Your facile certainty is more appropriate to a church than a scientific discussion.

[LARED]

46. Actually the question is

what mistake (or other) did Hoffman make in determining there was 10 times the energy of the towers potential energy in the dust cloud. It is not possible there was ten times the energy. Hoffman is either ignorant or a fraud. Take your pick as he's not right.

My certainty is based on scientific knowledge and we are not having a scientific discussion.

[petgoat]

48. It is not possible there was ten times the energy.

Declaring it does not make it so.

Your inability to distinguish between expressing your opinion and mounting an argument is peculiar.
Why is it not possible there was ten times more energy?

[LARED]

50. Why is it not possible there was ten times more energy?

Because there is zero evidence for 10 times the energy.

[petgoat]

55. "there is zero evidence"

There you go again. That Jim Hoffman has calculated the energy required to create the dust clouds
is evidence that there was 10x the energy. Your say-so is evidence that Hoffman is full of baloney.

Legal cases are decided on a "quality of argument" basis.

Let's see: Hoffman's published and four-times redrafted calculations? Or an anonymous internet
poster's heartfelt declarations? Calculations? Or unsubstantiated declarations?

I just can't decide whose argument is better.

[LARED]

56. The quality of arguments

Hoffman argues that;

It is well documented that nearly all of the non-metallic constituents of the towers were pulverized into fine powder.

Where is the documentation? This is a foundational parameter he bases the rest of his work on.

Keep in mind this is just his third paragraph. I could point out three more false or misleading claims or arguments by just reading down to the end of the paragraph.

[petgoat]

59. The floors were pulverized.

The huge gray dust clouds that covered lower Manhattan after the collapse were probably formed when the concrete floors were pulverized in the fall and then jetted into the surrounding neighborhood. "Of the kinetic energy impacting the ground, only 0.1 percent was converted to seismic energy."

http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/

[LARED]

61. Here's the complete quote

The M.I.T. professor added that about 30 percent of the collapse energy was expended rupturing the materials of the building, while the rest was converted into the kinetic energy of the falling mass. The huge gray dust clouds that covered lower Manhattan after the collapse were probably formed when the concrete floors were pulverized in the fall and then jetted into the surrounding neighborhood. "Of the kinetic energy impacting the ground, only 0.1 percent was converted to seismic energy,

First off, the MIT professor states that only 30 percent of the PE was expended in the collapse as work energy. Nowhere does he indicate there should be ten times the energy given the size of dust cloud. (There is a guy that posts in this forum that once estimated that the collapse time indicated that 30 percent of the PE was converted to work energy)

Hoffman states nearly all of the concrete was pulverized into 60 Micron sized particles (average) The professor does not indicate how much of the concrete was pulverized only that he thinks it accounts for the dust.

Is this the best evidence you have as well documented proof that nearly all the concrete was pulverized? Really?

[petgoat]

63. The article supports the proposition that the professor said

the concrete floors were pulverized. That's what you wanted evidence for, and there it is.

The energetics are another issue. You asked for an apple. I gave you an apple, and then
you complain that it's not a pear.

Tactics like these may help you maintain your opinions in your own mind, but they are not
persuading anybody else.

[LARED]

64. So, that is the best you have?

Not surprizing and not convincing

[petgoat]

66. Scientific American says an MIT professor said the floors were

pulverized, but you, the eternal skeptic, want to maintain the possibility that they were not,
despite the absence of ANY evidence that they were not. Pictures of the site show nothing but steel
and dust. The dust clouds and the dust "snow" covering the streets indicate the floors were pulverized.

Preponderance of evidence says the floors were pulverized, and your doubt is not reasonable.

I don't have time to prove to you that night is dark and day light.

http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/

[LARED]

67. Some evidence

That concrete look pretty big to be pulverized

[Make7]

68. Some more evidence.

?pic">

Click on image for full sized picture

[petgoat]

69. Is that all you've got?

Those chunks are 18" thick. Got anything that looks like a piece of unpulverized
floor slab? One swallow does not a spring make.

[LARED]

70. You seem to have overlooked this picture

[petgoat]

71. I've overlooked it because its lack of context makes its

evidentiary value slight. Could be all that debris is from three floors underground.

[petgoat]

74. Is that the WTC or is that Baghdad? nt

[Make7]

77. "the only thing that was recognizable was..."

Click on image for full sized picture

[Make7]

72. Funny you should ask.

I would've thought you knew me better than that by now, but first things first....

My response was to a previous post of yours where you stated:

Posted by petgoat:

Pictures of the site show nothing but steel and dust.

And in your latest response you write:

Posted by petgoat:

Those chunks are 18" thick.

Are you saying that there are chunks of concrete in a picture that you had previously claimed would "show nothing but steel and dust"? Either you imprecisely worded your former statement, you were exaggerating, or you have not bothered to investigate enough to know what you are talking about.

The chunks of concrete that are shown in the ?pic">picture that I posted do not appear to be 18" thick to me. I am sure you would be willing to give a brief explanation as to how precisely you came to that measure of the thickness.

Posted by petgoat:

Is that all you've got?

No, and just to start things off, I'll post a slightly different shot of the scene shown by the previous picture.

?pic">

Click on image for full sized picture

[petgoat]

73. The pictures of which I was aware showed nothing but steel

and dust.

You and LARED, scouring the net, came up with a couple of pictures that show chunks.
They appear to be from late in the cleanup process and low down in the building. LARED's
picture gives us no assurance that it's of the WTC at all. Your pictures in no way contradict
the assertion that the concrete of the above-ground floors was pulverized.

You are trying really really hard to retain your grip on your illusions.

[Make7]

76. I have pointed out to you before that there was more than steel and dust.

 petgoat (1000+ posts)

Sat Oct-08-05 12:15 PM 
Response to Reply #43 

 46. They endorsed ten seconds; they didn't mention total pulverization

We can see that in the pictures. Concrete snow. Is there a picture showing shattered concrete in the rubble? I haven't seen it.

Signature lines are currently turned off due to high traffic.

 

 Make7 (1000+ posts)

Sat Oct-08-05 01:08 PM 
Response to Reply #46 

 49. Bigger than snow.

-Make7

"We see what we want to believe" - Robert McNamara, The Fog of War

 

 petgoat (1000+ posts)

Sat Oct-08-05 01:50 PM 
Response to Reply #49 

 51. Gee, you must have got the only concrete they forgot to pulverize

I'm talking about the dust they scooped up from the street.





"Six million sq ft of masonry, 5 million sq ft of painted surfaces, 7
million sq ft of flooring, 600,000 sq ft of window glass, 200 elevators,
and everything inside came down as dust, said Greg Meeker of USGS. The
only thing that didn't get pulverized was the WTC towers' 200,000 tons
of structural steel. That was just bent, Meeker said."

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/NCW/8142aerosols.html

Signature lines are currently turned off due to high traffic.

 

Now back to this thread - from post #56:

LARED wrote:

Hoffman argues that;

It is well documented that nearly all of the non-metallic constituents of the towers were pulverized into fine powder.

Where is the documentation? This is a foundational parameter he bases the rest of his work on.

In response, you posted a quote which said that the dust clouds were probably formed when the concrete floors were pulverized. I don't think that is the same as what is being claimed in the above quote by Hoffman. Something being pulverized and that same thing being pulverized into fine powder would require different amounts of energy.

His calculations seem to assume that all of the concrete was pulverized to 60 micron powder, and there is no documentation that I can see in his paper that would establish that as being accurate. This claim needs to be based on something for it to be usable in any calculations - so what is the basis for concluding that nearly all of the concrete was pulverized to a 60 micron powder?

- Make7

[LARED]

47. It only took getting to the third paragraph to find

a fundamental mistake in his "analysis"

http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev3.html

Of the many identifiable energy sinks in the collapses, one of the only ones that has been subjected to quantitative analysis is the thorough pulverization of the concrete in the towers. It is well documented that nearly all of the non-metallic constituents of the towers were pulverized into fine powder.

Is a myth. Fiction, hence his "analysis" is fiction.


I could not get through paragraph three without finding a few more incorrect assumptions so I'll not waste my time debunking fiction.

[petgoat]

49. thorough pulverization of the concrete

Please provide some evidence to support your assertion that the concrete was not pulverized. Lower
Manhattan was covered with "snow" a couple of inches deep. Can you show a picture of chunks of concrete
being loaded on trucks or barges? Did the cleanup crews erect one of those concrete grinders commonly
used at demolition sites? The steel was taken to four different locations and cached at Fresh Kills.
Can you cite an article that discusses what was done with the concrete?

According to Wikipedia there was 8.6 million square feet of floor area. According to Jim Hoffman the
floor slabs were 4" thick. That's 2.87 million cubic feet of concrete. Got a picture of any of that?
Why not? Oh right, nobody was allowed to take pictures of the site. Got any accounts of any of the
cleanup workers discussing the removal of the concrete?

[LARED]

52. You're the one defending Hoffman's nonsense

It is well documented that nearly all of the non-metallic constituents of the towers were pulverized into fine powder.

Try showing where it is well documented nearly all of the non-metallic constituents of the towers were pulverized into fine powder.

[petgoat]

58. non-metallic constituents of the towers were pulverized

http://www.time.com/time/photoessays/shattered/3.html

[LARED]

60. Perhaps I missed it but how do

those images show that

nearly all of the non-metallic constituents of the towers were pulverized into fine powder.


What if lots of the concrete was broken into potato sized pieces?

[Bouvet_Island]

62. LARED,

"I could not get through paragraph three without finding a few more incorrect assumptions so I'll not waste my time debunking fiction."

You are running away from your task of debunking the gist of his argument. Provide some real and sourced arguments, not just sophistry. While I am skeptical of Hoffmans work and might ot might not find it valuable, your logic is at every instance flawed. Which I would not mind, if you could post arguments with some meat on the bone, not just nitpickery.

Fine concrete/gypsum powder on 9/11 is obviously not fiction, if you disagree on the amount or grade then state what amount you believe to be correct, how it affects his calculation and physics, how they might have other errors etc etc. If you have scientific background, please show us the difference between a real and a fake scientist by debunking the crux of his argumen. You yourself picked his paper and person, it should not be a problem for you to show his point to be wrong, not just state a disagreement about method.

[LARED]

65. I am presently working on a rebuttal

but given my time contraints it will take awhile

[Bouvet_Island]

75. I am not

awaiting this with excitement.

In fact I feel about perfectly confident I will never read LAREDs scientifitcly sound rebuttal of Jim Hoffmans paper, probably just more oneliners and light blows to the body.

A paper which I myself consider a very weak angle on explaining anything that happened on 9/11. Idea is interesting, but as ammunition in a politicized debate it is completely useless, and more of a distraction than a real argument in the first place since there are such uncertainty in the calculations any way you turn it. It'll be way open to the nitpick type of attack LARED employ, if not done a lot better than presently and validated by (a lot of) more neutral expertize. Even someone with access to data as for example NIST doesn't know a lot about the amount of heat present, and I'm not even sure if there is any decent quantitative analysis of the dust, both it's amount and its particle size. Jim Hoffmans analysis is to broad swept to show anything with a high degree of certainty, particularly given there is rather limited access to the underlying data.

There's a report here somewhere about a guy that have wtc paper with lotsof lotsof tiny holes in it. What velocity you need for shooting dust through paper would be a more interesting energy analysis in my view, it'd be reproducable. What wind speeds would you need? the collapse area was rather well ventilated. I think you would probably need quite a shock wave to replicate, depending a little on the size of the particles. How many paper samples have these small holes? Where did (some of) the paper come from? It should/could be possible to place it at least on the right floor.

[simonm]

51. Dust is not from "friable material"

"The dust is from all the friable materials in the towers."

Smoke generated from burning material rises. Go ahead, get some old furniture, burn it and see what happens. The ground hugging clouds seen on 9/11 cannot be from burning material.

The cauliflower shape of the dust clouds is characteristic of pyroclastic flows as seen in volcanic eruptions and demolitions.

To create a cloud with the pyroclastic flow of a volcano you need 3 main ingredients:

1. matter
2. explosive energy (creates airborne particles)
3. heat (for fluidization)

The cold tower steel and concrete simply falling to the ground cannot generate the necessary heat or pulverized concrete dust and debris.

Hudson’s building demolition



http://physics911.ca

[greyl]

53. friable doesn't mean flammable nt

[simonm]

54. ah, ok

Friable Material
Asbestos containing materials may be classified as friable or nonfriable. A friable material is defined as a material that, when dry, can be crumbled, pulverized or powdered by hand pressure.

Friable materials present a greater hazard of releasing asbestos fibres than nonfriable materials. Common friable asbestos-containing building materials include sprayed fibrous fireproofing, thermal pipe insulation, and decorative or acoustic texture plasters. Common nonfriable asbestos-containing building materials include asbestos cement boards, ceiling tiles and vinyl floor tiles.

http://www.utoronto.ca/safety/Asbestos/asbest02.htm

[spooked911]

41. so what are your religious beliefs, Greyl?

can we critique them too?