Steven Jones: Revisionist quack involved in Archeology Hoax

Discussion in '9/11' started by l4zarus, Oct 22, 2014.

  1. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    What, in your opinion, constitutes "accounted for"? What type of documentation will you accept as being legitimate?
     
  2. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Good luck.
     
  3. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Note that in other airline disasters ( or for that matter 2 space shuttle disasters )
    the bits of the aircraft are collected up and spread out on a hanger floor so as to see how much of the aircraft has been recovered and to allow examination of the bits.

    In the case of the 4 airliner crashes ( or more precisely alleged airliner crashes ) there was no such accounting and in fact it appears that the wreckage was never forensically examined to know for certain if any given bit belonged to the alleged flight ( or? ) and there has been no measurement either by weight or number of bits collected up to show how much of the aircraft was found, in the case of "FLT11" & "FLT175" it is alleged that the collapsing skyscraper made the airliners simply disappear and so that was that and of course there was to be no accounting for anything at that point. There are all sorts of things terribly wrong with the disappearance of 4 airliners all on the same day. It is alleged that 95% of "FLT93" was accounted for, but when pressed for documentation of this, all that is available is a picture of a bin full of rubble. and that constitutes accounting for the aircraft?

    Note also that in the case of "FLT175" the video of the alleged airliner striking the south wall of the south tower is alleged to show what happens when an airliner strikes a skyscraper wall, HOWEVER, an aircraft striking a wall at what was alleged to be >500 mph, would be a tremendously violent act and would have to affect the entire aircraft such that it would become a mass of wreckage before it had a chance to make that neat plane shaped impression in the side of the building.

    Lets face it, the whole hijacked airliners fiasco is a non-starter.
     
  4. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Argument from incredulity and you didn't answer the question.
     
  5. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So far, we have two things you consider to be proof of there actually being a plane in any plane crash.

    1. Proof that the recovered pieces of the alleged aircraft were laid to out see how much of the aircraft was recovered
    2. Proof that the recovered pieces of the alleged aircraft mentioned in 1. above were forensically examined to determine the cause of the crash

    3. Proof that the recovered pieces in 1. and 2. were forensically examined and shown to belong to the alleged flight involved in the crash

    Obviously you have seen similar documentation for some other plane crashes which is why you are demanding it in this case. Can you please provide that documentation so all present in this thread can be sure that such documentation exists and is available to the public?

    Look at this video:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjhxuhTmGk

    Explain to me why we don't see what you are saying we all should see? Why does the remaining portion of the jet, in a continuous impact, not turn into a "mass of wreckage" like you say it should? The tail stays intact all the way through the collision! I can see the wings 'cut" through a portion of the concrete wall. So please explain why your claim above doe snot happen in the video provided.

    Lastly, for points 1 through 3 above, what type of proof do you require for each of them? Would you need photographs showing the pieces of the plane? What type of forensic documentation? How would one forensically make sure that all the pieces of the plane were from the same plane?

    Like I said. You obviously have read or viewed similar documentation of plane crashes in order for you to expect that this same type of documention/proof be available in the 9/11 cases. Where is all this available?
     
  6. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What Bob doesn't understand is,the only time they lay out the pieces of the jet,is if there's no clear indication of why the crash happened,as was the case of the shuttles....

    And Bob STILL doesn't understand mass and velocity enough to comprehend that at the speed it was going,the structural rigidity would keek it intact going into the building
     
  7. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Agreed!

    :wink:

    He's painting himself into a corner. He has obviously seen the the type of documentation and proof he is demanding previously so I want to know which plane crash/s he is referring to.
     
  8. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Looking at Jones Wikipedia page, I can't see anything about the archeology fiasco, except on the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Steven_E._Jones

    It was apparently removed and I don't understand the reasons why. If a supposed credible "scientist" is trying to pass off religious pseudoscience as research, I'd think that was new worthy and notable.

    Perhaps others more familiar with how Wikipedia works could weigh in?
     
  9. Alucard

    Alucard New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2015
    Messages:
    7,829
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have my doubts about the research by Steven Jones.
     
  10. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Bumping because, 15 years after 9/11, there are still "truthers" who don't understand they've been conned by a branch of the alt-right.

    Case in point: Steven Jones, chief inventor of the Bentham paper, is on very friendly terms with Holocaust denier Christopher Bollyn(also the inventor of the "space ray" garbage):

    http://www.matrixfiles.com/CB/dr-steven-jones-appeals-for-fairness.html

    Excerpt from Jones letter:

    "Dr. Steven E. Jones
    Provo, Utah
    23 May 2007

    To Whom It May Concern:

    I understand that my colleague and friend Christopher Bollyn was subjected to TASER shocking by members of the Hoffman Estates Police Department while he was handcuffed – in a community in your jurisdiction or area. I consider this barbaric action shameful and "cruel and unusual punishment," forbidden in the U.S. Constitution. I further understand that Christopher will now be subjected to a trial (Case No. 06MC3005170). In my opinion, it will be the Hoffman Estates Police Department and local leaders who will be on trial, if this trial goes forward.

    I have known Christopher Bollyn as a decent and loving family man. I respect him and the rights of all those who speak out in defense of Constitutional principles of human dignity and freedom as he has done in his job as an investigative reporter. "

    Bollyn, one of the truther movement founders, was an investigative reporter at AFP:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Free_Press

    "The Southern Poverty Law Center considers it a hate group[10] and says that it "carries stories on Zionism, secret 'New World Order' conspiracies, American Jews and Israel."[11] One of the newspaper's ex-contract reporters, Christopher Bollyn, has advocated on behalf of the 9/11 Truth Movement.[12] The Anti-Defamation League has criticised the newspaper and, in particular, Bollyn for linking of prominent figures in the Jewish community with the events of September 11, 2001, and in September 2006 attacked the newspaper for disseminating "antisemitic propaganda".[13]"

    Point being Jones pushed many deceptive frauds and hicksters, the archaeology hoax just shows he's been doing this for years.
     

Share This Page