Friday, March 2, 2012

The scientific critique of Dr. Jones' Science

Hide All / Expand All


Señor El Once : science-challenged spin on a disinfo carousel

2012-03-02

The scientific critique of Dr. Jones' science has been provided several times. I'll repeat it most briefly both for new readers and scientific-wannabe's-but-aren't like yourself.

Dr. Jones wrote a paper based on blindly-accepted measurements of radiation at ground zero from govt sources and performs with it scientific slight of hand: (unvetted) radiation measurements did not match the radiation signature of three known nuclear weapon types, therefore he leaps to his conclusions that no nuclear weapons were used. Does he speculate about other nuclear sources and unknown nuclear weapons that could account for the (unvetted) radiation measurements? Nope. He lamented frequently about issues with other govt reports (e.g., timeliness, voracity), yet has no issue swallowing the one on radiation measurement?!

So that a vacuum isn't left in taking nukes off the table, Dr. Jones gets credit for discovering nano-thermite in the dust which can indeed burn very hot and without air, drawing its oxygen to burn from the chemical reaction.

The problem here is that neither Dr. Jones, nor Mr. Ryan, nor Mr. Cole, nor you bothered with "boojie woojie high school chemistry" to run numbers on nano-thermite's (or other incendiaries') burn-rate to estimate quantities required to account for the duration of hot-spots... because this suggests massive, totally unrealistic quantities. And when the science-challenge yeomen of 9/11 Truth run with it to explain features in the destruction that "boojie woojie high school chemistry" proves it cannot, he doesn't correct the record.

I assert with confidence that it is Wood and her fantasy land “science” that is the disinformation here. And Shack as well. Both of their stories are utter junk. And it doesn’t take more than a glance to see this.


Don't let me give the wrong impression. Mr. Shack and Dr. Wood both have some junk. I assert with confidence from having gone deeper into the subject matter that important nuggets of truth are also to be found there.

For you to judge everything as utter junk from no more than a glance and from your expressed reluctance to explore deeper? You seem to call yourself a 9/11 Truther. Ironic how you validate your own statement: "[T]he Truth Movement itself ... is the governments disinformation program."

No comments: