Physics Professor's Peer Reviewed Paper on WTC CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS on 9/11

TRUTH wrote:

Show me one piece of evidence where a demolition expert, or structural
engineer, demonstrates Jones' to be false

Jones claims that the presence of black smoke means the fire
temperatures could not have exceeded 650 C.

The presence of black smoke merely indicates that a low yield fire was
burning *somewhere*, but this is not evidence of its distribution or
homogeneity. In other words, it is not sufficient evidence that
demonstrates the complete absence of any other, possibly hotter, fires
anywhere. Since we know that more than one fire can exist with a
structure at a time and since the performance levels of these fires
aren't predicatedby the smoke presence of a low order fire, this
evidence does not exclude hotter fires, so Jone's baseline assumption
is invalid. Since fire temperature is a linchpin, his entire case
unravels.

Jone's error was a causality confusion of "absence of evidence" with
"evidence of absence". Interestingly, the last (in)famous physicists
who made this same logical error were Fleschman & Pons. One would have
expected that Jones, being also into Cold Fusion, would have been smart
enough to have learned from their mistake. Because he repeats the same
known causality error, he deserves nothing less than professional
contempt..


-hh

"-hh" wrote in
oups.com:

TRUTH wrote:

Show me one piece of evidence where a demolition expert, or structural
engineer, demonstrates Jones' to be false

Jones claims that the presence of black smoke means the fire
temperatures could not have exceeded 650 C.


That is correct. btw, what is your expertise and education, may I ask.




The presence of black smoke merely indicates that a low yield fire was
burning *somewhere*, but this is not evidence of its distribution or
homogeneity. In other words, it is not sufficient evidence that
demonstrates the complete absence of any other, possibly hotter, fires
anywhere. Since we know that more than one fire can exist with a
structure at a time and since the performance levels of these fires
aren't predicatedby the smoke presence of a low order fire, this
evidence does not exclude hotter fires, so Jone's baseline assumption
is invalid. Since fire temperature is a linchpin, his entire case
unravels.



That is pure nonsense! One cannot say, "For the Towers to have collapsed
from fire, the fire must have been hotter somewhere. Therefore the fire
WAS hottter somewhere." Come on! Are you an engineer or physicist, btw?

Where is the proof of that hotter fire?

There is no evidence showing hotter fires in other areas. One cannot
simply assume that there was.

And if the fires were so hot, how were the firefighters able to get up to
the impact area without being incinerated?

Besides, where's the logical reasoning explaining how that fire got so
hot that it simultaneously severed 47 massive steel columns?? (That's 47
columns in each Tower.)




Jone's error was a causality confusion of "absence of evidence" with
"evidence of absence". Interestingly, the last (in)famous physicists
who made this same logical error were Fleschman & Pons. One would have
expected that Jones, being also into Cold Fusion, would have been smart
enough to have learned from their mistake. Because he repeats the same
known causality error, he deserves nothing less than professional
contempt..


-hh


Your statements are total nonsense. You didn't debunk any of the
evidence. Jones' statements about the fire is more suggestive evidence
that physical evidence . Besides, you're treating it lile it's all there
is. How about explaining the rest of that paper?

TRUTH wrote:

Chad Irby wrote in news:cirby-8CA32E.22050922022006
@news-server1.tampabay.rr.com:



Meanwhile, actual building demolition experts say people like this are
full of ****.




Show me one piece of evidence where a demolition expert, or structural
engineer, demonstrates Jones' to be false

I gotta agree there.
I doubt they even know, or care, who he is.

Jim Logajan wrote:
TRUTH wrote:
Tenured Physics Professor Steven E Jones gave two seminars to hundreds
of people on WTC controlled demolitions and how the government's
version of events "defies physics". The Feb 1st seminar can be viewed
on Google Video, or downloaded to your computer.


The following is a excerpt from Jones' PEER REVIEWED paper:

1) It was NOT peer reviewed.
2) The URL of his paper: http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Professor Jones now has dozens of people suporting him. His finding
are based on scientific evidence and logical reasoning.

Jones is not a qualified building engineer. He has repeatedly founded
elaborate theories on tiny bits of evidence. For example, he also
believes that Jesus Christ visited ancient America:

A little unfair attacking Jones' religious beliefs. After all, I also
believe that Jesus Christ visited ancient America, but I don't believe
Jones (who is a laughing stock at BYU) and I don't believe LIAR's
conspiracy theories. Nevertheless, I see your point.