• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Questions for Steven E. Jones

Kryptos

Critical Thinker
Kryptos
Joined
Sep 7, 2006
Messages
409
In a debate, what questions would you like to ask Steven E. Jones?
 
Why are you unwilling(afraid) to publish your paper(s) in a reputable scientific journal?
 
1. Describe for us the chain of custody that led to your possession of steel from the World Trade Center.

2. Would you be willing to put the additional steel from the World Trade Center that you claim to possess through independent testing?
 
Why use sulphidation in the WTC steel for your argument that Thermate was used to destroy the towers? Why not look for the bi-products of Barium Nitrate, which should have been present in much larger quantities assuming thermate was used.
 
Why do you doubt that massive damage to both core and external columns, combined with intense fires (and accompanying heat) working on steel that was virtually unprotected due to fireproofing that was (1) originally inadequate and (2) 60% destroyed by plane impact, might lead to global collapse of the towers?

Follow-up question: Leslie Robertson, the towers' structural engineer, accepts the above scenario as scientifically rigorous. Do you believe that you know more about the structures of the towers than he does?

(OK, the second question is perhaps "hostile," but, oh well...)
 
1. In your PDF file where you quote an NIST reasearcher as stating that extremely high levels of Diphenylpropane-3 were found in samples taken from the WTC, why did you leave out the full context of wherein it was also stated that the diphenylpropane-3 likely resulted from the copmbustion plastic office products?

2. In your PDF file, you devote an entire page to promoting Rick Ratjers as yet unwritten response to a 9-11 anti-conspiracy site. Furthermore, a short passage from Ratjer on what Silverstein's insurance payout is hilighted in red. Do you believe that someone whose belief system is based almost entirely on racial and religious hatred can be relied upon to give an accurate assesment of the guilt of someone who is jewish like the oft discussed Mr. Silverstein?
 
Do you REALLY believe that Jesus walked amongst the Mayan?

I mean REALLY?
 
Dr. Jones, I've brought along my zither today. Would you please read this sheet music and follow along?



99074546c81a23400.gif


Hat tip to Childlike Empress
 
uk_dave said:
Do you REALLY believe that Jesus walked amongst the Mayan?

I mean REALLY?
Click to expand...

Short answer: Yes.

As does myself, Bradk3 and Dr. A. Woodruff Miller, chairman of the BYU faculty of Civil Engineering.

"I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims".
- Dr. A. Woodruff Miller

The religious beliefs of mormons regarding Christ in the Americas have nothing to do with the antics of one ex-professor who has had to resign in disgrace from a church owned school.

In fact, if anything, now that Jones has been booted from BYU by a committee formed entirely of people who believe that Jesus visted the ancestors of the Maya, Aztecs and Incas, that belief is now an argument you can expect the twoofers to use.
 
Last edited:
hmmmmm

See I have a difficulty understanding how someone can be so right on one subject, and yet so wrong on another.

Or so wrong on one subject and yet so right on another.

No offense meant, but I feel that a scientist who promotes a theory based upon a religious ideology, is also a scientist who will promote a theory based upon a conspiratorial ideology. Neither are necessarily good science.
 
Why, in an earlier version of your quote of Fire Engineering's Bill Manning, did you report him saying this...

Respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating [result] has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers.
Click to expand...

When the complete quote said this (my bolding for the changes/ omissions):

However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.
Click to expand...
 
uk_dave said:
hmmmmm

See I have a difficulty understanding how someone can be so right on one subject, and yet so wrong on another.

Or so wrong on one subject and yet so right on another.

No offense meant, but I feel that a scientist who promotes a theory based upon a religious ideology, is also a scientist who will promote a theory based upon a conspiratorial ideology. Neither are necessarily good science.
Click to expand...

That is not the important question, the more important question is do you understand what a stingray spine looks like and why is the sting ray spine important to your research in the ancient American culture.
Did you even read Prof. William Sander s's research into the Ancient American cultures, before publishing your paper, can you read the ancient American glifts you actuarially put in your paper?
 
The Question I would like to ask him now is why he did not look into the possible formation of Aluminum steel alloys, form the high impact collision and sand blasting effect, and why did he only follow Dr. Greening's suggestions when he is a physicist, and should understand the relationship of high energy reactions in the formation of natural endothermic and other compounds in the twin towers.
The experiments performed at BYU, were worthless, because they were too static it takes energy to break the oxide layer and then the metals react, even steel will burn in the collapse of the building, do to the energy and air currents providing enough oxygen to the already heated metal.
This is evident in the twin towers in the metal flowing out.
Your own paper points this out, what do you have to say about that?
 
Have you actually tried horizentally cutting a steel beam with Thermite(ate/nano-Thermite/super-Thermite)? Why not?
Have you ever used Thermate(ate/nano-Thermite/super-Thermite)? Why not?

Can you cite a single building demolition that utilized Thermite in any way?
 
If your analysis is correct that some of the glowing-red material found in the rubble weeks after 9/11 was molten steel: how does this support your *-therm*te hypothesis?
 
Why did you write that 1,3 diphenylpropane sampled in the air at Ground Zero was evidence of "high-tech thermite arson," when the EPA report you cited said it was likely the result of burning plastics?

Oh, and can I get a hit off that?
 
I have been communicating with Professor Jones via email (and once in person) for several months now. It's a strange coincidence, but I have been collecting questions for him since he recently asked me if I had any unresolved issues with his information. I have sent him a few questions so far (including the chain of custody, which he gave me addresses but not times or names) but I would like to know if anyone here was planning on compiling the above questions and submitting them to him. If so, then perhaps I could just add my own questions. If not, would you all mind if I gathered these questions and added them to my own list to submit to him? Let me know what the plan is. Thanks.
 
rcronk,

I think that's a fine idea.....

but you can...ummmmm.... omit my questions :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom