Thursday, November 30, 2006

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":

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:
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!

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!

Awaiting your reply,

Damien Duffy.

AKA YouTube Coffinman



Blogger brianv said...

Hey Damien,

Keep up the good work mate. You know we are on the right track.

Thought you might like to see this.


1:09 PM  
Blogger Dave said...

Hi CoffinMan,

You complain of Jones not considering all evidence in his thermite theory, but YOU have ommited some basic physics principals that contradict the very theories you're trying to prove.

A bullet is not self propelled, and has high kinetic and near non-existent potential energy, whereas a JET with MASSIVE ENGINES has both high kinetic and high potential energy.

A bullet is a solid object spreading it's impact force over it's point and eventually it's centre mass.

A 757 is a HOLLOW object, so the force is spread over a much smaller area, being the leading edges of the wings and the circular edge of it's "tube-like" profile. (once the cockpit area has impacted and imploded/exploded. So the force of impact from an airplane on a solid unmovable mass has VERY different characteristics then a bullet hitting a solid unmovable mass of in the same proportions as the force of impact is spread out VERY differently.

Using images of a cessna crashing into a house is a very poor illustration of your point to anyone with simple physics knowledge since:

a) the proportions aren't NEARLY the same
b) a cessna flies slower AND is much lighter, meaning it doesn't have NEARLY the same momentum as a 60+ tonne jet moving at nearly double the speed.
c) the profile of a cessna is completely incomparable to that of a commercial jet, and in no way should it be used to illustrate your theory.

Dig deeper people, his points are moot. An individual's theories are only as strong as the individual's understanding of ALL the rules that apply.

As far as I'm concerned, your activity regarding this matter is possibly nothing more than a sad attempt at competition in terms of who has the better CT.

It is because of these reasons I would say Jones has not responded to you. Your physics knowledge is flaky at best, and obviously contorted to suit your own agenda, whatever that may be. You don't deserve his attention, whether it's given or not.

Stop confusing the issues at hand, and contribute something real, you smug, self-centered excuse for a human being.

10:51 PM  
Blogger Coffinman said...


[you smug, self-centered excuse for a human being.]
Personal attacks almost always act as a smokescreen for an erroneous argument.

You don't know the difference between potential and kinetic energy do you??
In an impact it is the kinetic energy that is translated into force.
The engines of a jet are not "potential energy".
The "potential energy" in a jet would be within the fuel, but according to the fake plane crash videos that didn't explode until it was all inside the building, so it is of no consequence to the question of the passage of an aluminium airliner through the steel wall of the WTC.

[A 757 is a HOLLOW object]
Yes, that is why it would crumple in an impact like this.

[Using images of a cessna crashing into a house is a very poor illustration of your point]
No, it is a piece of humour, that's all.

[Dig deeper people]
Yes, people, dig deep, believe your own eyes, trust your own intellect, learn to see bullcrap for what it is, and arrive at answers that you yourself know to be concrete.

4:47 PM  
Blogger MONIKA KUMARI said...

Steel is really good metals for this generation to make strong and good Building and
Anything with strongly .according to me this is good blog and also good contain include with
Blog so I like this blog...
Steel Building

6:06 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home