Prof. Steven Jones, writes Tucker Carlson of MSNBC's The Situation, "seemed to connect with a huge number of viewers," but was "almost totally incapable of explaining his own ideas. By the end of the interview I understood no more about his hypothesis than when it began. He was an epically bad guest."
While the word "hypothesis" may not be clear to the average viewer - Prof. Jones may have done better by sticking to simpler language, it seemed to this viewer that Tucker was an "epically" bad host. He didn't give Prof. Jones a chance.
Tucker kept asking about World Trade Center buildings 1 and 2, when Prof. Jones wanted to talk about World Trade Center building 7, and wanted Tucker to show the video of the collapse of this 47-story building.
Why is it that MSNBC, and other networks, refuse to question the collapse of building 7? How many Americans even know that building 7 collapsed in less than 7 seconds - after a fire had burned for several hours. We're told that no other steel-framed building has collapsed from fire.
What caused building 7 to collapse in this manner? Does Tucker have an answer? It seems that he doesn't even want to examine the evidence. But at least he did invite Prof. Jones to air highly controversial views, which is more than other networks have done.
Monday, November 28, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Prof. Jones seems to have forgotten the "scientific method.
See:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/Announce.aspx?announcementID=34
S. King
skyking@scientist.com
An eyewitness, shown on ABC News Live Coverage, reported: "At Building 7 there was no fire there whatsoever, but there was one truck putting water on the building, but it collapsed competely."
Post a Comment