Professor Steven Jones fails to respond

Dear Steve,

Almost a week has passed now since I formally requested you to appraise "crash physics for everyone":
http://crashphysics.blogspot.com/

The article addresses the most fundamental physics principles necessary to examine the possibility of an aluminium-bodied aircraft flying straight into a steel-framed building and not leaving any evidence of its passage on the outside.

Steve, you are seen as the head of the truth movement.
This request I made to you has been put in public forums, in particular on YouTube.
"Crash physics for everyone" is well-known and there are a great number of people who were awaiting your reply with baited breath.
Your failure to reply is damning, and I have made sure to point out that the reason for your silence is because YOU CAN MAKE NO NEGATIVE RESPONSE TO IT.

This is especially unfortunate for Mark Bilk, who made a vicious attack on the genuine researchers for the truth of what happened on S11 during which he put his foot in his mouth a number of times.
I have made a response to his offensive diatribe and pointed out errors in his arguments, and false assertions that he was making:
http://bilksmears.blogspot.com/
He is also insisting on talking about planes hitting the towers, and as I told him, "Crash physics for everyone" has been up in front of all of the academics in this movement for some time and has not been refuted, therefore the assertions it contains are UNDISPUTED SCIENTIFIC REASONING.
So he really could have done with you being able to put me down hard.
But as I told him, you can't.

This would also be a good time to ask you why you introduced the DEROGATORY term "space beam" to describe the directed energy beam weapons that have been suggested as a possible cause for the complete failure of the central cores in both towers, and for the complete disintegration of all the concrete within the towers to nanodust.
This term is one word away from "space aliens" and limits the scope of the hypothesis to an orbital platform.
This does not to me seem like the conduct I would expect from a high-level academic engaged in a genuine quest for truthful answers.

People thought it odd that you hadn't responded to my request within ONE DAY!
And that was over the thanksgiving holiday period!
So now, at day six, I have every right to talk about YOUR INABILITY/REFUSAL TO ANSWER THE POINTS OF PHYSICS PUT FORWARD IN "CRASH PHYSICS FOR EVERYONE".

I hope that this state of affairs will allow many of those who have been misguided by you and your co-workers to see that you are actually trying to prevent a discussion of the evidence that can expose the truths of what happened that day in the most concrete manner.
You are not a champion for the truth!
You hide under a rock when somebody calls you out to fight!
This is a HUGE, FARTING ELEPHANT IN YOUR LIVING ROOM.

Awaiting your reply,

Damien Duffy.

AKA YouTube Coffinman

Why no planes could have struck the towers


There were no crash physics evident at any of the three sites where planes are supposed to have struck AND PENETRATED buildings.
For the plane for instance to have penetrated the tower, you must assume that it remained intact going through the outer wall.
It is obvious to everyone that whatever, the planes did not smash to pieces and fall into the street.
I will deal with this first.

REACTION/deflection
"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction".
That means that the force received by both objects in a collision will be equal.
Now what determines how much force goes into the objects? Well, if one of the objects penetrates the other, the force needed to break through the penetrated object will be the amount of force received by EACH object.
If you add up the total sum of the forces required to "punch" through all of the beams we are told that the plane went through, then you would have to say that the plane sustained that amount of force and did not break up.
I contend that the plane would break up with much less force than what it would take to penetrate all those outer wall beams.
Any remaining kinetic energy would be retained in any parts that had penetrated the wall and parts that had fragmented, the fragments undergoing a deflective process with their remaining energy.
Some of the energy would convert to sound, heat and light.
The heat would ignite any fuel spilled from the wings, a large amount of which would be vaporised instantly with the impact.
Then there is

TERMINAL BALLISTICS.
If the plane were made of tungsten or something, and it remained intact, then upon the nose penetrating the first beams, whatever force that took would be transmitted from the beams to the nose of the plane also, causing deceleration and deflection.
The heavier part of the aircraft (the engines) has more momentum though, and due to the deflection of the nose, the plane would tumble, in the same way a rifle bullet tumbles through Kevlar.

AERODYNAMICS.
The tumble would occur in the direction of lift from the wings and tail plane.
The deceleration of the wing surfaces would not cause an instant loss of lift because the lift is due to low air pressure above the top surface of the wing, there would be enough lift left during an impact to determine the direction of tumble.
And the 2nd plane was depicted as banking to the left when it hit the tower, so it would have been rising to the left when it struck, giving us another, separate reason for the plane to tumble.
With the diagonal rise of the nose being suddenly stopped upon penetrating the building, the rear of the plane should have continued diagonally upwards, causing it to tumble roof-on into the building, probably right-wing first due to the extra lift on that side due to the bank of the aircraft, the wing on the outside moving faster.
And as the bank of the plane means it should have been moving up and to the left then the fuel should have continued in that direction when the tanks ruptured, rather than go straight through any hole made by the impact.

Then there are the glaring anomalies.
People trying desperately to prove planes always show a picture of a wrecked CFM56 engine in a NY street, an engine that could never have been fitted to a 767.
And photographs of aircraft wheels, where the tires have the wrong number of tread grooves to be from a 767.
Yes, it's a good question, WHERE DID THEY COME FROM?
And the engine at the Pentagon was a JT8D which is also wrong for the aircraft we were told hit the building.
I think it likely that these engines were used in ordnance that was custom-made for the job.
Then there is the cherry on the top of the planehugger sundae-
A photo of a truck that has had "AIRCRAFT PARTS" spray-painted on the back.
WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT ONE PROVE, ALEX?
In fact, if they WERE collecting aircraft parts in that truck, why would they go and spray that on it?
Do you think they might have lost it otherwise?
None of the plane videos show a CRASH.
There were no planes that hit the towers.
There were planes flying there that people saw, but none that hit the towers.
And what about the fake eyewitness videos, mostly with the same pathetic voice actress who can't even change her act from one take to the next.
Who made those?
And why?
Check 3 of them out here:

This is obviously an organised effort to provide proof that there were people who saw a plane hit the tower.

And then there is the matter of the videos of the planes.
None of the videos show a crash, the plane just enters the building in a totally impossible way.
Not one of the videos has a correct image of a 767.
The one touted as the best, and often used to “prove” that remote-control gear was fitted to the plane is a composite, using a tail plane that is both at the wrong angle and the wrong orientation compared to the rest of the plane:

It is analysed here:
http://911review.org/flight175photo.html

And different videos show the planes in different positions at the same time. They disagree.
Even the images of the planes don't look right.

Stills from a video of the 2nd hit show an aircraft that looks "set into the building"- there is no damage to the building in between the left engine and the fuselage, where the wing can no longer be seen (It is supposed to have already entered the building) and there is no damage to the windows that are right next to the parts of the aircraft that has already penetrated the wall.
This is impossible.
Also the left tail plane is missing in this shot:


Another still shows the left wing is missing from the image:


Yet another still shows the right wing to have passed into the building yet the wall where it has gone through is still undamaged:



The poor quality of the video can not account for the missing wing; the face of the building is visible where the wing should be.
And none of the videos show a CRASH as discussed above.

Look at this still from another video:

It doesn't even look like anything.

A few frames later, after the insertion is no longer there we get to see the hole starting to be made.
There is a large event in the center and three separate events around it.
These events lead to the creation of the cartoon-style plane-shaped cut-out that no real plane could have made.


In fact a real plane couldn't get through these holes even in bits because of the obstructions that remained in place:



Here is a clip of the 2nd hit that is particularly popular, it must have had the pause button used on it MILLIONS of times:


You can watch a whole bunch of them in Slow motion here:

When I see PHYSICS PROFESSORS and SEASONED, HIGH PROFILE RESEARCHERS ignore these most basic evidential facts I seriously doubt their intentions.
Do you not think our truth movement would include WELL-PLACED psy-op agents?


They can make a plane invisible but they can't place a stooge?
It should be obvious that the containment of the demand for truthful answers was and had to be an essential part of the plan.
Better to have somebody in place beforehand, so that the people willing to struggle against the evil can be rendered ineffective.
Who could that have been?